[Senate Hearing 109-847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-847
NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
FIRST SESSION, 109TH CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
NOMINATIONS OF
JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR.; BUDDIE J. PENN; ADM WILLIAM J. FALLON, USN;
HON. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI; HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND; ADM MICHAEL G.
MULLEN, USN; KENNETH J. KRIEG; LT. GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, USAF; GEN.
PETER PACE, USMC; ADM EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI, JR., USN; GEN. T. MICHAEL
MOSELEY, USAF; AMBASSADOR ERIC S. EDELMAN; DANIEL R. STANLEY; JAMES A.
RISPOLI; LT. GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF; RONALD M. SEGA; PHILIP
JACKSON BELL; JOHN G. GRIMES; KEITH E. EASTIN; WILLIAM C. ANDERSON;
HON. MICHAEL W. WYNNE; DR. DONALD C. WINTER; HON. JOHN J. YOUNG, JR.;
J. DORRANCE SMITH; DELORES M. ETTER; GEN BURWELL B. BELL III, USA; AND
LT. GEN. LANCE L. SMITH, USAF
----------
FEBRUARY 15, 17; MARCH 15; APRIL 19, 21; JUNE 29; JULY 28; OCTOBER 6,
25, 27, 2005
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FIRST SESSION,
109TH CONGRESS
S. Hrg. 109-847
NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
FIRST SESSION, 109TH CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
NOMINATIONS OF
JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR.; BUDDIE J. PENN; ADM WILLIAM J. FALLON, USN;
HON. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI; HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND; ADM MICHAEL G.
MULLEN, USN; KENNETH J. KRIEG; LT. GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, USAF; GEN.
PETER PACE, USMC; ADM EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI, JR., USN; GEN. T. MICHAEL
MOSELEY, USAF; AMBASSADOR ERIC S. EDELMAN; DANIEL R. STANLEY; JAMES A.
RISPOLI; LT. GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF; RONALD M. SEGA; PHILIP
JACKSON BELL; JOHN G. GRIMES; KEITH E. EASTIN; WILLIAM C. ANDERSON;
HON. MICHAEL W. WYNNE; DR. DONALD C. WINTER; HON. JOHN J. YOUNG, JR.;
J. DORRANCE SMITH; DELORES M. ETTER; GEN BURWELL B. BELL III, USA; AND
LT. GEN. LANCE L. SMITH, USAF
__________
FEBRUARY 15, 17; MARCH 15; APRIL 19, 21; JUNE 29; JULY 28; OCTOBER 6,
25, 27, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-348 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine JACK REED, Rhode Island
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri BILL NELSON, Florida
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina EVAN BAYH, Indiana
JOHN CORNYN, Texas HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
Judith A. Ansley, Staff Director, before August 1, 2005
Charles S. Abell, Staff Director, after August 1, 2005
Richard D. DeBobes, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Page
february 15, 2005
Nominations of John Paul Woodley, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works; Buddie J. Penn to be Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment; and
ADM William J. Fallon, USN, for Reappointment to the Grade of
Admiral and to be Commander, U.S. Pacific Command.............. 1
Statements of:
Symms, Hon. Steven D., Former U.S. Senator from the State of
Idaho.......................................................... 4
Fallon, ADM William J., USN, for Reappointment to the Grade of
Admiral and to be Commander, U.S. Pacific Command.............. 5
Woodley, John Paul, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works................................................ 6
Penn, Buddie J., to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations and Environment.................................. 7
february 17, 2005
To Consider Certain Pending Civilian and Military Nominations.... 67
march 15, 2005
Nomination of Hon. Anthony J. Principi to be a Member of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission................ 73
Statement of:
Principi, Anthony Joseph, to be a Member of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission............................. 80
april 19, 2005
Nominations of Hon. Gordon R. England to be Deputy Secretary of
Defense; and ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN, for Reappointment to
the Grade of Admiral and to be Chief of Naval Operations....... 111
Statements of:
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas. 113
England, Hon. Gordon R., to be Deputy Secretary of Defense....... 116
Mullen, ADM Michael G., USN, for Reappointment to the Grade of
Admiral and to be Chief of Naval Operations.................... 149
(iii)
april 21, 2005
Nominations of Kenneth J. Krieg to be Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Lt. Gen.
Michael V. Hayden, USAF, to the Grade of General and to be
Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence............. 205
Statements of:
Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas......... 206
Sununu, Hon. John E., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire...................................................... 207
Krieg, Kenneth J., to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics......................... 211
Hayden, Lt. Gen. Michael V., USAF, to the Grade of General and to
be Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.......... 229
june 29, 2005
Nominations of Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, for Reappointment to the
Grade of General and to be Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; ADM
Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN, for Reappointment to the
Grade of Admiral and to be Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff; Gen. T. Michael Moseley, USAF, for Reappointment to the
Grade of General and to be Chief of Staff of the Air Force;
Ambassador Eric S. Edelman to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy; Daniel R. Stanley to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Legislative Affairs; and James A. Rispoli to be Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management............... 287
Statements of:
Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia...... 290
Pace, Gen. Peter, USMC, for Reappointment to the Grade of General
and to be Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff...................... 297
Giambastiani, ADM Edmund P., Jr., USN, for Reappointment to the
Grade of Admiral and to be Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff 298
Moseley, Gen. T. Michael, USAF, for Reappointment to the Grade of
General and to be Chief of Staff of the Air Force.............. 298
Dole, Hon. Robert, Former United States Senator from the State of
Kansas......................................................... 333
Edelman, Ambassador Eric S., to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy......................................................... 339
Rispoli, James A., to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for
Environmental Management....................................... 341
Stanley, Daniel R., to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs............................................ 343
july 28, 2005
Nominations of Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, USAF, for Appointment
to the Grade of General and to be Commander, U.S.
Transportation Command; Ronald M. Sega to be Under Secretary of
the Air Force; Philip Jackson Bell to be Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Logistics and Material Readiness; John G. Grimes
to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and
Information Integration; Keith E. Eastin to be Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment; and
William C. Anderson to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Installations, Environment, and Logistics.................. 463
Statements of:
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska......... 464
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado...... 466
Schwartz, Lt. Gen. Norton A., USAF, for Appointment to the Grade
of General and to be Commander, U.S. Transportation Command.... 472
Sega, Ronald M., to be Under Secretary of the Air Force.......... 472
Bell, Philip Jackson, to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Logistics and Materiel Readiness............................... 476
Grimes, John G., to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Networks and Information Integration........................... 477
Eastin, Keith E., to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations and Environment.................................. 478
Anderson, William C., to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Installations, Environment, and Logistics.................. 479
october 6, 2005
Nominations of Hon. Michael W. Wynne to be Secretary of the Air
Force; and Dr. Donald C. Winter to be Secretary of the Navy.... 591
Statements of:
Wynne, Hon. Michael W., to be Secretary of the Air Force......... 595
Winter, Donald C., to be Secretary of the Navy................... 597
october 25, 2005
Nominations of Hon. John J. Young, Jr., to be Director of Defense
Research and Engineering; J. Dorrance Smith to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; Delores M. Etter to be
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition; GEN Burwell B. Bell III, USA, for Reappointment to
the Grade of General and to be Commander, United Nations
Command/Combined Forces Command, and Commander, United States
Forces Korea; and Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith, USAF, for
Appointment to the Grade of General and to be Commander, United
States Joint Forces Command and Supreme Allied Commander
Transformation................................................. 677
Statements of:
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska......... 678
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii.... 679
Bell, GEN Burwell B., III, USA, for Reappointment to the Grade of
General and to be Commander, United Nations Command/Combined
Forces Command, and Commander, United States Forces Korea...... 708
Smith, Lt. Gen. Lance L., USAF, for Appointment to the Grade of
General and to be Commander, United States Joint Forces Command
and Supreme Allied Commander Transformation.................... 708
october 27, 2005
To Consider Certain Pending Military and Civilian Nominations.... 811
APPENDIX......................................................... 817
NOMINATIONS OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS; BUDDIE J. PENN, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT; AND ADM WILLIAM J. FALLON, USN,
FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S.
PACIFIC COMMAND
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:16 p.m. in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Inhofe, Thune,
and Levin.
Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: William C. Greenwalt,
professional staff member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff
member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member; Lucian
L. Niemeyer, professional staff member; Lynn F. Rusten,
professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel;
and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff
member; Peter K. Levine, minority counsel; and Michael J.
McCord, professional staff member.
Staff assistant present: Pendred K. Wilson.
Committee members' assistants present: Matt Zabel,
assistant to Senator Thune; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi, assistant
to Senator Akaka; and William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator
Bill Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. I would like to apologize for the delay.
The Senate, in my many privileged years to be here, does very
little or everything at once. We have a vote going on and so
everybody went. Senator Levin--I met him, and he'll be here
just as soon as he completes his vote. Therefore, I wanted to
get underway, because we have lots of wonderful people here
this afternoon, especially those young people who have come
from far and wide to visit with us.
So I welcome you all before the committee this afternoon.
Admiral Fallon, John Paul Woodley, Buddie J. Penn, we thank you
very much. Our distinguished colleague, Senator Symms, who--I
guess we started together, didn't we, in this institution 27
years ago?
Senator Symms. I think I was 2 years behind you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Two years.
Senator Symms. I came in 1980. That was on the House side.
Chairman Warner. We welcome you, Senator.
Particularly, we thank the families--the spouses and the
children--for being here. I have conducted so many of these
hearings. As a matter of fact, I sat at that desk myself many
years ago. It was in February 1969, give or take a day. I was
right about here. The family support is so essential to these
individuals who step up and take on these challenging positions
in our overall structure for the Nation's defense.
So I thank all of you for joining us today, and I thank you
for your continuing support as the nominees undertake their
arduous and challenging duties.
Senator Symms, again, we welcome you, and I will just
finish this brief statement, and then we'll turn to your
introduction.
Admiral Fallon has been nominated to be Commander, United
States Pacific Command (PACOM), and is presently serving as
Commander, Fleet Forces Command, and Commander, U.S. Atlantic
Fleet, in Norfolk, Virginia. He has compiled an extremely
distinguished career as a naval officer since his commissioning
in 1967.
That's interesting. That does go back. You were a young
ensign, I expect, when I came aboard, then. So was the CNO. He
reminds me of that frequently. [Laughter.]
Well, you've done a lot better than I've done. Look at all
that gold braid. You've really piled it up.
Your combat service includes tours of duty during the
Vietnam War as a naval flight officer with Recon Attack
Squadron 5, as Commander of Carrier Air Wing 8, deployed aboard
U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt during Operation Desert Storm, and as
Commander, Battle Force Sixth Fleet during Operation Deliberate
Force over Bosnia in 1995. While not flying, the Admiral served
as Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff of the U.S. Atlantic
Fleet, Deputy Commander of the U.S. Atlantic Command, and, from
October 2000 to 2003, the 31st Vice Chief of Naval Operations.
If confirmed--and I predict he will be--Admiral Fallon will
become the 22nd navy officer who has been in command of the
Pacific Command, joining many distinguished predecessors,
including Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., who held that position
from 1968 to 1972. In my visits to Vietnam, I would stay at his
house. They were the most memorable experiences, and he was a
great teacher.
So we congratulate you, Admiral, and your lovely wife and
family, and thank you for your willingness to continue to serve
in this new capacity.
Mr. Woodley has been nominated to be the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Mr. Woodley appeared
before this Committee in February 2003 in connection with his
earlier nomination for this position. The record shows Mr.
Woodley received a recess appointment from the President on
August 22, 2003, and served through the end of the 108th
Congress.
Prior to his Federal service with the Department of
Defense, Mr. Woodley served in senior leadership roles in the
State Government of Virginia--where I first had the privilege
of knowing you--as Deputy Attorney General for Government
Operations, beginning in 1994; and as Secretary of Natural
Resources, from January 1998 until October 2001.
Mr. Woodley's military service included active-duty
assignments in Germany and the Pentagon, with the Army's Judge
Advocate General Corps, from 1979 to 1985. He continued to
serve as a member of the Army Reserve component, retiring in
2003 with the rank of lieutenant colonel.
Mr. Woodley, we are pleased to have you and your family
join us again today.
We also welcome Buddie Penn, who has been nominated to be
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and
Environment. Mr. Penn is presently serving as the Director of
Industrial Base Capabilities and Readiness with the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, a position he has held since October
2, 2001.
I would note that Mr. Penn is also a naval aviator, albeit
a retired naval aviator. He flew the renowned A3 Sky Warrior,
the only strategic bomber ever built for the United States
Navy, which, because of its size and speed, was--I didn't know
we referred to it as a ``whale.'' Who dug that up? [Laughter.]
All I know, that thing came in for a fierce landing and
popped that chute, and if the chute hadn't opened, he would
have gone off the end of the runway. I expect you thought of
that more than once.
On that basis, alone, Mr. Penn, I believe we can count on
you to perform with tremendous speed in this new position.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Penn flew--what a modest man--all of these wonderful
men--flew in 16 types of aircraft during his naval career.
Before retiring at the rank of captain, he held such key
assignments as Air Officer aboard the U.S.S. America, Special
Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations, and Deputy Director
of the Navy Office of Technology Transfer and Security
Assistance.
We thank you and your lovely family, again, for taking on
this responsibility.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, first, join you in welcoming Mr. Woodley, Mr. Penn,
Admiral Fallon, and their families to the committee today. We
thank all three of you and your families for your many years of
service and for your continued willingness to serve.
I notice our former colleague, Senator Steve Symms, is
here. It's great to have you back and to see you.
Mr. Woodley and Mr. Penn share a common background, having
served first in the military, and, more recently, in civilian
leadership positions at the Department of Defense.
Mr. Woodley is in the unusual position of being the nominee
for a position in which he has already served for almost 2
years, and that gives him an insight into the challenges he
will face.
As our chairman noted, Mr. Penn began his career as a naval
aviator, then took a series of positions in the defense
industry after his retirement, and, during the last 2 years,
has served as the Department of Defense's Director of
Industrial Base Capabilities and Readiness.
Admiral Fallon is an outstanding officer with a
distinguished 38-year career, culminating in his service over
the last 4 years as the Vice Chief of Naval Operations and the
Commander of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet.
Admiral Fallon, we're delighted at your willingness to
continue to serve, and, if confirmed, you will assume command
of the United States Pacific Command at a time of crisis and
change and, hopefully, opportunity.
We face a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula,
highlighted last week by the North Korean Government's
declaration that they have nuclear weapons and that they did
not wish to continue the Six-Party Talks. It was compounded by
the fact that their offer to the United States to meet
bilaterally was rejected. At the same time, we're seeing in the
Pacific the emergence of China and India as political military
powers, the maturation of Japan as a strategic partner, and the
need to work more closely with the countries in Southeast Asia
to fight regional and global terrorist groups.
So I join our chairman in welcoming you, and look forward
to your testimony.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Symms, are you here for the purpose of an
introduction?
Senator Symms. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Would you please proceed?
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN D. SYMMS, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Symms. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. It's a real privilege for me to be here to introduce
to you the President's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Installations and Environment, my good friend, Buddie
J. Penn.
Mr. Penn was raised in a small town in Indiana, and his
parents taught him to chase his dreams. For Buddie, these
dreams were in an airplane. He received his Bachelor's of
Science from Purdue University in 1960, and was in the United
States Navy, training to be a pilot, in 1961. He later gained
his Master's degree from George Washington University. He also
received certificates in aerospace safety from the University
of Southern California, and in national security from the
Kennedy School at Harvard University.
Some of Buddie's most significant accomplishments were
during his 30 years as a naval officer and leader. He
distinguished himself in service to this Nation repeatedly.
Among other duties he had, he flew over 250 combat missions in
Vietnam and received numerous decorations and commendations.
His love of flying was evident as he amassed over 6,500 hours
in over 16 different aircraft. It was in the EA-6B, that he
flew in Vietnam, that he was recognized for his ability. In
1972, he was named the EA-6B pilot of the year.
Buddie held many significant commands in the Navy, but the
one that jumps out the most, as it relates to his nomination to
the position of Assistant Secretary of Installations and
Environment, is the position he had as commanding officer of
the Naval Air Station at North Island, near San Diego. This is
one of the largest bases in the Navy. Buddie had to become
familiar with every aspect of its operation. This experience
will serve him well as the new Assistant Secretary.
It's a real honor for me be here before this committee to
recommend a gentleman that I believe should be commended highly
to the committee and to the full Senate.
Thank you, Senators.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Symms, for that
excellent introduction.
Rather than follow a rigid 5-minute rule, since there are
three of you, and we do want to give you ample time, please
don't abuse it, but take whatever time you need for opening
statements. We'll start with you, Admiral Fallon, and then
you'll be followed by Mr. Woodley and Mr. Penn.
Admiral Fallon.
STATEMENT OF ADM WILLIAM J. FALLON, USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND
Admiral Fallon. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is really a
great honor to appear before you today. I am certainly deeply
honored to serve.
First, I would like to thank you for your commitment to our
men and women in uniform. We are really grateful for everything
you do for our servicemen.
Senator Inhofe. By the way, if any of you had any family
members you wanted to introduce, feel free to do that, too.
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
I've been privileged to serve in uniform for many years. A
lot has changed over that time, but one thing that has really
remained constant, and the strongest support I have, is the
love and support of my family.
I am honored to have with me today my wife Mary, behind me,
and two of my daughters, Susan, and Christy, who is a first-
class midshipman at the Naval Academy. I might add, she was
just selected for pilot training.
We are a Navy family. Susan is a development director for
the Navy League. Her boss, Sheila McNeil, the president of the
Navy League, is behind me. I can feel her wanting me to make
sure I put in a plug for that wonderful institution.
Mary and I are privileged to have two other children, as
well. One daughter, Barbara, who couldn't be with us, and a
son, Bill, who is transitioning F-18s out in Lemoore,
California, and also serving in uniform. He just came back from
Iraq last year.
It's also an honor to be here with these two gentlemen, Mr.
Penn and Mr. Woodley, and to appear before you.
Mr. Chairman, it is a great privilege for me to be
nominated by the President to be the Commander of the U.S.
Pacific Command. I assure you that I intend to work very
closely with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and, of course, following a Commander
like Admiral Tom Fargo is certainly going to be some hard work,
but I look forward, eagerly, to this opportunity.
I know that there are many challenges in the Asia-Pacific
area. If confirmed, I intend to work hard to establish and
nurture the personal and nation-to-nation relationships that I
consider essential to the security of the region. It would also
be a top priority for me to ensure that our forces are prepared
to execute their operational tasks in a very credible manner,
that the deterrent value of our force is real and sustainable.
I certainly intend to support and to sustain our U.S. policy
objectives in the region.
There's much for me to learn, but I eagerly look forward to
working with our superb soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines,
and our friends and allies, should I be confirmed. I recognize
that the sheer size, vast distances, and immense populations of
the Asia-Pacific region add a unique challenge to our
operations in that theater, but I am ready to get underway,
sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, if confirmed, I
look forward to your counsel and guidance and to a regular
dialogue as we face these challenges in the Asia-Pacific
region.
Chairman Warner [presiding]. We look forward to yours, too.
Admiral Fallon. Thank you, sir. It's a great honor to be
here. I thank you for the opportunity to appear, and I eagerly
look forward to your questions.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. We owe an obligation to the President for
the nomination that he sent forward for your service. Thank you
very much, Admiral.
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Woodley.
STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS
Mr. Woodley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want, first, to
express my appreciation for your kindness and to associate
myself with Admiral Fallon's remarks in the spirit of deep
humility and appreciation at being able to appear before you in
the company of these two very distinguished public servants.
I also wish to acknowledge your kindness in allowing me to
acknowledge my family members--my wife, Priscilla, and my
daughter, Elizabeth, who are with me today; my other daughter,
Cornelia, and my younger son, John Paul, are today a bit under
the weather, and so, unable to be with us.
Chairman Warner. They're here in spirit.
Mr. Woodley. Nothing serious, and they are certainly here
in spirit.
I'm also mindful, Mr. Chairman, of the confidence expressed
in me by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld in submitting my
name in nomination for this important post within the
Department of the Army.
The Army Corps of Engineers and its civil-works function--
encompassing navigation, flood control, water-resource
development, and environmental improvement--has, for 200 years,
contributed greatly to the prosperity and well-being of our
Nation.
I deeply appreciate the courtesy of the committee. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman,
and all the Members, to address the vital navigation, flood-
control, water-resource, and environmental challenges of the
Nation.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Secretary Woodley.
Secretary Penn.
STATEMENT OF BUDDIE J. PENN TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Penn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, distinguished members of this
committee, it is a sincere honor and privilege to appear before
you as the nominee for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations and Environment.
There are several people I would like to thank for helping
me arrive here. I thank President Bush for his nomination, and
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Navy Secretary England for the
opportunity to be a part of their team. I sincerely thank
Senator Symms, a former member of this august group, for his
introduction, his friendship, and his support. There are
several people smiling down on us today that willingly helped
me without being asked.
Finally, I would like to thank this committee for all you
do on behalf of our great Nation and those who serve in its
defense.
If confirmed, I pledge to work closely with this committee
and all of Congress in meeting the main challenges ahead.
To close, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my family--my wife,
Loretta, my daughter, Emily, and her husband, Captain Bruce
Groomes, and my grandsons, Jeff and Jared.
Chairman Warner. I wonder if the grandsons might stand so
we can recognize them. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming.
[Applause.]
Mr. Penn. I want to thank them for their abiding support
and love through the years. Their foundation has been a
mainstay of my life.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my remarks.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
I will now proceed to committee rules, which we follow very
carefully with all nominees. We've asked our nominees a series
of advanced policy questions. They have responded to those
questions. Without objection, I will make the questions and
their responses part of the record.
I also have certain standard questions we ask of every
nominee who appears before the Armed Services Committee. So,
gentlemen, if you would please respond to each of the following
questions:
Have you adhered to the applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of this
Senate confirmation process?
Admiral Fallon. No, sir.
Mr. Penn. No, sir.
Mr. Woodley. No, sir, I have not. But I should put on the
record that I am currently serving and performing duties, as
assigned by the Secretary of the Army, in the capacity of
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary.
Chairman Warner. Yes. The record so reflects.
Mr. Woodley. We have taken, I believe, great care, Mr.
Chairman, to ensure that no action in that capacity is, in any
way, beyond the scope of, and limits of, that office.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Will you ensure your staff complies with the deadlines
established for requested communications from the Congress of
the United States, including questions for the record in our
hearings?
Admiral Fallon. I shall, sir.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to the congressional requests?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
reprisal whatsoever for their testimony or briefings?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify, upon request, before this committee?
Admiral Fallon. I do, sir.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views
and, when asked before this committee, to do so even if those
views differ from the administration that you are serving?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a
timely manner, when requested by a duly constituted committee
of Congress, or to consult with the committee regarding the
basis for any good-faith delay or denial that you feel is
justified in providing such documents?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
All right. Now, that covers all the questions that we have
of formalities. I apologize for having stepped out for a
minute, but it was very important that I do so.
Senator Inhofe, I'm going to be here throughout the
hearing. Would you like to ask the first questions?
Senator Inhofe. I would, Mr. Chairman, because I have some
people in my office.
Chairman Warner. He's the chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, and I serve on that committee, and I
understand the demands on his time.
Senator Inhofe. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. First of all, I'll start with you, Admiral
Fallon. You and I share a concern that the Navy has had for
quite some time, and that is the scarcity we have of live
ranges for training purposes. We went through what I refer to
now, in retrospect, as the ``Battle of Vieques,'' which I
fought diligently and lost after 3 years, but you did the Pace-
Fallon report, which expressed your concern, also, about the
availability of ranges for the future.
Would you like to fill us in--because you're going to be
dealing with these issues in your new position--with what your
feelings are now about how we're doing with our ranges and our
ability to train our pilots and our sailors?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, this is still a big challenge, for
a couple of reasons. One, because of continued encroachment.
The increasing population in the U.S. and in other places
around the world constrains a lot of these ranges, many have
been around for many decades, but people have filled in around
them, and encroachment is a serious problem.
The other issue is that the ranges of many of our weapons
systems today are vastly greater than the weapons from years
ago. So, we're challenged to find areas in which we can safely
test and train with these weapons. We're working on it. We're
making some progress.
In my current job with the Navy, we have partnered
extensively with our service comrades, particularly the Air
Force, in being able to use some of their ranges, and we have a
couple of efforts underway right now to attempt to get access
to some other facilities that we think will help us in this
area. But it's really critical, and we need help overseas, as
well.
Senator Inhofe. I know that's true. I think of Southern
Sardinia, Cape Wrath, and other places that we are looking for
joint training, and we're unable to do it. One of the reasons,
of course, I know you're the Pacific Fleet, but the European
Union now has imposed environmental hardships on a lot of the
countries where we have customarily been able to use those
ranges. I know there are some in the Pacific Command, also. I
would just want you to look at that and let us know.
One thing that bothers me is that we have the best men and
women up there flying around, and the best ones training on
ships, but it is unfair if they don't have the right resources
to get that live-fire training.
Mr. Penn, it's just a delight to know that we'll be working
with you in your new capacity. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure
whether you're aware of this or not, but two of my best friends
in the other body over there are Congressman Chris Cox and
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. They're currently at odds with
each other over the potential disposition of El Toro Marine
Base. The issue seems to be that there are groups who want to
develop it. An amount of money has been offered. An auction is
going on right now. It's up to about $630 million, as we're
speaking now, and it could be a little bit higher. On the other
hand, those who want to use it for airport purposes actually
came to visit with me a couple of days ago and convinced me
that, financially speaking, we might be better off to take that
option.
One of the reasons is that, under the sale, it would mean
the Navy would still have to provide the cleanup, but if it
goes under a lease type of arrangement, the Navy would not.
Now, there's not a person, of the three of us up here, who
hasn't visited some of these base realignment and closure
(BRAC) closed operations, and always the cost of cleanup is
much, much more than people expect it to be.
Have you had time to look at that? I know this is a new
subject and you may not have.
Mr. Penn. No, sir, I have not.
Senator Inhofe. All right. What I would like to ask you to
do is to look at that situation. I know that there's time now
to exercise either option, even though the train seems to be
pulling out pretty fast.
I only have one concern, and that is, what is it going to
cost the Navy each way? I am talking about net cost, including
cleanup. I think that's important. In this time, when we're
short of money for end strength, we're short of money for all
of our programs, modernization programs and others, we need
every nickel we can get. So with that in mind as a goal, which
I'm sure you share, if you would keep me informed of that as we
move along, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. My pleasure.
Senator Inhofe. Good, good.
Mr. Woodley, we went through this once before, about 18
months ago, and I told you, at that time, it's one of the most
difficult jobs out there. I'm sure if you didn't realize it
then, you do realize it now. You've done a great job. The Corps
has done a great job. Part of the jurisdiction is here in this
committee, but also the committee that I chair, the Committee
on Environment and Public Works. We have about half the
jurisdiction there, too. So I am working very closely on a lot
of your projects, not just in the United States, but in Africa
and other places. I would say that, with the number-one
Superfund site in America, you folks are providing a lot of
cooperation, and I appreciate that very much.
From your vast experience now of 18 months on the job, is
there anything that you'd like to share with us that you did
not anticipate 18 months ago?
Mr. Woodley. Senator, the one thing that I could say about
the position is, as difficult as I knew it would be, I did not
anticipate how much I would enjoy the opportunity to work with
the men and women of the Corps of Engineers, who are truly a
national asset. In the work that they do, mostly civilians,
every day, in every community from coast to coast and around
the globe, they make America better and they have now for 200
years. It's an enormous national treasure that is, I think,
underappreciated in some quarters. I have come to appreciate it
much, much more than I did when I sat before the committee
almost 2 years ago.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, all three of you, and
I'll be looking forward to working with you in your new
capacities.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I know you're too
modest to say it, but there are two aviators down there. You're
an aviator in your own right. You still do some rather
extraordinary things, which I'm not totally approving of.
[Laughter.]
You're too valuable a member of this committee.
Senator Inhofe. I have a new one coming up that you'll
enjoy.
Chairman Warner. Oh, yeah. I don't want to hear about it.
[Laughter.]
Are we going to read about it in the paper? [Laughter.]
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. First, Mr. Woodley, a couple of questions
about the Corps. What is your understanding of the law on the
following issue? Is the Corps not bound by State water-quality
standards? Apparently there are some circumstances under which
the State water-quality standards are not binding on the Corps,
under some legal doctrine. What is your understanding of those
circumstances?
Mr. Woodley. Senator, let me say that when I left the
Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, in 1998, I stopped
practicing law and have managed to prevent myself, despite all
temptation to the contrary, from continuing that in the
meantime.
I will give you my understanding. I have a representative
of the General Counsel here today, and we could confer and give
you a more precise answer for the record.
Senator Levin. What's your non-legal understanding?
Mr. Woodley. My understanding is that there is a provision
of the Clean Water Act, there's a subsection, I believe, of
section 404 that provides if a Federal project is specifically
authorized by Congress in a specific way, that clearly
indicates a congressional intent, under the preemption
doctrine, to preempt and override the State, that then, and
only then, is there a so-called exemption. I will say that it
is the policy of the administration--and of every
administration I know of, and of the Corps itself--that this
will not be used and that we will seek, in every case, to
comply with State water-control policies. This is a policy that
I endorse. If confirmed, I would seek to enforce this policy.
I served, as the chairman mentioned, for many years in the
State Government of Virginia in the role that would have found
itself overridden by this policy, and I know, from personal
experience, I would not have appreciated it very much, nor
would the people of Virginia have appreciated it very much. So,
that is my understanding of the law in this context.
Senator Levin. Thank you. For a rusty lawyer, you did
pretty good. [Laughter.]
Is that true, what you just said, both where the State
standards are less strict, or just where they are more strict
than the Federal standards? I'm just curious now, too, as a
former lawyer. I think what you just said is that it's the
Corps' policy to try to abide by the State standards. If the
State standards are lesser, do you go down to those standards,
or do you still maintain the higher level of standards?
Mr. Woodley. We would follow the Federal standard in that
instance.
Senator Levin. Gotcha. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Woodley, just on one other question. I asked you this
in my office. I appreciated your visit. It's about the Defense
Contract Audit Agency's (DCAA) memorandum to the Corps of
Engineers saying that Halliburton--and this was a January 13,
2004, urgent memorandum--did not have appropriate systems in
place to estimate the cost of its work in Iraq. Three days
later, the Corps issued a new $1.2 billion contract with the
company to continue its work on the reconstruction of the Iraqi
oil industry.
The source-selection document that we looked at indicates
that Halliburton was given a perfect score in the competition
for its estimating system, even though the DCAA had sent this
urgent memo saying that it did not have appropriate systems in
place.
I know that you were not personally involved in this issue,
but we've asked the Army Corps to explain why that DCAA
memorandum was not taken into account during its appraisal of
Halliburton's estimating system. We have not gotten a
responsive answer, and I'm wondering whether you might have one
for us.
Mr. Woodley. Senator, I have conferred with my colleague
who has oversight over that matter, Secretary Bolton, and he
has indicated to me that he will be preparing a responsive
answer for the committee.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
We look forward to it, and we look forward to it promptly.
Now, Mr. Penn and Admiral Fallon, a couple of questions for
you. On January 28, the Washington Post reported that 37 whales
had beached themselves and died along the North Carolina shore,
``soon after Navy vessels in a deep-water training mission off
the coast used powerful sonar as a part of the exercise.'' It
said that scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) were looking into the incident to try to
determine the cause of the beachings.
Admiral Fallon, you were Commander of the U.S. Atlantic
Fleet. You're an expert on the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
the impact of Navy activities on marine mammals, and I know you
care about marine mammals. Being a Navy man, can you give us
your take as to whether or not the Navy has been able to figure
out whether it had any role in the beachings?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir, Senator. Thanks very much. I
really do care. I've spent a lot of time in business having to
do with the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the last several
years. We're investigating this incident. I can tell you that
the initial information that was provided to me indicates that
we had two groups of ships in the western Atlantic that were
using sonars in that general period of time. I haven't seen the
timelines to see exactly where they are. One group was several
hundred miles away. I find it pretty hard to believe that there
could have been any interaction there, but we're going to check
it out.
We had another ship--the closest ship that we know of that
had any sonar transmission was about 50 miles away. That also
seems to be an extraordinarily long distance for any
interaction. This particular ship was doing some maintenance
testing on its sonar for a very short period of time.
We are cooperating actively with the National Marine
Fisheries Services (NMFS) and with the other regulatory
agencies to try and sift through all the data and to come up
with the final determination.
Senator Levin. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just ask a couple of more
questions, then I'll be done, if that's okay.
Chairman Warner. Go ahead.
Senator Levin. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Penn, I guess you're going to be involved in that
issue, and we just would ask you to be working closely in the
Navy to give us a complete answer to that question.
In many, many authorization bills we have been struggling
with this issue of the role of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
and whether or not there should be any loosening of that act,
in terms of training and so forth. It's important to the Navy
and it's important to our security, but it's also important to
our role as stewards of this planet, to the extent we are. So,
we would appreciate your getting involved in that issue and
working with the uniformed leaders.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Mr. Penn, let me just ask you a question.
It's actually somewhat similar to Senator Inhofe's question,
except that it's not a specific question about any property;
it's a general question about the conveyances of property which
have been taken, under the BRAC process, and you will be
involved in this.
Here's the background for this. It has come to our
attention the Navy and other military departments may be
interpreting the language about conveying property that's
available as a result of the BRAC process that there may be
some misunderstanding here about what criteria are to be
applied to the conveyance of that property.
Some people apparently believe that the mandate in the law
is to sell all that property for as much as they can to anybody
who is willing to pay, regardless of what the local reuse
authority wants or what the redevelopment plan calls for. Now,
that is not what was intended by Congress, nor is it what is in
the law. First of all, we give authority to the Department of
Defense to make a below-cost or a no-cost conveyance. It
doesn't have to be a conveyance that reaps a financial benefit
to the government. We leave flexibility about that to the
Department of Defense.
Whether that authority to convey property for less than its
highest value is going to depend on whether or not it is going
to be used for profit or for nonprofit purposes. If it's going
to be for a public benefit, particularly, then there's an
understanding reflected in the law that its highest and best
use may not be a sale at the highest price.
So, we have given that flexibility to the Department of
Defense. We permit these conveyances, under certain
circumstances, where the bid is less than the highest bid and
perhaps maybe a total non-remuneration to the Federal
Government.
I'm wondering if you have any views on that question, and,
if you're not familiar with that issue, whether you will take a
look at it, satisfy yourself as to what the law is, and get
back to the committee as to what your understanding is, if
you're not familiar with it now. If you are familiar with it
now, then perhaps you could give us your understanding now.
Mr. Penn. Sir, I am not familiar with this issue, but, if
confirmed, I will be glad to investigate it and get back to
you.
[The information referred to follows:]
The base closure law requires the Administrator of General Services
to delegate to the Secretary of Defense the authority to dispose of
surplus property at closed or realigned military installations, and
requires the Secretary to do so in accordance with the regulations
governing disposal of surplus property under the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949. The disposal authorities under
this act include public benefit conveyances, negotiated sales at fair
market value, and public sales. Another section of the base closure law
provides additional authority to convey property to the local
redevelopment authority for purposes of job generation on the
installation. In amending that provision in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Congress directed the DOD to
seek to obtain consideration in an amount equal to the fair market
value of the property. The conference report accompanying that change
stated, ``The conference agreement would require the Secretary of
Defense to obtain fair market value for economic development
conveyances in most cases, unless the Secretary determines the
circumstances warrant a below-cost or no-cost conveyance.'' The base
closure law also requires that the Secretary of Defense give
substantial deference to the redevelopment plan prepared by the local
redevelopment authority in preparing the record of decision under the
National Environmental Policy Act or other decision document regarding
property disposal.
I do not believe that seeking maximum financial return will be the
overriding Navy goal in disposing of property at closed or realigned
installations, and I fully expect that Navy will continue to give
substantial deference to redevelopment plans in making property
disposal decisions. I expect the Navy to use all of the available
property disposal authorities in the proper circumstances.
Property disposal by public sale can be a very effective means of
assisting a local community with economic development and renewal and
other property reuse objectives. For example, I understand that the
Navy's recent sale of property at the former Marine Corps Air Station
El Toro, where the Navy worked in close partnership with the local
community, will result in up to 70 percent of the property being
dedicated by the property purchaser to the local government for public
purposes, and that developer fees will pay for many of the improvements
needed to implement the desired public uses.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding the additional time.
As always, you are courteous.
I thank these witnesses and their families for their
service.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin, for
participating in this.
Senator Thune, I'm going to be here throughout the
completion of this hearing. Would you like to ask your
questions at this time?
Senator Thune. That would be great, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Thune. Yes. Thank you very much.
I thank the witnesses for being here and for your
willingness to serve your country. Thank you, as well, for the
opportunity you've given me to visit with you individually on
some of these issues.
I have one issue, in particular, Mr. Chairman, that I have
had conversations with Mr. Woodley about before, but I would
like to raise it, just for the record.
One of his responsibilities is the Army Corps of Engineers,
and we've had a lot of discussion in the past decade over a
rewrite of the master manual for the Missouri River. That has
been completed, and is now being implemented. There are some
unique circumstances right now, as they pertain to the
Missouri, in that we've had successive years of drought, and
that has caused a lot of problems, not only for the State of
South Dakota and its recreation industry, but other States and
their issues. In fact, so much so that I've had, in the last
couple of days, the chairs of two of the Indian tribes in South
Dakota, who have been in my office, and who rely on the
Missouri for water supply, tell me the intakes now, because of
the drought, are sucking mud. To me, that's a very immediate
public-health issue that will need to be addressed.
I would be interested in getting Secretary Woodley's
comments with respect to that, and just suggest to him, too,
that, as I've discussed with you privately, I look forward to
working with you to address that.
It is an immediate concern. There are a lot of debates
about the use of the river that have gone on for long before
either you or I were on the scene--that continue to go on
today. But this is one, in particular, now that is a very
immediate concern that has been caused by the drought.
We have two tribes, both the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and
the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, that rely upon the Missouri
River for water supply and who have pipes and intakes that are
now not able to reach a pool level where they can pull water
out of the river, and that creates a lot of problems, as you
would expect, for the populations in their reservations.
So if you could respond to that, that would be great.
Mr. Woodley. I certainly will, Senator. I can tell you that
during the time I have been privileged to serve with the Corps
of Engineers in the Secretariat, no single issue has been more
important to me or more vexing to the Corps, in general, than
the management of the Missouri River and the many interests
that rely upon it.
This is a responsibility that the Corps of Engineers takes
very seriously, and we are mindful of the fact that the
reservoirs that the Corps manages on the river are now at their
lowest point that they have been since they were first
established, and that is causing hardship of the direst sort
for the people of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana.
Since we discussed the issue about the water intakes, I
have had occasion, in my capacity as Principal Deputy Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works, to discuss this matter once again
with the district engineer at Omaha, and to convey to him, in
the strongest terms, the need for constant engagement, and to
receive from him his assurances that he is in constant contact
with the tribal leaders and other representatives of other
Federal agencies, bringing them together and serving as the
convener and actuator, so that all resources of the Federal
Government--that we can bring to bear--are focused on these
issues.
I appreciate the leadership that you have brought to bear
on this, as well, and the other members of the delegation from
these drought-stricken States.
Water intake is very important. Access issues are occurring
all over the region. We have concerns for cultural resource
protection. As the levels go down, they expose areas of
important cultural resources and tribal resources that must be
identified and protected. We have issues with noxious weeds,
invasive plants that begin to colonize in these areas. So this
is a very complex issue, and there is no more important
challenge that we have than the management of the Missouri
River in this time of extreme drought.
So, I will be, if I am confirmed and on a continuing basis,
working with you and available to you and to all the members of
the committee and of the delegations of the affected States to
bring to bear every resource that the Corps of Engineers has to
ameliorate this suffering.
Senator Thune. I appreciate that very much and know that
you have had conversations with our governor, as well. I don't
envy your job. There are a lot of competing pressures from a
lot of States. I've talked to some of my colleagues here in the
Senate who have an entirely different view and perspective on
the Missouri River than I do. But those of us in the Upper
Basin have experienced, as you noted, a tremendous amount of
stress economically in the last few years because of the
drought, and welcome your assistance and help in making sure
that the priorities of those States are addressed.
Furthermore, the most immediate issue, in my judgment, is
in August, when it hits the lowest level--and it is the lowest
level, historically, that we've ever seen since the dams were
built by the Corps--is the water-supply issue on the
reservations. That is a crisis-type issue, and one that we're
going to need a lot of help with. So I appreciate your
willingness to convey your support for helping us address that
problem.
Mr. Penn and Mr. Fallon, welcome, as well. We look forward
to your speedy confirmation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator, if you wish to take additional
time, I'm going to remain here. Do you have any other
questions?
Senator Thune. It's just you and me, I guess.
Chairman Warner. It is.
I've been trying to do a little research on this myself,
and I understand that part of America, while we here in the
east are flooded out, is experiencing a record drought of some
proportions for several years. I mean, it's cumulative, is it
not?
Senator Thune. It is, and it's gotten to where the pool
level in the reservoirs is--since the dams were put in, in
1944, the Flood Control Act, Pick-Sloan Plan, and the Oahe Dam,
which was built in 1962 in South Dakota, hasn't seen this low a
level since the dams were built.
Chairman Warner. The dams were built to collect the water
for such uses as the immediate environs required, and then to
release it to maintain a depth of the river itself to permit
barge traffic, as I understand it, to go up and reach certain
ports in your State. Am I correct?
Senator Thune. Actually, the river doesn't come clear up,
because the dams now are in our State, but it comes up just to
the border, to Sioux City, which is in Iowa.
Chairman Warner. Correct. Sioux City.
Senator Thune. Correct, and the primary purpose was flood
control.
Chairman Warner. Flood control.
Senator Thune. At the time, we had experienced some floods
that were very devastating, and that led to the passing of the
legislation and the creation of the dams. The original plan
called for hydroelectric power, irrigation, water supply, some
other uses, and it's been the Corps' job to try and balance all
of those. But in the environment that we're in right now,
because of the drought, that has become an extremely difficult
job, and the best thing that we could do now is pray for snow
in Montana or rain somewhere in the Basin. But this is a real
serious issue.
Chairman Warner. I'm glad you brought it up. We're likely,
this committee, in the course of the confirmation process--we
will need to engage other Senators who have an active interest
in this situation. Secretary Woodley has indicated to me, we'll
just work around the clock to try and establish, to their
satisfaction, the resources of the Corps of Engineers to try
and work to alleviate this situation.
Also, as an outdoorsman myself, I understand it's severely
impaired the sport fishing and other things that economically
are very important to the region. Is that correct?
Senator Thune. That is correct. We have about an $85
million recreation industry on the lakes in South Dakota, which
has taken a tremendous hit. You can't launch a boat, with the
exception of a couple of places, on the entire lake system.
Chairman Warner. You can't even put a boat in?
Senator Thune. You can't get a boat in, with a lot of
places, and that has extreme consequences for some of these
smaller communities that rely almost exclusively on the
seasonal recreation industry.
So it is a very serious issue, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate your willingness to look at it.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Just one last question. Technically, 100 percent being full
capacity of the dam, at what percentage do you feel that they
are filled at now?
Senator Thune. The Secretary may be better able to answer
that. I will tell you, in Lake Oahe, that about 1,610 to 1,620
feet above sea level is considered a fairly full lake; and we
expect, in August, to hit 1,559 feet, so it's dropped
significantly. In terms of the acre-feet of water that it
holds, I think that it's down to about 35 million acre-feet, or
below that?
Mr. Woodley. That's the entire system's storage for the
entire six-reservoir complex.
Senator Thune. That's the entire system, that's correct.
Right.
Mr. Woodley. Mr. Chairman, the entire system has a capacity
of 72 million acre-feet, making it by far the largest system of
reservoirs in the Nation and one of the largest in the world.
We consider a normal or average capacity to be at about 54
million acre-feet, and the capacity above that is intended to
absorb the runoff from an extraordinary flood event, which has
happened well within modern memory. If we look at 1993, there
was more than enough water. Indeed, rather more water than most
people would have liked to see in that entire part of the
country. The reservoirs then served their purpose very well and
drastically reducing the severity of what was already a very
significant flooding event.
At 54 million acre-feet, we would consider a normal pool--
the current level is right at, or about, or perhaps slightly
below 34 million acre-feet. This is, I would say, at a time
when we would expect, seasonally, to receive an inflow, very
soon, from the melting of the mountain and prairie snowpacks.
However, I am told, by the experts in the field, that those
runoff levels are not expected to exceed 72 percent of an
average outflow. So we are not likely to get relief from that
source in this spring melt season; understanding, of course,
that these matters are entirely unpredictable, as the weather
is.
Chairman Warner. We thank you, Mr. Secretary. I think that
covers it.
Thank you, Senator Thune. Anything further?
Senator Thune. No, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your interest
in this subject.
Chairman Warner. I appreciate it, it is an important issue.
Admiral, to your future assignment here, North Korea
publicly declared that it had nuclear weapons, and demanded
bilateral talks with the United States as a precondition for
resumption of the Six-Party Talks. There has also been
discussion in the press of evidence that North Korea may have
exported nuclear-related items to other countries. I think the
President and his team are handling this very delicate
situation precisely correctly and--in working in conjunction
with the other nations--notably, China, South Korea, Japan, and
others--to try and resolve this. But as to your responsibility,
in light of these most recent developments, how do you assess
the current situation, the security situation, on the Korean
Peninsula? What, if anything, should be done to strengthen the
deterrents on the Korean Peninsula?
Admiral Fallon. Thank you, Senator. It's clearly
disturbing, this assertion that they have nuclear weapons.
Whether they do or not, I don't know. But the fact that they
would publicly make this statement is one of serious concern.
So, I think our response should be in two areas. One is to
maintain strong deterrent posture to signal our support for
South Korea and our allies in the region. Second, to do
whatever we can to facilitate the diplomatic efforts, whether
it's restarting the Six-Party Talks or to encourage another
initiative from, not only ourselves, but the other nations in
the area, I think, would be an appropriate course of action. It
clearly is something that is disturbing. Not only the nuclear
revelation or assertion, but the fact that the North Koreans
have been exporting their missile technology, which may provide
the means to deliver these types of weapons, is certainly
something of high concern.
I'm working hard to get up to speed in this area, to learn
as much as I can about it. I look forward, if confirmed, to
engage with our allies in the area, and to our other experts,
in government and out, to learn as much as we can so that I can
be of some use in the region.
Chairman Warner. You may wish to, assuming confirmation of
the Senate, be in office out there for a while. Before you
respond, but I would hope that you would keep this committee
informed if you felt that, at any time, the overall resources
at your disposal were less than adequate to maintain a strong
deterrent position on behalf of that peninsula from any
conflict breaking out.
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir, I certainly will.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
As to China, the committee continues to follow, with great
interest, their expanding capabilities, in terms of military,
both conventional and strategic. There always remains the
importance of our Taiwan relationships--and, indeed, with
mainland China--and we try to follow, I think, quite correctly
a balanced policy. How do you see these trends unfolding over
the next few years?
Admiral Fallon. Sir, I certainly support the idea that we
maintain a balanced look, keep a close eye on this issue, to be
maintaining the idea of a status quo, that there not be any
unilateral action that would upset the situation.
It is really interesting, I think, to study this challenge,
because the tremendous dynamic growth of China and the many
economic interfaces that they have with us and with other
nations around the world and with Taiwan. It's pretty
fascinating. At the same time, this pretty much unprecedented
growth in military capability is something that certainly bears
watching.
I know that there have been some initiatives on our part to
reach out to China, to work with them to try and facilitate
moving forward on our mutually shared interests.
Chairman Warner. I think it is important to find common
grounds of interest.
You are quite active, then, with the Secretary of State,
whoever that may be. Right now we're pleased to have Dr. Rice,
but you also interface with all of the ambassadors in that
region. You have a unique overall responsibility there. While
military is your first mission, diplomacy certainly is a second
one, in many respects, to work with those members of the
Department of State.
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir. I look forward to their insight,
counsel, advice, and experience in each of these countries.
Chairman Warner. But your relationships with the chief of
the military services in each of those countries are very
helpful.
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. That is, unfortunately, with North Korea,
at the moment, not possible, but who knows what the future may
hold?
Mr. Woodley, from 2001 to 2005 the Civil Works budget
decreased more than 11 percent. The decline contrasts with
nearly a 29 percent increase in overall Federal expenditures in
this same period. What has this resulted in, in terms of your
projects, for the Corps of Engineers?
Mr. Woodley. Mr. Chairman, comparisons across time of a
construction budget are often difficult to make, because the
budget goes up or down depending on the call for new
infrastructure, and infrastructure modifications, and major
rehabilitations.
The budget we have for the current year, which I recently
presented, represents an increase from last year's President's
budget of about $200 million. It does represent a decrease from
the amount appropriated by Congress by about the same amount.
But we have been able to get more support within the
President's budget than we had in the prior period.
We've done that by seeking to concentrate the funds that we
have, based on the performance of the projects and a rigorous
ranking of the projects that are being supported, in order to
proceed with the projects with the greatest cost benefit, as
our analysis shows them. These are such projects as the harbor
in New York and New Jersey, on the east coast, and Oakland, on
the west coast; the very important navigation infrastructure
projects of locks and dams on the Ohio River; and, in the arena
of environmental restoration, the critical Everglades
Restoration Project in Florida to restore the world-class
ecosystem of the Everglades.
Chairman Warner. I hope you mention the Chesapeake Bay,
because, there again, it's a very critical project.
Mr. Woodley. The Corps will certainly play a leading role
in the work in and around the Chesapeake Bay, certainly.
One of my primary goals has been and, if confirmed, would
continue to be to employ very strict processes of performance-
based budgeting within the Civil Works part of the Corps of
Engineers.
Chairman Warner. Let me get a tight answer for the record
on the following question. Describe to the committee precisely
your responsibilities, if any, for the oversight and execution
of contracts managed by the Corps of Engineers for
reconstruction activities in Iraq.
Now, this is currently under Ambassador Negroponte.
Mr. Woodley. I have no responsibility in that.
Chairman Warner. Then that makes it clear. All right, I
thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Penn, in discussions with the Department of
Defense over the past 2 years, the Global Posture Review, the
Department has maintained the position that any decisions made
about the relocation of the home port for a carrier would be
made within the context of the 2005 round of BRACs scheduled to
take place this summer. This answer was, again, used by Admiral
Clark last week in response to a question by Senator Akaka
about the potential of possibly relocating carriers in Hawaii.
I would hope that you would watch that process. I don't
mean, at this point and in this hearing, to reopen the issue, I
feel it was a very full coverage of the issues with the
distinguished Chief of Naval Operations. But I do note that
this is a BRAC-process year. This committee will soon be,
hopefully, reviewing, in its advise and consent role, the
nominees made by the President of the United States for the
BRAC Commission. I have committed so much of my career in this
committee to moving forward sequentially in BRAC processes. We
enacted a law, it is in place, it was challenged last year to
some extent, but, with the support of the President, we kept it
intact. The process is going forward. We experienced, in years
past, some problems which I hope we will not have any
reoccurrence in this cycle. So I don't ask you for any
commitment but to keep a watchful eye on that BRAC process to
make sure that it works in accordance with the laws, as written
by this committee and accepted by the full Congress and the
House committee--very active in it--to get this behind us.
You will keep a watchful eye?
Mr. Penn. Senator, if confirmed, I assure you.
Chairman Warner. I thank you.
We now have come to that point where I feel that the
audience has stayed with us for a long time. There are several
additional questions, which I will place into the record and
ask each of you, at your earliest opportunity, to provide your
responses for the record.
So I thank our distinguished panel of nominees, their
families and friends who have gathered for this very important
day. I'm optimistic about your confirmation process. I wish you
well.
The hearing is now concluded.
[Whereupon, at 5:22 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to John Paul Woodley, Jr. by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. You previously have answered the committee's advance
policy questions on the reforms brought about by the Goldwater-Nichols
Act in connection with your nomination in 2003 to be the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Have your views on the
importance, feasibility, and implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols
Act reforms changed since you testified before the committee at your
confirmation hearing on February 27, 2003?
Answer. No, my views have not changed. I continue to support full
implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which strengthens civilian
control; improves military advice; places clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensures
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increases attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; provides for more efficient use of defense
resources; enhances the effectiveness of military operations; and
improves the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Question. Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-
Nichols Act provisions based on your previous experience as Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works? If so, what areas do you believe
it might be appropriate to address in these modifications?
Answer. Based on my previous experience as Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works), I see no need for modification of any
provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act is as relevant today as it was
in 1986 when enacted.
DUTIES
Question. In your response to previous advance policy questions
submitted in February 2003, you stated your understanding of the duties
and functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Based on your experience in the Department since that time, what
changes, if any would you make to your original response?
Answer. Section 3016 of Title 10 of the United States Code and
Department of the Army General Orders No. 3 remain in effect and the
duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) remain as
stated in those documents, which I summarized in my previous answer.
There is one modification to the Assistant Secretary's responsibilities
with regard to Arlington National Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's
Home National Cemetery. That change now is codified in Department of
the Army General Orders No. 13, dated October 29, 2004, which replaces
an 18-year-old General Order. General Orders No. 13 assigns overall
supervision of Arlington National Cemetery to the Under Secretary of
the Army and clarifies that the Superintendent of Arlington National
Cemetery reports directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) on the execution of the program of the Cemetery, including
administration, operation and maintenance. The Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) remains responsible for burial
policy.
Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in
the duties and functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, as set forth in section 3016 of Title 10, United States
Code, and in regulations of the Department of Defense and Department of
the Army?
Answer. I believe the duties and functions of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) are clearly and properly assigned
in the above-referenced documents. During my previous service as
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) I recommended changes in
oversight of Arlington National Cemetery, and those recommendations are
reflected in the new General Orders No. 13, dated October 29, 2004.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect
that the Secretary of the Army would prescribe for you?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I expect to carry out the duties and
functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) as
articulated in General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, and General
Orders No. 13, dated October 29, 2004. In addition, I expect to support
and assist the Secretary of the Army in carrying out critical
departmental responsibilities, including Continuity of Operations.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be
with:
The Secretary of the Army.
Answer. I will work closely with the Secretary of the Army in
furthering the goals and priorities of the President. Consistent with
the General Orders, I expect the Secretary to rely on me to oversee the
Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
programs of Arlington National Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home
National Cemetery.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel
Readiness.
Answer. I will work through the Secretary of the Army to form a
close and constructive relationship with the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Logistics, Materiel Readiness) in areas of mutual interest.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Army.
Answer. I will work closely with the Under Secretary of the Army in
furthering the goals and priorities of the President and the Secretary
of the Army, including Army national cemetery program. Under General
Orders 13, October 29, 2004, the Under Secretary is responsible for
overall supervision of the program, and the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works) is responsible for supervision of the program and
budget.
Question. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment.
Answer. Having worked for the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment, I am very aware of the responsibilities
of the position and look forward to a constructive relationship,
working through the Secretary of the Army, in areas of mutual interest.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense.
Answer. I will work through the Secretary of the Army to form a
close and constructive relationship with the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense to ensure that the full array of assets of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is available to support the national
defense, including the engineering and technical management and
emergency response and recovery capabilities associated with the Army
Civil Works Program.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and
Environment.
Answer. I will work to form a close and constructive relationship
with the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and
Environment) in areas of mutual interest.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army and the Army Staff.
Answer. I will establish and maintain a close, professional
relationship with the Chief of Staff as he performs his duties as the
senior military leader of the Army.
Question. The Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Chief of
Engineers.
Answer. I believe the relationship between the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Civil Works) and the Chief of Engineers that best serves
the interests of the Nation is the one based on mutual respect, trust,
and cooperation. Both positions have enormous responsibilities and
demand great attention to very complex issues. During my previous
service, the current Chief of Engineers, LTG Carl A. Strock, and I
established such a relationship and I fully expect it to grow stronger.
Our respective abilities to be responsive to the President's priorities
and to the policy directives of Congress depend greatly on the success
of this relationship.
Question. The General Counsel of the Army.
Answer. My relationship with the General Counsel of the Army must
involve close and regular consultation, given the legal complexities of
the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. During my
previous service, I had such a close and constructive relationship with
the General Counsel of the Army and, if confirmed, I will work to
continue and strengthen that relationship.
Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Army.
Answer. If confirmed, I would maintain a constructive relationship
with the Judge Advocate General of the Army in areas of mutual
interest.
Question. The State Governors.
Answer. The Army and its U.S. Corps of Engineers must remain
committed to working cooperatively with Governors and local authorities
for the benefit of local citizens and for sustainable development and
protection of the Nation's natural resources. These cooperative efforts
must be undertaken in the context of civil works authorities and legal
responsibilities. These responsibilities often require a balancing of
diverse interests. The proper reconciliation of these interests demands
open communication among all parties. I am committed to establishing
and maintaining a full and open dialogue with the Governors on all
issues of mutual interest.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your responses to previous advance policy questions
submitted in February 2003, you identified as major challenges that
would confront the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works the
need to maintain the Corps of Engineers' existing infrastructure, the
need to repair the damaged environment, and the need to ensure the
physical security of the Corps' infrastructure around the country. What
do you consider to be your most significant achievements in meeting
these challenges during your previous service as Assistant Secretary?
Answer. During my previous service as Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works) advances were made in addressing each of the three
major challenges I identified in February 2003.
Concerning the need to maintain existing Corps infrastructure, the
fiscal year 2006 budget includes more funding for Civil Works
operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and protection than any prior
Civil Works budget--$2.353 billion. We held down operations costs in
order to apply more funding to project maintenance, and then
prioritized potential maintenance expenditures based on its criticality
to the reliable, safe, and efficient performance of the navigation and
flood damage reduction facilities operated by the Corps. Finally, we
have reached agreement within the administration to explore, in
conjunction with the development of the fiscal year 2007 budget, ways
to improve the manner in which the budget funds major rehabilitation
projects at Corps hydropower, inland navigation and flood damage
reduction facilities, in order to ensure that funding is provided to
those new and continuing major rehabilitation projects that yield a
high economic return per dollar invested.
In my previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), we advanced several major ecosystem restoration programs and
achieved a greater focus on environmental restoration both in planning
new projects and in operating existing projects. We have finalizing the
Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan, produced the Louisiana Coastal Area Restoration Plan, and, after
more than a decade of difficult work, implemented a new Master Manual
for the operation of the Missouri River System that includes
significant ecosystem restoration components. As Assistant Secretary, I
emphasized that all our restoration efforts must be informed by good
science and broad public participation.
Concerning physical security of Corps' infrastructure, I was
successful in gaining administration support for $84 million in fiscal
year 2005 and $72 million in fiscal year 2006 to continue implementing
security measures for Corps of Engineers projects and facilities.
Question. Have these challenges changed since your appointment in
August 2003, and, if confirmed, what are your plans for addressing the
challenges you now anticipate?
Answer. Those challenges continue, and I would add two more:
improving the Corps regulatory program and improving the Corps planning
process.
In the past 18 months I have gained a much greater appreciation for
the scope and importance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's
Regulatory Program. This program protects the Nation's precious aquatic
resources. In more than 80,000 separate actions each year, hundreds of
billions of dollars of the Nation's life-sustaining enterprise must
receive the Corps' scrutiny through its Section 404 permit process. We
must meet the challenge of serving the economic and environmental
interests of our Nation with effectiveness and efficiency. As Assistant
Secretary I have and, if I am confirmed, will continue to emphasize
predictability and consistency as the hallmarks of a good regulatory
program. From both my prior experience as Assistant Secretary and my
experience as Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources I know that,
with attention and commitment, business can be conducted in a way that
makes sense for the environment.
In my previous service as Assistant Secretary, I began to implement
a concept of designating one Corps district as lead regulatory district
in each State, responsible for maintaining a close liaison with the
State permitting authorities and ensuring State-wide consistency within
the regulatory program. If confirmed, I intend to pursue interagency
initiatives to improve the Civil Works business processes, like the one
recently signed with the Office of Surface Mining that establishes
parallel, rather than sequential, review of permit applications.
Finally, where there are common-sense solutions available to help solve
ecosystem problems like water quality or habitat degradation, we will
try to create regulatory incentives to getting those solutions
implemented.
Our Nation relies on the Corps to protect aquatic resources while
allowing important economic development activities to proceed. The
Corps annually performs over 100,000 wetlands jurisdictional
determinations. As pointed out by the National Academy of Science,
ensuring jurisdictional practices are consistent across the country has
been a major challenge, especially since the Supreme Court's decision
in the ``SWANCC'' case [Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers]. We are working diligently with the Corps
to collect information on jurisdictional practices to better understand
the circumstances where consistency issues arise, and address them. If
confirmed, I will work with the Corps and other agencies in developing
internal guidance that will improve consistency of jurisdictional
determinations across the Nation.
We can improve the Corps' planning process by completing the
establishment of Centers of Expertise to efficiently handle independent
technical review of Corps projects, economic model verification, and
the issues surrounding Corps Reform. If confirmed, I am committed to
work with the administration and Congress to make business process
improvements allowing for an orderly and effective water resources
development program for the Nation.
PRIORITIES
Question. In your responses to previous advance policy questions
submitted in February 2003, you identified working to ensure effective
management and administration of the Army Civil Works program and the
Army's national cemetery program as one priority you would have.
Additionally, you identified as a priority seeking ways to more
efficiently use resources in the development and execution of programs
to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are wisely spent. What do you
consider to be your most significant achievements in addressing these
priorities during your previous service as Assistant Secretary?
Answer. Last year I established three overarching priorities.
First, identify clear programmatic goals for all major Corps mission
areas. These goals form the basis for building and defending a
performance-based budget. Second, seek continuous improvement in the
analytical tools employed by the Corps to support decisionmaking. While
the Corps generally does a good job in this area, it can always do
better. Third, improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the
regulatory program. This program touches virtually every community in
America and protects many valuable aquatic resources.
There have been significant advances in all three areas.
In March 2004, the Corps issued its Civil Works Strategic Plan,
setting out the agency's objectives in each of its major mission areas.
With this Strategic Plan as a guide, the Corps has instituted a
performance-based budgeting system for the Civil Works program and used
performance principles in developing of the fiscal year 2006
President's budget for civil works.
To streamline project implementation, new model Project Cooperation
Agreements have been developed, including one for navigation projects
and one for environmental infrastructure assistance programs. Up-to-
date model Project Cooperation Agreement support the delegation of
oversight of this process, with resulting efficiency in the process,
while still preserving national consistency, policy compliance, and
legal sufficiency.
The Corps has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
American Association of Port Authorities, establishing shared
partnership principles to guide Army and public ports in developing and
maintaining the Nation's ports and harbors.
In May 2004, a cooperative agreement with the Netherlands
Rijkswaterstaat was reached, leading to great benefits from exchanges
between two of the world's most respected water resources agencies.
Corps Divisions have been delegated the authority to approve post-
authorization decision documents that comply with policy and are below
the threshold requiring reauthorization.
This past year, I have made the regulatory program a priority by
encouraging performance based budgeting, participating in memorandums
of agreement to achieve efficiencies when processing permits for energy
projects (Deepwater Ports, Linear Transmission Projects, Joint 404-
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) Procedures),
establishing lead corps districts in each State, and providing guidance
on compensatory mitigation projects.
A survey of corps districts has identified key areas of greatest
variance between their practices on making regulatory jurisdictional
determinations. The Corps has adopted a new method for reporting
determinations of non-jurisdiction to enable direct comparisons of
practices among its districts.
The Corps has developed and implemented a nine-point plan and
brochure to help the mining industry in Appalachia comply with the
Clean Water Act through guidance, educational workshops, and processing
a large permit application backlog caused by litigation. In the process
the Corps issued clarifying guidance pertaining to mitigation of the
effects of mountaintop surface coal mining to promote a watershed
perspective, allow for consideration of SMCRA features as part of
overall mitigation plans, and to make it clear that conservation
easements are not an absolute requirement for every site.
The past year has also brought to fruition several major actions.
After 13 years of effort, the Corps has issued a newly revised master
manual governing operation of the Missouri River system. The revised
master manual is a marked improvement over the 1979 Master Manual and
has already sustained judicial scrutiny in one U.S. District Court.
The Corps also issued programmatic regulations for the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP). These rules
establish the multi-agency program that will develop, integrate,
implement, and monitor the extremely complex environmental restoration
efforts in south Florida.
The Corps also has advanced important studies concerning both the
restoration and navigation on the upper Mississippi River, and the loss
of wetlands in the Louisiana coastal area.
Under my leadership, the Civil Works program has made great strides
in improving effectiveness of its use of resources. For the six
initiatives in the President's Management Agenda that apply to Civil
Works, progress is ``green'' on four and ``yellow'' on two. This
signifies that the Corps is improving its management of human capital,
beginning to achieve efficiencies through competitive sourcing and the
better use of e-government and real property management tools, basing
budget decisions on economic returns and other performance metrics, and
addressing audit and other financial management issues. In particular,
the Corps has made great strides in basing the fiscal year 2006 budget
on performance. Funding in the fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006
budgets was allocated by business program with a nation-wide view, so
that the most important work in each program received funding. In the
fiscal year 2006 budget, additional steps were taken to concentrate
funding for studies, design, and construction on the work likely to
yield the highest returns. In addition, the fiscal year 2006 budget
includes more funding for Civil Works construction, rehabilitation,
operation, maintenance, and protection than any other budget in
history. Finally, the Corps has achieved strong ratings for its
recreation, emergency management, and regulatory programs, with the
result that these programs have been budgeted at very healthy levels.
Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you establish, and
what would be your plans for addressing them?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to pursue the priorities I
stated during my prior service: establish clear programmatic goals for
all major Corps mission areas; improve the analytical tools employed by
the Corps to support decisionmaking; and improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the regulatory program.
I would pursue the goal of establishing clear performance goals, in
part, through the initiatives of the President's Management Agenda, as
follows:
For human capital, make significant progress in
reducing hiring time lags and integrate the accountability
system into decisions.
For competitive sourcing, plan for and carry out
competitions as scheduled.
For financial management, resolve audit issues.
For e-government, establish an effective Enterprise
Architecture, adhere to cost and schedule goals, secure
currently unsecured IT systems, and implement applicable e-
government initiatives.
For budget-performance integration, improve the
linkages between the strategic plan and performance, and
improve performance metrics used in budget decisions.
For real property asset management, develop and obtain
approval of an asset management plan, an accurate and current
asset inventory, and real property performance measures.
My plan, if I am confirmed, for addressing the challenge of
improving the Corps' analytic tools is to place a high priority on
completing economic modeling efforts now underway and to work closely
with the Chief of Engineers to address the issues that arose in the
National Research Council's Reports on the planning process conducted
under Section 216 of Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) 2000. I also
would work closely with the Chief of Engineers in further streamlining
the planning process and establishing a workable framework for
independent review of complex and controversial Corps' studies.
We have increased the President's Budget for the Corps regulatory
program from $144 million for fiscal year 2004 ($140 million of which
was appropriated), to $150 million for fiscal year 2005 ($145 million
of which was appropriated), to $160 million for fiscal year 2006. If
confirmed, I will continue to make the regulatory program a priority by
supporting the National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan, developing
regional general permits for mining and aquaculture activities, and
supporting efforts to develop regional field indicators that will help
Corps regulators make consistent, predictable jurisdictional
determinations in the arid southwest and Alaska. Over $200 billion of
economic development depends upon the work of about 1,200 Corps
regulators in 38 districts.
CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Question. In your responses in February 2003, you described the
relative authorities 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. You indicated that you would
seek ways for the Corps to become more innovative and creative, not
only in domestic civil works and emergency responses, but also in the
Nation's vital national security interests. Since your appointment in
August 2003, what changes, if any, have taken place in the manner in
which the Chief of Engineers and the Corps and the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works interact?
Answer. I am extremely pleased with the strong working relationship
I have with both the Chief of Engineers and the Director of Civil
Works. My experience during my previous service as Assistant Secretary
has confirmed my initial belief and confidence in the integrity,
commitment, and engineering excellence of these general officers.
Question. Are there additional changes you would seek to implement,
if confirmed?
Answer. If confirmed, I would seek to strengthen the vertical and
horizontal team concept emphasized in the Corps 2012 plan. Under this
concept, concerns and issues are raised early in the development of
projects, and a virtual or actual team is convened involving all levels
of the organization that can contribute to early and final resolution
of the issues. If confirmed, I would seek to promote this concept
further by including the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works) in more cases, expediting the planning and design of
projects, developing the administration position on these projects,
executing project cooperation agreements, and resolving concerns of
Members of Congress that are brought to my attention.
RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS
Question. The duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works often involve issues of great significance to local
communities, State governments, and the Senators and Congressmen who
represent them in Congress. What is your assessment of the ability of
the civilian and military leadership of the Army Corps of Engineers to
respond to requests for support for State and local projects advanced
by elected officials?
Answer. The Corps is unparalleled in providing disaster assistance
and emergency preparedness. The Corps is well poised to support and
respond to State and local requests not only in dealing with natural
disasters, but also in responding to the Nation's water resources
development needs. Throughout my previous service as Assistant
Secretary, I often heard praise for the Corps disaster assistance and
emergency response efforts from leaders in State and local governments.
ANALYSIS OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER PROJECTS
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. In my previous response, I stated that the technical and
policy review process followed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
managing feasibility studies needs to ensure that the many
professionals who are involved in those studies are afforded an
appropriate level of independence. I continue to strongly believe that
Corps professionals at all levels need to follow established
regulations, procedures, and policies in determining whether a project
is, or is not, economically justified. Like any other organized system
of analysis, the integrity of the process is critically dependent on
all Corps of Engineers professionals doing their jobs in analyzing,
assessing, and providing the documentation upon which the merits of a
proposed Civil Works project may be weighed. The role of the senior
civilian or military leadership is to ensure the integrity of the
system to provide an independent policy, legal, and technical
assessment of each proposed project, and then to rely on that
documentation as the basis for their recommendations to policy
decisionmakers to accept, reject, or modify a proposed action
transparently.
Question. In October 2003, the General Accounting Office released a
report about a flood protection project in Sacramento, California which
concluded that the Corps did not fully analyze, or report to Congress
in a timely manner, the potential for significant cost increases. In
this case, costs rose from $44 million to over $270 million and
resulted in a lack of funding to carry out a substantial portion of the
original scope of work. If confirmed, what steps would you take to
ensure Congress is properly notified of cost overruns and potential
changes to the scope of work for specifically authorized projects?
Answer. This is a matter of keen interest to me. If I am confirmed,
I will continue to work with the Chief of Engineers to ensure that
proper risk-based engineering analysis is performed during the
feasibility phase, commensurate with the degrees of uncertainty that
could occur in the future with project conditions. Further, if
confirmed, I will work with the Corps to place as much emphasis on
costs as is placed on the benefit side of the equation. The Corps has
made great strides in implementation of its MCACES cost estimating
system. However, we must continue to provide updated tools that will
enable the Corps cost estimators to determine, with reasonable
assurance and during the feasibility phase of the study, the expected
construction and real estate costs of potential projects. Whenever,
despite these efforts, cost increases or potentially significant
changes to the scope of work of projects occur, I will work with the
Chief of Engineers to ensure that Congress is promptly notified.
Question. If confirmed, would you adhere to existing Corps policy
that the Corps seek new spending authority from Congress if it
determines, before issuing the first contract, that the Corps cannot
complete the project without exceeding its spending limit?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I would adhere to that policy, which is
well founded. For projects already underway, the intent behind the
Corps policy is to ensure that contractual commitments can only be made
up to the point of the cost limit established pursuant to Section 902
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Any potential contract
causing the ``902'' cap to be exceeded would not be advertised for bid
solicitation until new authority was received. Similarly, a contract
would not be awarded if, at the point of issuing the first contract on
a new construction project, it is known that the project would exceed
the ``902'' limit.
CONTRACTING FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ
Question. Over the last 2 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has
played a major role in executing and managing contracts for the
reconstruction of Iraq. The reconstruction effort has run into
considerable difficulties due in large part to the ongoing insurgency
and related security problems in Iraq. What lessons have you learned
about the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers and its contractors to
execute large-scale construction projects in a dangerous environment?
Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S.
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to
remain aware of the situation.
Question. Do you believe that the Army Corps has had the full range
of personnel in the field that it has needed to ensure proper oversight
of these projects, or has oversight been hampered by the security
situation on the ground?
Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S.
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to
remain aware of the situation.
Question. What impact do you believe that security costs have had
on the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers and its contractors to
complete their reconstruction mission in Iraq? What additional steps,
if any, do you believe that Army Corps could take to reduce these
costs?
Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S.
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to
remain aware of the situation.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense is in a
position to ensure the safety of contractor employees working under
Army Corps contracts in Iraq? What additional steps, if any, do you
believe that DOD or the Army Corps should take to ensure the safety of
contractor employees?
Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S.
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to
remain aware of the situation.
Question. What is your understanding of the current legal status of
private security employees hired by Army Corps contractors in Iraq? Do
you believe that additional legislation is needed to clarify the legal
status and responsibility of security contractors in areas like Iraq?
Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S.
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to
remain aware of the situation.
Question. What will be the continuing role of the Army Corps of
Engineers in the execution and management of contracts for the
reconstruction of Iraq, in view of last month's elections and the
transition to Iraqi sovereignty?
Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S.
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to
remain aware of the situation.
Question. In your view, can current practices and processes in
construction management conducted by the Corps benefit from a study of
private sector methods and trends to seek innovative ways to improve
the efficiency and customer response in military design and
construction?
Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S.
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to
remain aware of the situation.
CONTRACTS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE IRAQI OIL INDUSTRY
Question. Two years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers was designated
the executive agent for Iraqi oil infrastructure reconstruction.
Because of urgent and compelling circumstances and in compliance with
the Competition in Contracting Act, an April 2003 sole-source award was
made for a ``bridge'' contract to reconstruct the Iraqi oil industry
prior to the award of a competitive follow-on contract in January 2004.
The Corps of Engineers stated that it would limit orders under the
``bridge'' contract ``to only those services necessary to support the
mission in the near term.'' Can you describe the urgent and compelling
circumstances that led to the award of the ``bridge'' contract, the
reason why this contract had a 2-year term and an estimated value of $7
billion, and the steps the Army Corps of Engineers took to limit work
under this contract prior to the award of the competitive follow-on
contract?
Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S.
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to
remain aware of the situation.
Question. On January 13, 2004, the Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA) sent a memorandum to the Army Corps of Engineers alerting that
its contractor on the Iraqi oil reconstruction contract did not have
appropriate systems in place to estimate the costs of its work in Iraq.
Three days later, the Army Corps awarded a new, competitive $1.2
billion contract with the company to continue its work on the
reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry. The source selection document
indicates that the contractor was given a perfect score in the
competition for its estimating system. Please explain how the Army
Corps took into account the DCAA memorandum in its appraisal of the
contractor's estimating system.
Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S.
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to
remain aware of the situation.
Question. What steps are being taken to ensure that the Army Corps
takes into consideration the concerns expressed by other appropriate
DOD components, such as DCAA, when it evaluates the past performance
and present capability of offerors? Do you believe that any additional
steps are needed?
Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S.
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to
remain aware of the situation.
DAM SAFETY
Question. The Corps of Engineers is a leader in developing
engineering criteria for safe dams, and conducts an active inspection
program of its own dams. The Corps has also carried out inspections at
most of the dams built by others--Federal, State, and local agencies
and private interests. Most Corps constructed flood protection projects
are owned by sponsoring cities, towns, and agricultural districts, but
the Corps continues to maintain and operate 383 dams and reservoirs for
flood control. Recent press accounts have highlighted concerns for the
condition, safety, and security of our national dam infrastructure.
What is your assessment of the safety and security of the current dam
infrastructure managed by the Corps?
Answer. The safety and security of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
dams is a major concern. The average age of Corps dams is approaching
50 years. Many of these dams have a relatively high risk for failure or
not being able to function as designed, due to the likelihood of major
or extremely large floods, seepage and piping through embankments and
foundations, fatigue and fracture of gates, and other problems due to
damage or deterioration. At a few of the dams (such as the Fern Ridge
Dam in Oregon), normal operations currently are restricting because of
dam safety problems that must be corrected. Other dams are being
modified or restored using operation and maintenance funding.
The Corps has developed a dam safety strategic plan with specific
goals, objectives and target dates to address these issues during the
next 5 years. Dam safety projects and activities receive the highest
priority in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget for Civil Works.
Question. What do you view as the greatest challenges facing the
Corps with respect to the sustainment and protection of our dams?
Answer. The greatest challenge is to develop a cost-effective risk
assessment and risk management policy for the Dam Safety Assurance,
Major Rehabilitation and Major Maintenance programs. It is essential
that the Corps accelerate the deployment of a Portfolio Risk Assessment
in fiscal year 2005, in order to shape decisions in fiscal year 2006
and beyond.
Performing a Portfolio Risk Assessment will improve the Corps'
ability to prioritize and justify dam safety investment decisions
throughout the Corps. The Corps must balance vital dam safety
requirements against competing needs, and a risk-based process provides
valuable information for comparing the relative impacts of different
types of dam safety problems, such as damage due to earthquakes; damage
due to extremely large floods; erosion damage to spillways; gates that
do not operate properly; and seepage and piping damage to embankment
dams and foundations.
MILITARY TO CIVILIAN CONVERSION
Question. The Army has committed to converting billets currently
being performed by military personnel to civilian positions wherever
possible in order to enhance combat capability and operational
readiness. What steps were taken during your previous tenure as
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to convert military
billets in the Army Corps of Engineers, installations management, and
other areas affecting the Civil Works mission of the Army to civilian
position?
Answer. There were no conversions of uniformed military billets
associated with the Civil Works program to civilian positions during my
previous service as Assistant Secretary. I understand that
approximately 40 uniformed military billets associated with the Corps
Military Program were converted to civilian positions during the last
two Total Army Analysis (TAA) reviews.
Question. What additional steps, if any, are being taken to further
substitute civilian workers for military personnel and what limitations
should be observed in doing so?
Answer. As far as I am aware, no steps are being taken at this time
to substitute civilians for uniformed military associated with the
Civil Works program. I understand that review of position requirements
for the Military Program carried out by the Corps and decisionmaking on
how best to fill them is a regular, ongoing process that takes into
account the overall needs of the Army.
PUBLIC WORKS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSURANCE
Question. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers is the DOD lead component
for Public Works Critical Infrastructure Assurance. In that role, it
has a unique responsibility for working with the military services,
other Federal agencies, and commercial sector entities to ensure
adequate public works (i.e. electricity, water, and public works
facilities) are available to support the warfighter. How have the Civil
Works capabilities of the Army Corps of Engineers been used to support
the Army and DOD in ensuring that these capabilities are available?
Answer. In the Corps' role as the DOD lead component for Public
Works Critical Infrastructure Assurance, a close partnership has been
forged between the combatant commanders, the armed services, and the
commercial sector in identifying public works assets that support the
Department of Defense. Working within the existing DOD Directive 3020,
authorities for Critical Infrastructure Assurance Program, the Corps
has identified critical assets not only within its national harbor and
inland waterway networks, but also its dams and reservoir complexes
supporting critical DOD missions as well. The Corps has worked with DOD
to identify whether vulnerabilities are evident and to identify means
to assure these facilities remain available. The Corps shares its
incident and monitoring activities with the DOD community and works
closely with the other DOD critical infrastructure protection (CIP)
infrastructure sector leads. Further, the Corps has built strategic
relationships with other Federal agencies, to share critical
infrastructure expertise. For example, protective design experts have
worked closely with the Bureau of Land Management in conducting
vulnerability assessments and designing protective design solutions for
their dams. The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Headquarters
of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) are fully aware of the
comprehensive Critical Infrastructure Assurance Program and rely upon
the Corps for public works advice.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND PROTECTION OF HOMELAND
INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. In a typical year, the Corps of Engineers responds to
more than 30 Presidential disaster declarations, plus numerous State
and local emergencies. Emergency responses usually involve cooperation
with other military elements and the Department of Homeland Security in
support of State and local efforts. What is your view of the current
level of coordination and support provided between the office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the Department of
Homeland Security?
Answer. During my previous service as Assistant Secretary, I had
only occasional direct, personal interaction with the Department of
Homeland Security.
However, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of
Homeland Security have a very strong relationship and work closely on
several major initiatives and projects. The Corps has three full-time
liaisons at the Department of Homeland Security, one with the Coast
Guard, one with the Science and Technology Directorate, and one with
the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, which includes the
former Federal Emergency Management Agency. Close collaboration occurs
in such areas as protection of critical infrastructure, research and
development, and disaster response. The Corps constantly strives to
strengthen and tailor the relationship to leverage resources and
expertise, and create partnerships that benefit each other and State
and local agencies. In addition, the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Civil Works) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have
been involved in the development of Operation Safe Commerce, which is
now led by the Department of Homeland Security.
Question. What processes and new programs have been implemented, or
would you propose if confirmed, to address heightened security and
resource protection issues in civil works projects?
Answer. The Corps already is carrying out measures to protect its
critical infrastructure through the Civil Works Critical Infrastructure
Security Program. If confirmed, I will seek opportunities to support,
through the appropriate programs, an increase in research and
development for critical infrastructure protection. I will promote a
better understanding of the interdependencies and vulnerabilities of
key infrastructure sectors, in part through modeling and simulations.
If confirmed, I also would seek practical and cost effective means to
rapidly reconstitute critical infrastructure if it fails or is
attacked. This is an essential cornerstone to any critical
infrastructure protection strategy.
Question. How would you characterize the effectiveness of the
working relationships between the Department of the Army and Federal,
State, and local agencies responsible for crisis and consequence
management?
Answer. I am not in a position to authoritatively characterize the
effectiveness of the Department of the Army's working relationships
with other governmental entities responsible for crisis and consequence
management. However, I can say that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has an excellent relationship with other local, State, and Federal
agencies. With over 40 offices across the country, the Corps is
involved in planning and training exercises on a routine basis. The
Corps district offices and labs serve as centers of expertise for local
officials in the areas of disaster planning, response and recovery.
In addition, the Corps strives to promote Public Private
Partnerships. For example, The Infrastructure Security Partnership
(TISP) (the Corps was a founding board member of TISP), has a wide
variety of members from local, State, and Federal Governments,
engineering associations and industry. TISP is involved in marshalling
support of the engineering community in support of global disasters
such as the Indian Ocean tsunami, to collaborating and facilitating
knowledge, and technology transfer in protecting the Nation's critical
infrastructure.
Question. What are the most significant problems, if any, that must
be overcome in ensuring appropriate cooperation?
Answer. Again, I would limit my answer to problems being faced by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps utilizes funding within the
Flood Control and Coastal Emergency account, in order to maintain a
``readiness status'' that allows it to respond to any contingency at
any time. I am pleased to say that the President's fiscal year 2006
budget recently transmitted to Congress includes a funding level for
flood control and coastal emergencies that is adequate to keep the
Corps' capability available and ready.
NAVIGATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
Question. In your responses to previous advance policy questions
submitted in February 2003, you discussed the challenges facing the
Army with respect to the execution of its navigation and environmental
protection and restoration missions. What do you now view as the
greatest challenges facing the Army with respect to the execution of
these missions?
Answer. As I stated in 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers has a
unique responsibility to balance environment and development in the
public interest. If confirmed, I will preserve the integrity of Civil
Works missions to protect and restore the environment and to promote
national economic development by making environmental sustainability an
integral part of all Civil Works activities.
The most significant challenge will be the ability to respond to
the Nation's water resources needs in the face of scarce resources.
Tough choices will need to be made. We are a Nation at war, and our
focus must be on ensuring our security at home and abroad.
The Nation faces complex navigation and environmental challenges.
One of the greatest challenges is to ensure that our analyses and
decisions are backed up by firm science and technology. One example of
how we are addressing this challenge is a new activity proposed in the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget for a Science and Technology
Program supporting restoration of the Coastal Louisiana area. This
program would provide a platform for data acquisition, management,
model development, and analysis enhancing Louisiana Coastal Area Plan
implementation and additional large-scale, long-term planning, and
project selection efforts.
Another major challenge is the need to continually seek balance and
comity with and among States and other Federal agencies, which have
equally important responsibilities in these areas. There is rarely a
single, unanimously-supported answer to questions that arise in the
planning and execution of navigation or environmental restoration
projects. We must improve our ability to bring all interests to the
table to address these questions collaboratively.
Question. Are there aspects of these missions which you believe
should be transferred from the Department of the Army?
Answer. No, I do not believe there are elements of these programs
that should be transferred from the Department of the Army. In my view,
the Corps has performed and continues to perform effectively in the
navigation and environmental restoration arena, as well as in its other
mission areas. The Corps is well equipped with its professional staff
of economists, environmental scientists, and engineers to continue to
work with our project sponsors, Federal and State resource agencies,
the public, and other stakeholders to provide for the Nation's water
resources needs.
MISSION OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Question. If confirmed, how would you preserve the integrity of the
Corps's environmental and civil works mission?
Answer. From both Civil Works study and project construction
perspectives, it is absolutely essential that the studies the Corps
performs, and the projects the Corps recommends for construction, are
formulated on a watershed basis, recognizing the full range of Federal
and non-Federal, public and private activities in the watershed and
bringing into the decisionmaking process all interested parties, many
of which have their own authorities, independent goals, and resources
which can contribute to a successful watershed management plan.
Environmental and infrastructure development goals need to complement
the goals under the Civil Works regulatory program.
Question. What are your views about the potential performance of
regulatory functions presently performed by the Army Corps of Engineers
by other governmental or non-military entities?
Answer. Since the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Corps has
been involved in protecting navigable waters, and as a result of the
Clean Water Act enacted in 1972, the Corps role was expanded
considerably to include wetlands and other waters of the United States.
The Corps has a well-trained, experienced cadre of about 1,200
regulators and decades of experience. From a purely technical point of
view, it could be argued that another agency or a non-governmental
organization could delineate wetlands and process permits. But in
addition to extensive expertise, the Corps has a long history of
working with multiple parties and stakeholders with the objective of
achieving balance. The regulatory authorities granted to the Corps also
complement its other water resources development missions, such as
navigation and flood and storm damage reduction.
My view is that the Corps always should be neither a project
proponent nor a project opponent. Their goal is to make fair and
objective permit decisions, taking into account good science, available
information, and the views of all interested parties. My experience is
that the Corps culture is well-suited for taking on this tremendous
responsibility--achieving the objectives set forth by Congress in
statute while, at the same time, serving the regulated public.
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 differ from the administration in power?
Answer. As a political appointee, I consider it my duty to be an
advocate for the policies of the administration. However, I will always
be prepared to provide my best professional judgment when asked.
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 John Warner
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Woodley, the mission of the Army Corps of
Engineers is to provide quality, responsive engineering services to our
Nation for the planning, design, construction, and operation of water
resources and other civil works projects, such as navigation, flood
control, environmental protection, and disaster response. In these
roles, engineers in the Corps assess the conditions of our national
infrastructure to determine the need for repairs and maintenance. In
your view, what are the most urgent infrastructure requirements on
which we should focus attention and resources?
Mr. Woodley. Mr. Chairman, the most urgent infrastructure
requirements are to ensure the structural stability and soundness of
our aging inland waterways system and the portfolio of dams numbering
over 600 that the Corps operates and/or maintains. The inland waterway
system is showing a trend upward for unscheduled closures requiring
emergency repairs. This is an indicator of the challenge the Corps
increasingly faces in maintaining the reliability of the system. The
Corps is pursuing modernization projects and focusing its operation and
maintenance dollars on actions to reduce the risk of failures in the
system such as was experienced at Greenup Lock and Dam on the Ohio
River in the summer of 2003. In that case, the emergency closure cost
an estimated $25 million to the economy in direct repair costs and
economic impact of delay in waterway traffic. For the Corps portfolio
of dams, we must continue to invest in dam safety studies and repairs
of those dams requiring early attention. The Corps has recently adopted
an approach on risk assessment of all dams to ensure those requiring
repairs are prioritized across the Nation.
The Corps inspection program of federally constructed flood control
projects that are operated and maintained by local governments is
another important component of the Corps O&M program. The local
governments retain responsibility for repairs of these structures, some
of which have reached or exceeded the useful life to which they were
engineered.
The Corps will continue to address those water resources
infrastructure issues with the highest risk of failure or impacts to
operational reliability.
IMPROVE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
2. Senator Warner. Mr. Woodley, the Army Corps of Engineers is
responsible for a significant amount of military construction in the
Department of Defense. As a way to achieve cost savings, proposals have
been made to improve construction project management by adopting
private sector processes for expedient construction completion in order
to reduce payments for contractor overhead and expenses related to time
on a construction site. In your view, how can current practices and
processes in construction management conducted by the Corps benefit
from a study of private sector methods and trends to seek innovative
ways to improve the efficiency of military design and construction?
Mr. Woodley. Your question is timely and very germane to a current
initiative that is in response to the Army's Transformation imperative.
The Corps of Engineers in concert with the Army's Office of the
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (OACSIM) and the
Installation Management Agency (IMA) is working under a mandate from
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment), to
also transform the delivery of military construction. The prime drivers
will be timely delivery at lower cost utilizing commercial practices
and standards to the maximum extent practicable. To that end the Army
delivery team will be conducting several industry forums in the near
future to discuss and gain more private sector input into innovative
project delivery strategies. One of the major delivery methods will be
design-build, whereby the total responsibility for both the design and
construction rests with the contractor. This method allows the private
contractor to manage schedule and cost to achieve performance
requirements established by the Government. We plan to incorporate new
innovative delivery strategies and apply the lessons learned over the
next several years to execute Army Transformation military construction
as well as that necessitated by base closures, restationing, and
regular programs. While I am fully committed and always interested in
seeking ways to improve the construction practices of the Corps of
Engineers, the proponent for military construction is the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment), with whom I have
coordinated this response.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
NINIGRET AND CROSS MILLS POND PROJECT
3. Senator Reed. Mr. Woodley, the New England District of the Corps
recently informed my office that no further Federal funds are available
for the habitat restoration components of the Ninigret and Cross Mills
Pond project in Charlestown, Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Council and the Corps have been working
cooperatively on this project for several years, and the State has
provided its required 35 percent match. While the Corps is moving
forward with the dredging components of the project, the New England
District now says it has no Section 206 funding to plant eelgrass in
Ninigret Pond or restore a critical fish passage at Cross Mills Pond.
These two components were the primary justification for the project and
the reason the Rhode Island General Assembly provided the State match.
I am concerned that a failure by the Corps to fulfill its commitments
under this project will discourage the State from participating in
future ecosystem restoration projects with the Army Corps of Engineers.
Please describe the circumstances that resulted in a lack of funding
for the corps to fulfill its commitment on the Ninigret and Cross Mills
Pond project.
Mr. Woodley. The Ninigret and Cross Mills Pond project is an
excellent project providing important ecosystem enhancements to coastal
Rhode Island.
The first contract to be awarded was for the dredging at Ninigret
Pond. Priority for allocation of fiscal year 2005 funding was given to
projects listed in the committee reports accompanying the
appropriations act. Ninigret and Cross Mills Pond received $200,000 in
the fiscal year 2005 report language and $150,000 in fiscal year 2004
report language. The $684,000 allocated in fiscal year 2005 to support
the dredging contract enabled the contractor to proceed at a more
efficient rate during the environmental ``window'' for dredging, that
closes on March 31, 2005.
The dredging contractor will be ready to resume work when the
``window'' reopens in October 2005, assuming that the project continues
to enjoy the support of congressional appropriators and that sufficient
fiscal year 2006 funds are made available.
The eelgrass planting at Ninigret Pond logically should take place
at the completion of the dredging. This work could also take place in
fiscal year 2006 should sufficient funds be made available by Congress.
The fish passage construction at Cross Mills Pond also could take place
in fiscal year 2006 subject to continued congressional support in the
fiscal year 2006 appropriations.
4. Senator Reed. Mr. Woodley, would it be possible for the Corps to
secure additional section 206 or other funds to bring the Ninigret and
Cross Mills Pond Project to completion?
Mr. Woodley. The availability of funds to continue work on the
project in fiscal year 2006 will depend on committee actions on fiscal
year 2006 appropriations for energy and water development. Priority for
allocation of fiscal year 2006 funds will be given to projects named in
committee reports accompanying the appropriations act. Any funds
available for the Ninigret and Cross Mills Pond project would be used
first to complete the previously awarded dredging contract.
______
[The nomination reference of John Paul Woodley, Jr.,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
January 24, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
John Paul Woodley, Jr., of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary
of the Army, vice Michael Parker.
______
[The biographical sketch of John Paul Woodley, Jr., which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of John Paul Woodley, Jr.
On August 22, 2003, President George W. Bush appointed John Paul
Woodley, Jr., as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
Mr. Woodley is responsible for the supervision of the Army's Civil
Works program, including programs for conservation and development of
the Nation's water and wetland resources, flood control, navigation,
and shore protection.
Prior to his appointment as the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Mr. Woodley served as the Assistant Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Environment). In this capacity Mr. Woodley
oversaw the Defense environmental program, encompassing both
environmental restoration and compliance and pollution prevention
efforts. Mr. Woodley was also the principal advisor to the Secretary of
Defense on environmental, safety and occupational health policy and
programs.
Prior to his appointment as the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Environment), Mr. Woodley served as Secretary of Natural
Resources in the Cabinet of Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore from January
1998 until October 2001. As Secretary of Natural Resources, Mr. Woodley
supervised eight Virginia agencies responsible for environmental
regulation, permitting and enforcement, natural and historic
conservation, and outdoor recreation, including parks, fisheries, and
wildlife management.
Mr. Woodley also served as Deputy Attorney General of Virginia for
Government Operations beginning in 1994. The Government Operations
Division of the Attorney General's Office represented all state
agencies in the areas of administration, finance, transportation,
economic development, and natural resources.
Mr. Woodley attended Washington & Lee University in Lexington,
Virginia, on an Army R.O.T.C. scholarship. He received a Bachelor of
Arts degree from Washington & Lee in 1974, and was elected to Phi Beta
Kappa. Mr. Woodley also attended the Law School at Washington & Lee,
where he received his juris doctor degree cum laude in 1977.
Mr. Woodley served on active duty with the U.S. Army Judge Advocate
General's Corps from 1979 until 1985 and retired from the Army Reserve
in August 2003 as a Lieutenant Colonel. He has been awarded the Legion
of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal (2nd Oak Leaf Cluster), the
Army Commendation Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster), and the Army
Achievement Medal. His civilian awards include the Secretary of Defense
Medal for Outstanding Public Service. Mr. Woodley is a native of
Shreveport, Louisiana.
______
[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 Paul
Woodley, 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 Paul Woodley, Jr.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
3. Date of nomination:
January 24, 2005.
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 28, 1953; Shreveport, Louisiana.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Priscilla Ingersoll.
7. Names and ages of children:
Elizabeth, 18.
Cornelia, 16.
John Paul, 13.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
B.A., Washington & Lee, 1974.
J.D., Washington & Lee, 1977.
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.
1977-1979, Law Clerk, USDC, Richmond, VA;
1979-1985, U.S. Army;
1985-1990, Private law practice;
1990-1994, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney for Henrico County,
Virginia;
1994-1998, Deputy Attorney General of Virginia for Government
Operations;
1998-2001, Secretary of Natural Resources for the Commonwealth of
Virginia;
2001-2003, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Environment;
1985-2003, Army Reserves, Judge Advocate General Corps, Lieutenant
Colonel;
2003-2004, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works;
2005-present, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works.
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.
See 9 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.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Virginia State Bar.
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.
Richmond City Republican Committee, Member.
Henrico County Republican Committee, Member.
Third District Republican Committee, Chairman.
Republican National Lawyer's Association, Board Member.
Virginia Republican Lawyer's Association, Chairman.
Candidate for City Council of Lexington, Virginia.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
See (a) above.
(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.
30 October 1997 Gilmore for Governor $100
12 November 1997 Friends of Jerry $100
Kilgore
12 December 1997 Republican Black $100
Caucus
12 September 1998 Campaign for Honest $100
Change
19 October 1998 Bliley for Congress $100
27 May 1999 Hord for Delegate $100
23 March 2000 Henrico Republican $100
Committee
07 July 2000 Republican National $500
Lawyers Assn.
16 March 2001 Republican National $100
Lawyers Assn.
6 May 2003 Bush-Cheney 2004 $2,000
22 October 2003 Barbour for Governor $200
16 January 2004 Republican Party $100
2 March 2004 Fairfax County $160
Republican Committee
29 March 2004 Bush-Cheney 2004 $2,000
24 October 2004 Council of Republicans $100
for Environmental
Advocacy
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Legion of Merit; Meritorious Service Medal (2 oak leaf clusters);
Army Commendation Medal (1 oak leaf cluster); Army Achievement Medal.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Published article in ``The Military Engineer,'' May-June 2004
issue, entitled Civil Works and the Environment.
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 speeches to numerous groups and conferences. I have
records of only a few of these, which I will provide. [Nominee
responded and the information is retained 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.
John Paul Woodley, Jr.
This 3rd day of February 2005.
[The nomination of John Paul Woodley, Jr., was reported to
the Senate by Chairman Warner on March 17, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 12, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Buddie J. Penn by Chairman
Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
9 February 2005.
Hon. John Warner, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the
advanced policy questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me
to complete.
Sincerely,
B.J. Penn.
cc: Hon. Carl Levin,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. Almost two decades 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
definition of responsibilities, and most importantly, the focus on
``jointness'' 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 defense reforms have been fully implemented
and, judging from the performance of our joint forces in recent
conflicts, are very effective.
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 the focus on joint operations. A central tenet of these defense
reforms is to promote forces working jointly in combat operations.
Current joint efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq validate the success of
these reforms.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special
Operations reforms can be summarized as strengthening civilian control
over the military; 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; 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 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 specific proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy on
any proposed changes that pertain to naval installations, environmental
or safety concerns.
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment?
Answer. The role of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
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; 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 be responsible for these
duties within the overall priorities of the Secretary of the Navy and
pursue any other duties he may assign.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. As a career naval officer, I bring a significant depth of
understanding and appreciation of the naval culture and heritage to the
position. Serving as both the commanding officer of an aviation
squadron as well as the commanding officer of a major naval air
station, I understand how installations and facilities serve fleet
readiness needs. I understand the value safety plays as a critical
enabler of that readiness. My time in the civilian sector both inside
and outside of government gives me a unique perspective from which to
view current Navy and Marine Corps programs. My acquisition experience
and joint program experience will undoubtedly assist me in working with
other Service contemporaries in developing effective joint initiatives.
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 Installations and Environment?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to seek and listen to the concerns and
needs of the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as those who would appear
to have alternative views. I have found that successful leaders devise
practicable solutions that maximize successful outcomes for all
parties.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Navy would prescribe for you?
Answer. I am not aware of any additional duties at this time beyond
those outlined above that have traditionally been the province of this
position.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
following?
The Secretary of the Navy.
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to carry out the goals and
priorities of the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Navy.
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek the counsel and guidance of the
Under Secretary of the Navy and support his efforts to carry out the
goals and priorities of the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. The Chief of Naval Operations.
Answer. If confirmed, I will provide the support that the CNO
requires to execute his duties and responsibilities and achieve the
mission of the Navy.
Question. The Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Answer. If confirmed, I will provide the support that the
Commandant requires to execute his duties and responsibilities and
achieve the mission of the Marine Corps.
Question. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations
and Environment.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Installations and Environment to develop and execute
policies and initiatives of the President, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Navy.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work as part of a team to ensure that
we present the best efforts to support the Secretary of the Navy's
goals and priorities.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Army and Air Force for
Installations and Environment.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant
Secretaries of the Army and Air Force for Installations and Environment
to strengthen the cooperation between the Services. I will work to
foster a cordial and productive working relationship with these
colleagues.
Question. The General Counsel of the Navy.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the General Counsel
of the Navy on areas of mutual interest.
Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Judge Advocate
General of the Navy on areas of mutual interest.
Question. The Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Commander, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command to identify and implement policies and
practices that best support the needs of the Department of the Navy.
Question. The Commander, Navy Installations.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Commander, Navy
Installations to identify and implement policies and practices that
best support the needs of the Department of the Navy.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that you
would confront if confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations and Environment?
Answer. One major challenge will certainly be implementing the Base
Realignment and Closure 2005 recommendations in a timely and fiscally
responsible manner that benefits the Navy while working with
environmental regulators and local communities to expedite
environmental cleanup and disposal of the property. Another challenge
will be to continue the Department's environmental stewardship that
will ensure future access to the seas and land areas requirements
necessary to maintain military readiness needs. A third will be to
foster greater awareness for safety while seeking to avoid personal
injuries and property damage while and maintaining fleet readiness.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to work closely with Congress, the
Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of
the Marine Corps, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations
and Environment), as well as other governmental and non-governmental
organizations where appropriate.
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 Installations and Environment?
Answer. I am unaware of any serious problems in the performance of
the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations
and Environment.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the
Navy to evaluate the present situation and develop a strategic plan to
address areas requiring attention.
PRIORITIES
Question. What broad priorities would you establish, if confirmed,
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy for 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 AND BARRACKS PRIVATIZATION
Question. Congress has repeatedly expressed its support for
improving military family and unaccompanied housing through a variety
of methods. One option that has frequently been used to accelerate the
improvement of family housing is for a military service to enter into
an agreement with a private entity for the improvement, maintenance,
and management of family housing inventories at military installations.
To date this alternate method for the acquisition and improvement of
family housing has produced very encouraging results, but no projects
to privatize unaccompanied housing have been accomplished. If confirmed
for the position of Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations
and Environment you would have a key role in any decisions regarding
military family and unaccompanied housing. What are your views
regarding the privatization of military housing?
Answer. As a career naval officer, I am well aware of the
importance of military housing to the morale and welfare of sailors,
marines, and their families. The ability to leverage government
resources through partnership with the private sector helps 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 am generally aware of the Navy and Marine Corps housing
privatization programs and schedules. If confirmed, I will seek to
ensure the continued success of this effort.
Question. The Department of Defense has established 2008 as a goal
to improve the standards of military family housing. Do you believe
this goal is realistic and achievable for the Department of the Navy?
Answer. I understand that both the Navy and Marine Corps have
budgeted programs to eliminate inadequate homes. If confirmed, I will
work with the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and
the Commandant of the Marine Corps to attain this goal.
Question. What are your views regarding the feasibility of
privatizing unaccompanied housing?
Answer. I believe the core benefits of privatization, i.e., use of
private sector capital to acquire new units or rehabilitate existing
ones and use of seasoned property management corporations to operate
and maintain homes, has the potential to greatly benefit housing for
unaccompanied military members just as it has done for military family
housing.
Question. What do you believe must be done to make the
privatization of unaccompanied housing a viable program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will pursue implementation of the
demonstration projects authorized by Congress to validate this
innovative concept.
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 increases costs, many believe the greater privacy the
``1+1'' standard offers our enlisted personnel is important to
recruiting and retaining quality personnel. Others argue that the
``1+1'' standard could 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. I recognize that the ``1+1'' standard represents an effort
to improve living conditions and privacy for enlisted personnel. If
confirmed, I will work with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment, the Chief of Naval Operations, the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, and my counterparts in the Army and Air
Force to ensure that we have the flexibility to apply the best
solution, including the option to build to private sector standards, to
further improve living conditions.
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 sailors and marines have
a quality place to live and that we establish adequate housing in a
timely manner.
Question. The Navy recently embarked on an investment program to
construct unaccompanied housing for sailors currently living aboard
ships while docked in homeports. What goals and priorities has the Navy
established for this program? Do you believe the goals are realistic?
Answer. I understand that the Navy has established the goal to
budget by fiscal year 2008 housing ashore for unaccompanied sailors
currently living aboard ships while the ship is in homeport. As a
career naval officer, I applaud this initiative. If confirmed, I will
work with the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations
to bring this goal to reality.
Question. Do opportunities exist for the Navy to use the
unaccompanied housing privatization program to provide sailors adequate
barracks while in homeport?
Answer. I understand that the Navy has a solicitation underway for
proposals from developers to provide privatized unaccompanied housing
for sailors in San Diego, California, including those currently living
aboard ship. It is also seeking approval from the administration to
proceed with a second project in Hampton Roads, Virginia. If confirmed,
I will work to bring these demonstration projects to fruition.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
Question. The Department of Defense is currently authorized to
conduct one round of base realignment and closure (BRAC) in 2005. What
changes to the Navy's locations around the world do you foresee as a
result of the Department of Defense's global basing strategy review and
what impact will these changes have on BRAC decisions?
Answer. I have not participated in the Navy's BRAC analytical
process and thus I am not in a position to offer an opinion as to what
impact DOD's global basing strategy review will have on the Navy's BRAC
decisions. If confirmed, I will look into this question and advise the
Secretary of the Navy accordingly.
Question. The Secretary of Defense has stated that ``through base
realignment and closure we will reconfigure our current infrastructure
into one in which operational capacity maximizes both warfighting
capability and efficiency.'' If confirmed for the position of Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment, what role will
you have in making recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy
regarding the realignment and/or closure of Navy installations?
Answer. I have not discussed with the Secretary of the Navy what
role I will play in the BRAC 2005 process. If confirmed, I will provide
whatever support the Secretary requires to prepare the Department's
recommendations for closure and/or realignment of Navy and Marine Corps
installations.
Question. The DOD installation closure process resulting from BRAC
decisions has historically included close cooperation with the affected
local community in order to allow these communities an active and
decisive role in the reuse of property. Do you support the current BRAC
property disposal process and specifically the role of local
communities in that process?
Answer. Yes. I have reviewed the base closure law and find that it
sets forth a clearly defined role for local communities to prepare a
redevelopment plan for the property. It would seem to provide
sufficient flexibility for the military department to use a variety of
property disposal methods based upon individual circumstances.
INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. Witnesses appearing before the committee in recent years
have testified that the military services underinvest in both the
maintenance and recapitalization of facilities and infrastructure
compared to private industry standards. Decades of underinvestment in
our installations have led to substantial backlogs of facility
maintenance activities, created substandard living and working
conditions, and made it harder to take advantage of new technologies
that could increase productivity. If confirmed, what recommendations
would you propose to restore and preserve the quality of our
infrastructure?
Answer. Earlier in my career I was fortunate to serve in the Navy
as a pilot in an A-3 squadron, the commanding officer of a VAQ EA-6B
squadron, and the commanding officer of Naval Air Station North Island,
CA. If confirmed, I believe I would bring to the position a unique
blend of experience in how high quality infrastructure can best serve
our warfighters and their families.
ENCROACHMENT PROBLEMS
Question. How should the Navy and Marine Corps address encroachment
problems associated with increased population growth and development
near Navy and Marine Corps installations and ranges?
Answer. I believe we need to work closely with local communities as
they develop land use management plans and zoning restrictions. We need
to explain how local land use planning can affect our ability to meet
military training and readiness needs.
Question. What are the biggest challenges to military readiness
caused by population encroachment?
Answer. The number of bases and ranges we use for training and
readiness is unlikely to increase substantially, so it is critical that
we maximize effective use of existing facilities. Being qualified to
fly numerous different military and civilian aircraft, I recognize the
competing needs for air space and the pressures brought by residential
and commercial development next to our bases, ranges, and below
military flight paths. Population encroachment can also destroy
habitat, driving wildlife, including endangered species, onto military
bases, thereby increasing stewardship responsibilities and potentially
affecting military missions performed on the base.
Question. To what extent should the Navy and Marine Corps turn to
military buffers and easements to reduce population encroachment?
Answer. Buffers and restrictive use easements around military bases
and ranges can be effective tools and we should look for opportunities
to use those tools where prudent. Buffers and easements alone, however,
will not solve the problem. We need to work with state legislatures and
local governments to ensure that land use plans consider military
training requirements needs and seek to avoid future encroachment
issues.
SUSTAINABLE RANGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Question. The Department of Defense is developing a sustainable
range management plan (SRMP) which helps develop a current and future
inventory of range requirements and a plan to ensure such requirements
can be maintained in the future. Please describe how the Navy and
Marine Corps are involved in developing the Department's SRMP and
specifically how the SRMP will help maintain testing and training
capabilities at Navy and Marine Corps ranges.
Answer. As a former naval aviator, I understand the vital role that
our ranges serve to train our forces and test our platforms and
weapons. I also understand that both the Navy and Marine Corps have
range sustainability programs to develop site-specific range
sustainment plans, analyses of mission capabilities, and assessments to
determine if contaminants from training activities will adversely
affect human health and the environment. The range management plans
will include actions to apply best range management. If confirmed, I
will work to ensure that management plans are implemented to ensure the
long-term viability of our ranges.
UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE CLEANUP
Question. What is the status of the Department of the Navy's
cleanup of unexploded ordnance at former Navy and Marine Corps ranges?
Answer. While I do not know the status of programs to clean our
closed ranges, I do know that we have a legal responsibility to do so
and that both the Navy and Marine Corps have efforts underway for range
cleanup. I plan to learn more about these programs if confirmed and
ensure that the Department's cleanup obligations are fulfilled.
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 take,
if confirmed, to balance the need to maintain necessary decisionmaking
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 am aware that the Department has a process to evaluate
functions to determine whether they are potential candidates for
outsourcing, however I am unfamiliar with the details of that process.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Department obtains the
optimum balance of private sector and in-house capability to best
support the operations and maintenance of our military installations. I
believe that the Department must maintain an objective and transparent
process for establishing potential candidates for outsourcing.
Question. Do you support the principle of public-private
competitions as the preferred means to make the ``sourcing'' decision
for such function?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy
and the Department of the Navy staff to evaluate the issue of public-
private competition and whether it should be the preferred means to
make the ``sourcing'' decision for such function. I support the
underlying principle of competition to make sourcing decisions for
functions that are commercial in nature. Competition requires all
parties to be innovative and cost effective in the delivery of a
product or service.
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 am aware of data gathered from the Department's official
tracking system that demonstrates an average 36 percent savings from
the original cost to perform the competed effort, regardless of which
side wins the competition. I also understand that the government
workforce has won the preponderance of public/private competitions the
Department has conducted.
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. As a political appointee, I consider it my duty to be an
advocate for the policies of the administration. However, I will always
be prepared to provide my best professional judgment when asked.
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 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
ENCROACHMENT OF NAVAL INSTALLATIONS
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, a growing problem facing our military
is the growing constraints on the use of military bases and ranges due
to the requirements of environmental laws and regulations and increased
urban development. In your view, how should this Nation address the
growing encroachment of our naval facilities in order to meet the long-
term test, training, and readiness needs of the United States Navy in
the coming decades?
Mr. Penn. I believe we need to work closely with local communities
as they develop land use management plans and associated zoning
restrictions. We need to explain how local land use planning can affect
our ability to meet military training and readiness needs. I am aware
of recent initiatives by some states to ensure that land use planning
consider the impact that new development might have on military bases
and activities. I am also aware that land conservation authority
Congress provided in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2003 can help establish buffer zones and restrictive use easements
to enhance training and readiness and provide insurance against future
encroachment.
CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF INSTALLATIONS
2. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, the Navy decided in recent years to
centralize the management of naval installations in one agency,
Commander, Navy Installations (CNI) for the Navy. This reorganization
removed the control of Operations and Maintenance resources from the
local installation commander and placed these responsibilities with
regional offices and a national headquarters. Concerns have been raised
that the commanders charged with accomplishing the mission no longer
have insight into where funds are actually needed. What is your opinion
of centralizing naval installation management?
Mr. Penn. I was an installation commander of Naval Air Station
North Island, CA, earlier in my Navy career when the Navy's shore
infrastructure was managed by as many as 18 different commands. There
was a lot of duplication among the various bases along the San Diego
waterfront. For example, each base might have its own offices for
billeting, security, budget, etc., and develop its own policies and
priorities that may or may not be consistent with those on another base
just down the road.
I believe centralized installation management, as has been
accomplished with the establishment of Commander, Navy Installations,
can improve efficiency and consistency, while reducing installation
support costs, especially as the Navy continues to consolidate and
transform the way it operates in an electronically connected world.
3. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, has this change impacted the ability
of installations and their commanders to support mission requirements?
Mr. Penn. I believe the intent of centralized management of
installations was to improve the Navy's ability to support the
warfighter while reducing infrastructure costs. I plan to visit Navy
regional commands and installations to assess for myself how well this
new organizational structure is performing, and seek to resolve any
impediments to success that I may encounter.
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FOR BRAC REAL PROPERTY
4. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, a major activity within the disposal
and re-use of property affected by a base realignment and closure
(BRAC) decision will be the determination of the acceptable amount of
environmental cleanup and remediation. Historically in prior BRAC
action, those parties receiving the property have always wanted the
cleanest site possible, while the government has always strived to
clean up the site to minimum acceptable standards in order to save
money. While a difficult problem to rectify, the military departments
worked diligently in the past rounds to come up with a compromise on
intended use of the property that was acceptable to all parties. If you
are confirmed, will you continue the process of working with local
communities to determine and agree on an acceptable use before
establishing an environmental remediation plan?
Mr. Penn. Yes, I expect the Department of the Navy to continue to
closely coordinate property cleanup and disposal activities with
Federal and State environmental regulators as well as community based
Restoration Advisory Boards. It is important to note that, in contrast
to the installations closed in earlier BRAC rounds 10 to 15 years ago,
the Department's cleanup program at Navy and Marine Corps bases is much
further along, with environmental cleanup completed or well underway at
most sites, and the nature and extent of the contamination much better
understood on the remaining sites.
BRAC RE-USE POLICY
5. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, as the president's nominee to be the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and the Environment,
one of your primary responsibilities will be the timely completion of
closures and realignments of installations in accordance with base
closure laws. We will have the difficult task of working with
communities in the coming years to close military bases as a result of
decisions made in the 2005 BRAC round. You have stated in written
responses that you agree that current law sets forth a clearly defined
role for local communities to prepare a redevelopment plan for the
properties made available by BRAC. That is consistent with
congressional intent. What is your interpretation of congressional
intent in relation to the Navy seeking fair market value for the
property?
Mr. Penn. I understand that the base closure law requires the
Administrator of General Services to delegate to the Secretary of
Defense the authority to dispose of surplus property at closed or
realigned military installations, and requires the Secretary to do so
in accordance with the regulations governing disposal of surplus
property under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949. Another section of the base closure law provides authority to
convey property to the local redevelopment authority for purposes of
job generation on the installation. In amending that provision in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Congress
directed the DOD to seek to obtain consideration in an amount equal to
the fair market value of the property. The conference report
accompanying that change stated, ``The conference agreement would
require the Secretary of Defense to obtain fair market value for
economic development conveyances in most cases, unless the Secretary
determines the circumstances warrant a below-cost or no-cost
conveyance.''
6. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, in your view, will the Navy's desire
to seek a maximum financial return interfere or trump the requirement
to work with the local community, to assist them with economic
development and renewal?
Mr. Penn. I do not believe that seeking maximum financial return
will be the overriding Navy goal in disposing of property at closed or
realigned installations, and I do not expect it will interfere with or
trump the requirement to give deference to the redevelopment plan
submitted by the redevelopment authority for the installation. I expect
the Navy to use all of the available property disposal authorities in
the proper circumstances, including economic development conveyances,
public benefit conveyances, and public sales. In that context, use of
the public sale property disposal authority can be a very effective
means of assisting a local community with economic development and
renewal and other property reuse objectives. For example, I understand
that the Navy's recent sale of property at the former Marine Corps Air
Station El Toro will result in up to 70 percent of the property being
dedicated by the property purchaser to the local government for public
purposes, and that developer fees will pay for many of the improvements
needed to implement the desired public uses.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
BASE CONTROL FUNCTIONS
7. Senator McCain. Mr. Penn, several years ago the Navy chose to
regionalize many of its bases within geographic areas. This process has
removed many functions that a base commanding officer used to exercise
control over and sent them to another base in the region. I have heard
many commanding officers express their frustration with the process. Do
you expect the Navy to continue down this path and if so, what do you
think needs to change with the program to reestablish some element of
oversight and control to the base commanding officer?
Mr. Penn. The Navy's efforts to consolidate its shore
infrastructure under a new Commander Navy Installations has been in
effect for about 1\1/2\ years, with savings from organizational
efficiencies projected into the Future Years Defense Plan. I plan to
visit Navy regional commands and installations to assess for myself how
well this new organizational structure is performing, and take action
to resolve any concerns.
INSTALLATIONS FUNDING REVIEWS
8. Senator McCain. Mr. Penn, in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (under Title XXVII-General Provisions, Items
of Special Interest p. 441 ``Central management of installations) there
is a legislative provision that requires the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a report to the Senate Armed Services Committee by February 1,
2005 that assesses several elements of the chronic under funding of
facility sustainment and base operations accounts under Commander, Navy
Installations. Are you aware of the report? Do you know that it has not
been submitted on time? If confirmed, would you review it for
completeness and forward it to Congress after your review?
Mr. Penn. Yes. The report was signed out to Congress on February 8,
2005. I will familiarize myself with this report and the trends that it
portrays.
9. Senator McCain. Mr. Penn, although the Naval Academy is an
installation and falls under the purview of CNI--it is very different
from most installations. It has many historical and cultural buildings
that are on the National Register and needs more to upkeep and maintain
because of their age and historical aspects of their infrastructure.
Additionally, the Naval Academy is the very soul of the Navy, the
repository of its core values, history and traditions, the benchmark of
its leadership. Many young men and women and their parents visit the
Naval Academy and based on their visit determine whether they will make
the Navy or Marine Corps a career. Since CNI has become responsible for
the Naval Academy installation, overall funding for Naval Academy
services has declined by 24-30 percent. Can we continue to afford the
shortfalls in services, infrastructure maintenance, and construction at
the Naval Academy and what do you intend to do about it?
Mr. Penn. The Naval Academy serves a unique role as a beacon of
naval culture and in shaping the core leadership values of future naval
warriors. As such, Naval Academy facilities warrant special
consideration. I am told that CNI and the U.S. Naval Academy have
developed a collaborative solution that defines certain areas as
prestige areas that are to be resourced at a capability level above
comparable areas at other shore stations. The remaining areas of the
institution will remain resourced similar to other Navy shore stations.
This will allow the Naval Academy to maintain an appropriate public
appearance, remain competitive with other service academies, and
promote pride and professionalism in the present and future leaders of
the U.S. Navy.
I will seek to ensure that facilities at the Naval Academy, along
with facilities at all other Navy and Marine Corps bases, have the
necessary resources to meet their mission requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey O. Graham
JOINT MILITARY COMPLEX
10. Senator Graham. Mr. Penn, one of the stated goals of the BRAC
process is jointness, including establishing joint military complexes.
Our military facilities in Charleston are already informally working in
that direction. The Charleston Air Force Base Commander and the Weapons
Station Commanding Officer dialogue on a regular basis and have many
common goals. They share ranges, explosive ordnance unit support, and
working dogs to mention a few. Unfortunately, although they have common
missions and responsibilities that could be combined, no one has
figured out how to fund this or other joint complexes. What are your
views on the concept of a joint military complex?
Mr. Penn. I believe there will be many opportunities in the near
future to expand joint facilities opportunities across the Department
of Defense. Many nearby installations, like those you cite in the
Charleston area, already use interservice support agreements to
facilitate host-tenant agreements as a first step toward improving
services and reducing costs. I understand that an effort is underway by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments to
facilitate more advanced joint facility opportunities by defining
common output levels of service. This will allow all components to have
a common understanding of the level of services that they can expect to
receive and pay for, or will be expected to provide at a joint base. I
will join with my colleagues in the Department of Defense to help
promote greater opportunities for joint facilities where practicable,
particularly with respect to any joint basing decisions that may emerge
from BRAC 2005.
JOINT MILITARY COMPLEX
11. Senator Graham. Mr. Penn, how would you apportion the funding
and what would be the allocation mechanism?
Mr. Penn. I have no preconceived opinions on apportioning funds for
joint basing. Some believe that each component should retain its
installation funding, and negotiate annual agreements with the
component who will provide the service to include the work to be
performed and the reimbursement mechanisms. This approach would provide
greater flexibility to each component. Others believe that designation
of a single component with overall responsibility, along with a one-
time budget based transfer provides for simpler accountability and
predictable resources. There are of course many variations between
these positions. I will work with my colleagues to pursue joint funding
approaches that are practicable, efficient, and responsive to the needs
of the components.
CONSEQUENCES OF BRAC
12. Senator Graham. Mr. Penn, as we move forward with BRAC, I have
a real concern for the impact on people, particularly civil service
engineers. We have a large shortage of engineers throughout DOD. In
past BRACs we experienced a loss of 40 to 60 percent of civil servants
in some cases because they did not want to move to new locations and
there was available work in the civil sector. You have seen in your
experience in DOD and the commercial sector that subordinate units and
workers do not need to be collocated with headquarters to operate
efficiently and effectively. In many respects we live in a virtual
world. I would like to hear your view on the shortage of DOD engineers
and the risks we take to realign units with headquarters simply to have
them collocated.
Mr. Penn. Military and civilian engineers play a very important
role in the Navy, perhaps no more vital than military engineers
assigned to Navy SEABEE construction battalions that provide forward
deployed construction support to warfighters. I will work with the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs along
the Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command to ensure that the
Navy and Marine Corps can continue to attract and retain highly
qualified military and civilian engineers from a broad array of
disciplines to support our facilities and environmental mission
requirements.
13. Senator Graham. Mr. Penn, along these same lines, commercial
industry seems to be following a model of locating its operations in
low labor cost areas, yet we see DOD operating or considering
consolidating some activities in high labor cost areas such as the west
coast or the north east that are up to 30 percent more expensive that
locations in my State. In some instance, the civil service grade level
is also higher for the same position. Do you think this makes good
business sense for the DOD?
Mr. Penn. The cost of operations in a new area is taken into
account for each BRAC 2005 scenario that is considered. While cost
efficiencies are certainly desirable, military operational
considerations and readiness needs, as specified in the BRAC statute,
will be the primary driver for closure and realignment recommendations
made by the Secretary of Defense. BRAC law sets out a very fair process
and requires all bases be treated equally. All recommendations are to
be based on a 20-year force structure plan, infrastructure inventory
and published selection criteria; all data used is certified as
accurate and complete and provided to the Commission and Congress; and
all DOD recommendations will be reviewed by independent Commission and
President.
SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE MODEL
14. Senator Graham. Mr. Penn, the Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR)
Systems Center Charleston is the most cost effective engineering center
in the Navy and is providing a strong return on investment from the
1993 BRAC consolidation and modernization. It is located on a joint use
base and operates as a major transformation hub by providing command,
control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) systems and capabilities to all the Services,
most combatant commands, and the Department of Homeland Security. All
of this is accomplished within a working capital fund organization
operating as the most efficient of all the Navy engineering and warfare
centers. Do you see this as an effective model for other DOD activities
to follow?
Mr. Penn. It appears that this model has worked well in this case;
however this may not be true in all cases. Other organizations may have
particular needs or circumstances and might not benefit in the same way
as Charleston.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
WAIVING OF DEPOT LAWS
15. Senator Akaka. Mr. Penn, on November 15, 2002, Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the first steps in implementing the
new 2005 BRAC law. These included development of a force structure
plan, comprehensive inventory of military installations, and
establishment of criteria for selecting bases for closure and
realignment. However, under BRAC law, it is my understanding that the
conferees of the National Defense Authorization Act did not give the
DOD the authority to waive the depot laws through BRAC. Does the Navy
understand that DOD does not have the authority to waive the depot laws
through BRAC?
Mr. Penn. Yes, the Navy understands that DOD does not have the
authority to waive the depot laws through BRAC.
______
[The nomination reference of Buddie J. Penn follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
January 25, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Buddie J. Penn, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, vice H.T. Johnson.
______
[The biographical sketch of Buddie J. Penn, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Buddie J. Penn
Mr. Penn was appointed Director, Industrial Base Assessments on
October 2, 2001. In this position, he is responsible for the overall
health of the U.S. Defense industrial base; the Department's policies
and plans to ensure existing and future industrial capabilities can
meet the Defense missions; guidelines and procedures for maintaining
and enhancing and transformation of the Defense industrial base,
industrial base impact assessments of acquisition strategies of key
programs, supplier base considerations, and offshore production. He
provides oversight for several regulatory programs involving the
defense industrial base such as assessments of domestic mergers,
acquisitions and takeovers for any anti-competitive impacts under the
Hart-Scott-Rodino anti-trust statute, national security review of
foreign acquisitions of defense-related U.S.-located firms under the
Exon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Production Act, and management of
a contract priority performance system, the Defense Priorities and
Allocations System under Title I of the Defense Production Act. He is
responsible for financial assessments of the defense industrial base
and interface with Wall Street analysts that manage accounts relating
to defense firms.
Mr. Penn began his career as a Naval Aviator. He amassed over 6,500
flight hours in 16 different types of aircraft. He was EA-6B Pilot of
the Year in 1972. Significant leadership assignments include: Executive
Officer/Commanding Officer VAQ 33, Battalion Officer at the U.S. Naval
Academy (including Officer-in-Charge of the Plebe Detail for the class
of 1983), Air Officer in U.S.S. America, Special Assistant to the Chief
of Operations, Commanding Officer of NAS North Island, CA, and Deputy
Director of the Navy Office of Technology Transfer & Security
Assistance.
Mr. Penn joined the Sector staff of Loral Federal Systems in 1995
as Director, International Business. Primary assignments involved
airborne Electronic Warfare and Defensive Electronic Counter Measure
Systems. When Lockheed Martin acquired Loral, he was assigned to the
Corporate Staff to develop markets in Central and Eastern Europe. In
1998, he transferred to Naval Electronics and Surveillance Systems
working Advanced Programs. In this capacity, he supported development
of the Interoperability Concept of Operations (CONOPs) for JSF,
technology refreshment for the F-16 and development of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle and Autonomous Undersea Vehicle efforts and C\4\ISR
initiatives.
Mr. Penn was born and raised in Peru, IN. He received his BS from
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN and his MS from The George
Washington University, Washington, DC. He has also received
certificates in Aerospace Safety from the University of Southern
California and in National Security for Senior Officials from the
Kennedy School, 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 Buddie J. Penn
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.)
Buddie Joe Penn.
B.J. Penn.
Buddie J. (BJ) Penn.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment).
3. Date of nomination:
January 24, 2005.
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:
04-02-38; Peru, Indiana.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Loretta Medlock.
7. Names and ages of children:
Emily Jeneva Penn Grooms, 40.
Eric Jeffrey Penn, 40.
Brian Joseph Penn, 41.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Peru High School, 1952-1956, High School Diploma.
Purdue University, 1956-1960, Bachelor of Science, 1960.
George Washington University, 1978-1980, Master of Science, 1980.
Harvard University, 1990, Certificate, National 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.
Director, Industrial Base Assessment, DOD, 1745 Jeff Davis Hwy.,
Crystal Square 4, Ste. 501, Arlington, VA, 10/01-present.
Manager, C\4\I Systems, Lockheed Martin Corp., Manassas, VA, 02/98-
10/01.
Director, NIS Tactical Systems Sector, Lockheed Martin Corp., 1725
Jeff Davis Hwy., Crystal Sq. 2, Ste 900, Arlington, VA, 06/96-02/98.
Director Business Development Liaison, Loral Federal Systems, 6600
Rockledge Dr., Bethesda, MD, 06/95-06/99.
BJ Penn and Associates, President, B.J. Penn, Fort Lauderdale, FL,
03/95-06/95.
Pilot, KALAIR, London Heathrow Airport, London UK, UB35AP, 05/92-
02/95.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
Bush-Cheney 2000 and Bush-Cheney 2004, Inc.
Antioch Baptist Church, 1999-present, no office held.
Antioch Bible Institute, 2003-present, no office held.
Hopewell Baptist Church, 1993-1996, no office held.
National Naval Officers Association, 1973-present, President.
Association of Naval Aviation, 1994-2004, no office held.
Tailhook Association, 1970-2004, no office held.
Association of Retired Officers, 1991-2004, no office held.
The Old Crows, 1972-2004, no office held.
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, 1974-present, no office held.
City Club of Washington, 2002-present, no office held.
Army Navy Club, 1988-present, no office held.
Fairfax Rod and Gun Club, 1998-present, no office held.
National Rifle Association, 2001-present, no office held.
The Canadian Goose Hunting Club, 1974-present, no office held.
Quantico Flying Club, 2004, no office 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.
Bush-Cheney 2000 and Bush-Cheney 2004, Inc.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Not applicable.
(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 2000, $2000.
Bush-Cheney 2004, Inc., $2004.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Legion of Merit (2).
Meritorious Service Medal.
Air Medal (10).
Meritorious Unit Commendation.
Navy Commendation Medal.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Not applicable.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
Buddie J. Penn.
This 26th day of September 2004.
[The nomination of Buddie J. Penn was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on February 17, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on February 17, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to ADM William J. Fallon,
USN, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost two decades 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 these reforms, particularly in your
assignments as Commander, Carrier Air Wing EIGHT, in 1991 during
Operation Desert Storm, as Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans and
Policy for Supreme Allied Command, Atlantic, from 1993 to 1995, and as
Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff for United States Atlantic Command
from 1996 to 1997. Do you support full implementation of these defense
reforms?
Answer. Yes. I support full implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols
Act reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented in the Navy vis-a-vis the other Services?
Answer. In my experience, the Department of Defense and the Armed
Services have embraced these reforms. The Navy, like the other
Services, went through some difficult adjustments in the initial stages
of implementing the Goldwater-Nichols reforms. Traditional attitudes
and approaches had to give way to innovation and change. The Services
work and operate together much better today than pre-Goldwater-Nichols.
The Navy faces a unique challenge in that our people operate at sea and
the premium we place on gaining experience in that environment has made
it difficult for some officers to complete the joint educational
requirements of Goldwater-Nichols. Recently, there has been substantial
progress in this area.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. First and foremost, the reforms have improved our
collective warfighting effectiveness and efficiency. In addition to
strengthening civilian control of the military and clarifying chain of
command relationships, they provided a clear delineation of the
combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities as they relate
to the planning and execution of their missions. We have made
significant progress in joint training, exercises and experiments.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special
Operations reforms can be summarized as strengthening civilian control
over the military; 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; 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 believe that legislative proposals to amend
Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you think it
might be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I do not have any recommendations to amend Goldwater-
Nichols at this time; however, if confirmed, I would not hesitate to
offer proposals in the future should I see something that might be
helpful.
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command?
Answer. The duties and functions of Commander, U.S. Pacific Command
include exercising command authority over commands and forces assigned
to the Pacific Command and prescribing, organizing, and employing
subordinate commands and forces to carry out the Pacific Command's
assigned mission. Fundamentally, that mission is to deter attacks
against the United States and its territories, possessions, and bases,
and to protect Americans and American interests and, in the event that
deterrence fails, to fight and win.
As a combatant commander, the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command is
responsible to the President and the Secretary of Defense for the
performance of these duties, the preparedness of assigned forces, and
the execution of its missions.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have benefited from a broad range of assignments during
my nearly 38 years in uniform, from tactical to operational command,
and have considerable experience with joint and coalition operations,
including combat operations. I was privileged to command Carrier Air
Wing EIGHT in U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt in 1991 during Operation Desert
Storm. In 1995, as a flag officer, I served as Commander, Carrier Group
EIGHT and Commander, Battle Force, U.S. SIXTH Fleet during NATO's
Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia. During these operations, I worked
closely with joint U.S. and combined forces in planning, coordinating,
and executing sustained combat operations. I also served as Deputy
Director for Operations, Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia, directing air operations in the Iraqi No-Fly Zones. I
have additional experience in joint and combined planning and
operations at both the operational and strategic levels through
assignments as Assistant Chief of Staff, Plans and Policy, for Supreme
Allied Commander, Atlantic and as Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff
for the U.S. Atlantic Fleet and the former U.S. Atlantic Command, the
predecessor to U.S. Joint Forces Command. For nearly 3 years, I served
as Commander, U.S. Second Fleet and NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic,
working directly with all U.S. armed services as well as those of our
NATO allies in training and in developing and testing joint and
combined tactics for the entire spectrum of combat operations. As Vice
Chief of Naval Operations from 2000 to 2003, I worked in close
cooperation with OSD, the Joint Staff, and the other armed services
developing transformational strategies and joint requirements. In my
current assignment as Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, I serve as
Naval component commander to U.S. Joint Forces Command, and support
U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Strategic Command. The widely varied
opportunities I have had during my career have given me a deep
appreciation of, and experience with, all branches of our Armed Forces
and many of our allies.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform the duties of the Commander,
U.S. Pacific Command?
Answer. I intend to solicit the experience, advice and counsel of
members of this committee, the U.S. Government, specifically,
Department of Defense and Department of State personnel, as well as
leaders and knowledgeable people throughout the Asia-Pacific region in
order to broaden my understanding of U.S. positions and relationships
in the region. I will meet with U.S. Pacific Command staff divisions,
subordinate organizations and component commanders to understand fully
the issues and challenges they face. I intend to develop personal
working relationships with the military and civilian leadership of the
nations throughout the Pacific region, to better understand their
concerns while continuing to represent U.S. national interests.
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 commanders of 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
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, to the following officials because the
question is related to PACOM, relations to other than the SECDEF and
Chairman are reasonably inferred:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command performs his duties under
the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, and
is directly responsible to him to carry out its assigned missions.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Defense performs duties as directed
by the Secretary, and performs the duties of the Secretary in his
absence. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command is responsible to ensure that
the Deputy Secretary has the information necessary to perform these
duties, and coordinates with him on major issues.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Answer. Under secretaries are key advocates for combatant commander
requirements. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command coordinates and exchanges
information with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on strategic
policy issues involving the Asia-Pacific region.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command coordinates and exchanges
information with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence as
needed to set and meet the U.S. Pacific Command's priorities and
requirements for intelligence support.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman is the principal military advisor to the
President, National Security Council, and Secretary of Defense. Section
163 of title 10, U.S. Code, allows communication between the President
or the Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders to flow
through the Chairman. As is custom and traditional practice, and as
instructed by the Unified Command Plan, I would communicate with the
Secretary through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The secretaries of the military departments are responsible
for the administration and support of forces assigned to the combatant
commands. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command coordinates closely with the
secretaries to ensure that requirements to organize, train, and equip
Pacific Command forces are met.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command communicates and exchanges
information with the Service Chiefs to support their responsibility for
organizing, training, and equipping forces. Successful execution of
U.S. Pacific Command's mission responsibilities requires close
coordination with the Service Chiefs. If confirmed, I intend to work
closely with the Service Chiefs of Staff to understand their service
capabilities and to effectively employ those capabilities as required
to execute the missions of U.S. Pacific Command.
Question. The other Combatant Commanders.
Answer. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command maintains close
relationships with the other combatant commanders. These relationships
are critical to the execution of our National Military Strategy, and
are characterized by mutual support, frequent contact, and productive
exchanges of information on key issues.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Commander, U.S. Pacific Command?
Stability on the Korean Peninsula, complicated by
North Korean development of WMD and proliferation of these
weapons and delivery systems.
China/Taiwan cross-strait tensions, combined with
China's emergence as a regional power and the increase in
Chinese military capabilities.
Terrorism and other transnational threats.
Narcoterrorism, piracy, proliferation, and human trafficking,
linked through illegal banking and finance, threaten the
region. This is a particular challenge in the southeast Asian
archipelagos where extremist Islamic ideology and terrorist-
linked movements exist.
Transforming U.S. global force posture to respond to a
complex security environment that includes irregular,
catastrophic, traditional, and disruptive challenges to our
national interests.
The scope and span of the region, which encompasses
the three most populous countries in the world--China, India,
and Indonesia--and the vast expanse of the Pacific and Indian
Oceans, an area of 100 million square miles.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. Specifically, I intend to:
Support U.S. national interests and policies.
Work in close consultation with U.S. agencies and
military commanders, and with our many friends in the region to
develop a clear understanding and appreciation of U.S. national
interests and the issues facing the nations in the U.S. Pacific
Command region.
Identify steps that can be taken to signal the strong
resolve of the United States to support U.S. national interests
and to enhance regional stability.
Posture U.S. forces to ensure readiness, agility,
flexibility, and readiness, emphasizing the ability to respond
and deploy rapidly if required.
HOMELAND DEFENSE
Question. What is your understanding of the role and responsibility
of U.S. Pacific Command in homeland defense?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense's Contingency Planning Guidance
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Strategic
Capabilities Plan direct PACOM to deter attacks against the homeland as
early and as far away as possible, defend the PACOM domestic AOR, and
to work with and provide support to civil authorities. (Specific
taskings within these documents are classified.) As part of the larger
effort, U.S. Pacific Command's plan complements and is integrated with
the ongoing global war on terrorism, combating weapons of mass
destruction, homeland security, and relevant contingency planning and
activities.
Question. What is your understanding of how U.S. Pacific Command
and U.S. Northern Command work to ensure that their overlapping
missions in this area do not create ``seams'' that might be exploited
by our adversaries and how this process might be improved?
Answer. In October 2003, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command and
Commander, U.S. Northern Command signed a Command Arrangement
Agreement, to ``establish procedures and delineate responsibilities''
between the two commands. This agreement also prescribes employment of
U.S. Pacific Command forces in support of U.S. Northern Command
missions and the control of forces operating in Northern Command's area
of responsibility. Both commands, by conducting Joint Exercises, have
validated the arrangements, demonstrating commitment to homeland
defense. We will continue to develop a close working relationship
between the two commands.
Question. What is your assessment of the Regional Maritime Security
Initiative, and what steps should be taken to improve upon it?
Answer. The Regional Maritime Security Initiative offers an
opportunity to address transnational threats collectively with
participating states. The initiative is gaining momentum in the Asia-
Pacific region. Its effectiveness can be increased through better
information sharing and investing the time and effort to improve
understanding of the challenges and needs of the partner nations. This
will remain a high priority effort.
Question. How could U.S. Pacific Command forces and expertise
contribute to more effective homeland defense capabilities?
Answer. U.S. Pacific Command's military and intelligence activities
in the western approaches to the continental United States contribute
to the Nation's active, layered defense. Improvements in our ability to
collect actionable intelligence and maintain situational awareness are
critical to our ability to combat threats. Active regional engagement
is a key to success. We will facilitate this effort by maintaining and
building on Pacific Command's Theater Security Cooperation Program.
GLOBAL DEFENSE POSTURE REVIEW
Question. Perhaps more than in any other combatant command,
military exigencies in the U.S. Pacific Command are subject to the
``tyranny of distance'' in getting forces to points of conflict. How
important is the forward homebasing strategy to the ability of U.S.
Pacific Command to execute its operational contingencies, and is the
ongoing Global Posture Review taking this into account?
Answer. The forward basing and presence of rotational forces is key
to U.S. Pacific Command's ability to assure allies and friends in the
region, deter potential adversaries, and execute operational
contingencies when required. U.S. Pacific Command is fully integrated
into the ongoing Global Posture Review, adjusting our posture from a
static Cold War orientation to one that is more agile and flexible,
with improved capabilities to better address current and potential
threats.
Question. What are the implications of the proposed global force
structure changes with respect to U.S. Pacific Command's AOR,
particularly in Korea and Japan?
Answer. The objective of the proposed changes is to better position
U.S. forces to respond to present and future challenges. I intend to
study the proposed changes immediately so that I fully understand the
details of the proposals, and their implications for our global and
regional defense strategies.
Question. What impact, if any, will the proposed changes in posture
have on our ability to defend South Korea and Japan, and to react to a
crisis in the Taiwan Strait?
Answer. As I understand the proposed posture changes, U.S. forces
will continue to be in a position to defend South Korea and Japan, and
to react to a crisis in the Taiwan Strait.
NORTH KOREA
Question. North Korea represents one of the greatest near term
threats to U.S. national security interests in Asia. What is your
assessment of the current security situation on the Korean peninsula
and the diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to verifiably
dismantle its nuclear weapons program?
Answer. North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile programs remain a
serious concern. Additionally, the North Korean conventional force
posture, particularly the forward basing of a large percentage of its
most-capable forces, creates a volatile threat environment. U.S.
Pacific Command's job is to facilitate ongoing diplomatic efforts aimed
at addressing the threat, while maintaining a credible deterrent
posture.
Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed to the United
States and its allies by North Korea's ballistic missile and WMD
capabilities and the export of those capabilities?
Answer. North Korea's continuing development and proliferation of
WMD and ballistic missile capabilities pose a serious threat to the
U.S. and our allies.
Question. What, if anything, should be done to strengthen
deterrence on the Korean peninsula?
Answer. While diplomatic efforts continue, PACOM will maintain a
strong deterrence together with our ROK ally through demonstrated
capabilities and exercises.
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH KOREA
Question. Since the end of World War II, the U.S.-ROK alliance has
been a key pillar of security in the Asia Pacific region. This
relationship has gone through periods of inevitable change. What is
your understanding of the current U.S. security relationship with South
Korea?
Answer. The U.S.-ROK security relationship is robust and strong. It
has been the key to deterrence on the Korean peninsula over the past 50
years. Adapting to new security challenges, the Republic of Korea has
become the third largest contributor of forces in Iraq, while also
sending support forces to Afghanistan, the Western Sahara and East
Timor. They have continued an aggressive effort to modernize their
military forces to improve interoperability.
Question. If confirmed, what measures, if any, would you take, in
conjunction with the Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, to improve the
U.S.-South Korean security relationship?
Answer. The Commander in Chief, U.N. Command/Combined Forces
Command's primary focus is on deterrence of a North Korean attack
specifically on the Korean peninsula, and should that deterrence fail,
the ability to fight and win against that threat. He is also a sub-
unified commander to U.S. Pacific Command as the Commander of U.S.
Forces Korea. If confirmed, I will work closely with him to ensure
transformation initiatives enhance readiness and deterrence.
Question. Do you support expanding the number of personnel assigned
to Korea for 2 or 3 years of duty?
Answer. I generally support the idea of longer tours, which would
provide better staff continuity, stability within our units, and
improve morale for our troops accompanied by their families. However,
it should be noted that this brings with it the costs of providing
additional base infrastructure, housing, medical/dental facilities, and
schools. If confirmed, I intend to consult with the Commander of U.S.
Forces Korea as soon as possible to study this matter so that I fully
understand it and can make informed recommendations. Increasing the
tour length of married personnel stationed in Korea on unaccompanied
orders from 1 year to 2 or 3 years would, in my judgment, have a
negative impact on morale.
CHINA
Question. Many observers believe that one of the key national
security challenges of this century is how to manage China's emergence
as a major regional and global economic and military power. How would
you characterize the U.S. security relationship with China?
Answer. The U.S. relationship with China is constructive. We seek
to promote shared interests with China as a growing regional and
economic power. Although the economic relationship between the U.S. and
China is expanding, we must gain greater insight into China's growth in
military spending, its intentions towards Taiwan, and its regional
strategy in Asia and the Pacific.
Question. What is the current state of U.S.-China military-to-
military relations, and do you favor increased military-to-military
contacts with China?
Answer. Our military-to-military relations are limited to non-
warfighting venues, such as high-level and academic exchanges and ship
visits. I support continued contact to promote a constructive
relationship with China, to gain greater insight into its intentions,
and to impart a clear understanding of our defense strategies.
Question. How do you assess the current cross-strait relationship,
and how can we help to prevent miscalculation by either side?
Answer. The cross-strait relationship between China and Taiwan is a
concern. It is in the U.S. interest to prevent miscalculation and to
maintain a steady signal of deterrence with ready, credible forces. The
foundation of our discourse is and will continue to be the Taiwan
Relations Act and the three U.S./China Joint communiques. As stated by
the President, the United States opposes any attempt by either side to
unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.
Question. China's economy is growing by as much as 10 percent per
year, and China is using that economic growth to fund a substantial
military modernization. In your view, what is China's intent in
pursuing such a rapid military modernization?
Answer. I believe that China is rapidly pursuing military
modernization in order to determine its own destiny without undue
influence from other nations. China desires greater influence over the
course of events within the Asia-Pacific region and to be recognized as
a global power.
Question. On April 1, 2001, a Chinese jet collided in mid-air with
a U.S. Navy EP-3 aircraft endangering the U.S. personnel and resulting
in the death of the Chinese pilot. Describe the steps that have been
taken to prevent incidents of this nature in the future.
Answer. The Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) was
established in 1998 to promote common understanding regarding
activities undertaken by U.S. and PRC maritime and air forces when
operating in accordance with international law. The MMCA has addressed
the issues of surveillance aircraft and interceptors and separation
distances. Compliance with the MMCA is closely monitored by U.S.
Pacific Command and they are working with OSD policy to improve
implementation with China.
Question. What other areas, both geographic and operational,
present potential problems for conflict with Chinese military forces,
and what steps, if any, still need to be taken to prevent incidents?
Answer. Whenever our forces operate in close proximity, there is a
need for vigilance and adherence to safe and professional operating
procedures.
TAIWAN
Question. What are the priorities, in your view, for U.S. military
assistance to Taiwan?
Answer. It is important that the U.S. assist Taiwan in
strengthening its defensive posture through improvement of their joint
operating capacity and modernization of their military capabilities.
Question. What is the relationship between the type of assistance
we offer and regional stability?
Answer. U.S. assistance is primarily aimed at systems that improve
Taiwan's ability to defend itself without being characterized as
offensive in nature. A strong defensive capability enhances regional
stability. We need to continue to make it clear that the U.S. opposes
any attempt by either side to unilaterally change the status quo in the
Taiwan Strait.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Question. What is the current state of U.S.-Philippine military-to-
military relations and activities?
Answer. The U.S.-Philippine military relationship is based on the
Mutual Defense Treaty of 1952 and is characterized by small-scale
exercises and advisors to Philippine military. Our military-to-military
relationship is substantive. It is focused on enhancing their ability
to defeat insurgencies and to promote long-term institutional change
through the Philippine Defense Review.
INDONESIA
Question. Indonesia is a key Asian power, and is the largest Muslim
country in the world. Consequently, it is important to build on
opportunities to improve and expand U.S. relations with Indonesia where
possible. To what extent is the Indonesian Government cooperating with
the United States in the global war on terrorism?
Answer. The Government of Indonesia has cooperated with the U.S.
and our Australian allies in investigating and prosecuting the
perpetrators of the October 2002 Bali bombing and the subsequent August
2003 Marriott and the September 2004 Australian Embassy bombings. Since
the Bali bombing, Indonesia has captured or detained over 100 suspected
terrorists, passed a new anti-terror law and worked with the U.S. in
creating a new anti-terror police unit.
Question. Is the Indonesian Government cooperating in the
investigation into the American deaths in Papua in August 2002?
Answer. My understanding is the government of Indonesia is working
closely with the FBI on the Timika investigation.
Question. If confirmed, would you recommend more or less military-
to-military contacts with Indonesia? Why? If yes, under what
conditions?
Answer. The U.S. would benefit from increased military contacts in
areas such as civil-military reform and countering transnational
threats. The Armed Forces of Indonesia (TNI) is important to the
stability, unity and future of Indonesia as it consolidates its
democracy. In turn, Indonesia's continued democratic development is
important to U.S. interests in combating terrorism and the security and
stability of Southeast Asia. Increasing TNI professionalism and
commitment to democratic rule of law should lead to increased U.S.-
Indonesian military-to-military contacts.
INDIA
Question. What is the current state of the U.S.-India military-to-
military relationship, and what specific priorities would you establish
for this relationship?
Answer. Our military-to-military relations with India are good and
improving.
If confirmed, my priorities for the U.S.-India military-to-military
relationship will be to expand contacts and discussion with an
objective of a deeper and more substantive relationship. We will seek
increased levels of cooperation and interoperability between our
forces, the value of which has been highlighted in recent tsunami
relief operations.
U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND TSUNAMI ASSISTANCE
Question. U.S. Pacific Command has made enormous contributions to
tsunami recovery and relief efforts since the tragic events of December
26, 2004. Do you believe there is a continuing role for U.S. Pacific
Command in the long-term recovery effort?
Answer. Yes, but U.S. Pacific Command's extensive and successful
relief efforts are essentially complete. Pacific Command does have a
role in the long-term recovery of the region. We shall be prepared to
offer whatever follow-on assistance may be desired by affected nations
and agreed to by the U.S. Government.
Question. Due to the massive number of killed and injured, the
evacuation of severely injured U.S. citizens from nations affected by
the tsunami was sometimes a problem. How did military forces under U.S.
Pacific Command participate in evacuation efforts and otherwise lend
assistance to injured U.S. citizens?
Answer. Pacific Command did not receive any request for assistance
from U.S. country teams in the disaster area for evacuation or medical
support for U.S. citizens. The welfare of U.S. citizens was certainly a
principal concern, and in coordination with our Embassies, U.S. forces
were always prepared to provide transportation and medical assistance.
Question. What improvements, if any, would you recommend to ensure
that U.S. citizens who have been injured are promptly assisted?
Answer. Concurrent with the execution of tsunami relief efforts,
Pacific Command has initiated a comprehensive lessons learned program
to capture both the successes and deficiencies of the relief effort.
This effort is ongoing and the lessons regarding assistance and support
to U.S. citizens will be incorporated into our disaster relief
procedures.
Question. Do you believe new opportunities for strengthening
military-to-military ties and advancing U.S. interests in the AOR have
been created as a result of the tsunami tragedy and the relief effort?
If so, how do you expect to build on such opportunities?
Answer. Despite the tragic consequences of the tsunami, the spirit
of cooperation and the successful combined response of many nations and
governments in affected countries, provides an opportunity to improve
the relationships between the militaries of the U.S. and affected
nations. Conditions have been set for greater cooperation and the U.S.
Pacific Command will continue to enhance the relationships, common
operating procedures, and trust developed during the course of the
relief operation.
MISSILE DEFENSE
Question. What is your understanding of the current relationship
between U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), and
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with respect to ballistic missile
defense deployment and operations?
Answer. All three commands have responsibilities that collectively
address the missile defense threat across the Unified Command Plan
boundaries. STRATCOM has overarching responsibility for planning,
integrating, and coordinating global ballistic missile defense.
STRATCOM develops enabling capabilities for BMD. PACOM shares
responsibility for defense of the homeland with NORTHCOM; specifically
the defense of Hawaii and the U.S. territories in the Pacific. PACOM
closely coordinates with NORTHCOM and STRATCOM in the performance of
the missile defense mission.
Question. What is your understanding of the arrangement whereby
Aegis-class destroyers and cruisers of the U.S. Pacific Fleet will be
made available, or dedicated, to ballistic missile defense missions,
and what impact will this arrangement have on the capability of U.S.
Pacific Command and U.S. Pacific Fleet to fulfill their other missions
involving Aegis-class ships?
Answer. We will employ our emerging capabilities in missile defense
where they can best be utilized in support of our national interests.
Through an established rotational ship schedule and a system of
readiness conditions for missile defense, our forces, to include Aegis-
capable ships, will be prepared to meet mission requirements.
Question. How would you propose to strike an appropriate balance
between missile defense and non-missile defense missions for ships of
the U.S. Pacific Fleet (USPACFLT)?
Answer. I will solicit the recommendations of Commander, USPACFLT
about how best to address the issue and ensure the command's capability
to employ available forces is balanced between missions.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND
Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between
Special Operations Command teams working to fulfill the global
terrorism mission, U.S. Pacific Command, and the Ambassadors in the
relevant countries?
Answer. The relationship among Special Operations Command teams,
U.S. Pacific Command and Ambassadors in relevant countries has been
positive and productive. U.S. Pacific Command maintains operational
control of special operations deployments throughout the AOR. All
activities concerning PACOM's efforts in the global war on terrorism
are fully coordinated with U.S. Ambassadors in relevant countries. If
confirmed, I intend to maintain that close relationship.
TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES
Question. U.S. Pacific Command has been active in the Advanced
Concept Technology Development (ACTD) process and currently has several
projects on the transition list, including the future tactical truck
system and theater effects based operations. What processes, contacts,
and tools will you use to make your requirements known to the
Department's science and technology community to ensure the
availability of needed equipment and capabilities in the long term?
Answer. U.S. Pacific Command analyzes major operations plans, and
global war on terrorism and homeland defense responsibilities to
determine the capabilities needed to execute assigned plans and to
identify any gaps in current and programmed capabilities. These gaps
form the basis for U.S. Pacific Command's annual Integrated Priority
List, which identifies priority capability needs to the Department of
Defense's science, technology, and acquisition communities.
The U.S. Pacific Command is active in the ACTD process. If
confirmed, I would continue participation in this program. ACTD
projects offer our warfighters direct impact on technology development
and acquisition, potentially speed acquisition of needed capabilities,
and sometimes provide capabilities to directly support current
operations. For example, in Operation Iraqi Freedom today, U.S. Pacific
Command ACTD projects are providing capabilities for explosive ordnance
disposal operations, medical information management, sniper detection,
and language and document translation.
EXERCISES AND TRAINING
Question. What is your assessment of current U.S. Pacific Command
exercises and training for peace and stability operations? Are they
sufficient in your opinion, and, if not, how would you change them, if
confirmed?
Answer. U.S. Pacific Command conducts about 20 joint exercises a
year, with service components adding an estimated 200 service-specific
exercises every year. I assess the U.S. Pacific Command exercise
program as extremely valuable. The success of relief operations under
Operation Unified Assistance can be directly attributed to U.S. Pacific
Command's annual Cobra Gold exercise in Thailand (focused on peace and
stability operations), in which several nations, including Thailand,
Singapore, and the U.S., train together.
U.S. Pacific Command strives to focus limited training resources to
enhance readiness, sustain and improve theater security cooperation,
deter potential adversaries, and win the global war on terrorism. Due
to the vast distances in the Pacific theater, significant amounts of
strategic lift, including military air, sealift, and commercial
carriers, are required for operations and large-scale exercises. This
means the strategic lift necessary for the Chairman's Exercise Program
(CEP) is very important, especially for large-scale joint and combined
exercises
Question. How might U.S. Pacific Command work with U.S. Joint
Forces Command (JFCOM) to improve or augment training and exercises for
peace and stability operations?
Answer. JFCOM provides Joint Warfighting Center support to several
PACOM joint exercises every year, and JFCOM has assigned a full-time
liaison officer at PACOM. The Pacific Warfighting Center (PWC) will be
integrated into JFCOM's global grid of warfighting centers that will
make up the Joint National Training Capability (JNTC). The PWC and JNTC
will allow PACOM and JFCOM to cooperatively develop transformational
training concepts and infrastructure.
POW/MIA ACCOUNTING EFFORTS
Question. The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, U.S. Pacific
Command, is critical to the recovery and identification of remains of
missing military members. Recovery of remains of U.S. service members
from World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam war continue to be a
very high priority. What is your understanding of the responsibilities
of the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and its
relationship to the Defense Prisoner of War and Missing Personnel
Office?
Answer. I fully understand the priority our Nation places on the
identification and recovery of missing Americans. The Joint POW/MIA
Accounting Command (JPAC) conducts operations to support a full
accounting of personnel unaccounted for as a result of hostile acts.
U.S. Pacific Command provides higher headquarters support and
direction, and the interface between JPAC and the Joint Staff and/or
OSD, as necessary. The Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO)
exercises policy, control, and oversight within the Department of
Defense for the entire accounting process. DPMO and JPAC coordinate
directly with one another on routine POW/MIA issues.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have, if any, to enhance
POW/MIA recovery efforts in the AOR of the U.S. Pacific Command?
Answer. JPAC's resources and accounting efforts are focused not
only in the Pacific Command region, but throughout the world. I will
encourage full cooperation by the host nations where we conduct POW/MIA
activities and continue to reinforce U.S. Government priorities in our
accounting and recovery efforts.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take, if any, to
assess the adequacy of resources available for this work?
Answer. I will provide JPAC the full support of the U.S. Pacific
Command in the conduct of their mission, and continuously assess the
adequacy of resources in the performance of this important mission.
QUALITY OF LIFE
Question. Combatant commanders are responsible for establishing and
sustaining a high quality of life for military personnel and their
families assigned within their AOR. If confirmed, how would you define
and ensure appropriate resources are available for quality of life
programs for military members and their families within the U.S.
Pacific Command?
Quality of service (QOS) for our men and women is one of my top
priorities. Inseparable from combat readiness, QOS is more than just
good quality of life. It means providing the high quality operating
facilities, the tools and information technology necessary for our
personnel to achieve their goals and execute their missions effectively
and efficiently.
QOS requires continuous assessment of housing, schools, commissary
and exchange services, medical/dental facilities, morale, welfare and
recreation (MWR) programs/facilities, pay and entitlement programs,
spousal employment opportunities and childcare facilities.
Question. What are the potential effects and challenges associated
with global rebasing on the quality of life of members and their
families in the U.S. Pacific Command AOR?
Answer. Implementation of global rebasing must and will reflect our
commitment to our peoples' QOS.
POLICIES REGARDING SEXUAL ASSAULT
Question. As a result of deficiencies in DOD and Service policies
regarding sexual assault in the Armed Forces, the Department and the
individual Services are required under section 577 of the Ronald W.
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 to
develop comprehensive policies aimed at preventing and responding to
sexual assaults involving members of the Armed Forces and ensuring,
among other things, appropriate law enforcement, medical, and legal
responses, integration of databases to report and track sexual
assaults, and development of victim treatment and assistance
capabilities. If confirmed as Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, what
steps would you take to ensure the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps forces under your command are appropriately implementing policies
aimed at preventing sexual assaults and appropriately responding to
victims of sexual assault?
Answer. I am strongly committed to implementing comprehensive
measures to prevent sexual assault, provide responsive care and
treatment for victims of sexual assault, and hold accountable those who
commit the crime of sexual assault. If confirmed, I will take all
actions to protect our people from assault, and direct consistent and
appropriate responses to victims of sexual assault.
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. I agree.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. I agree.
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 Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command?
Answer. I agree.
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 agree.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
CARRIER PLACEMENT
1. Senator Akaka. Admiral Fallon, at the full committee hearing on
February 10, 2005, Admiral Vernon Clark said that the Department was
still reviewing the possibilities for basing a carrier in Hawaii or
Guam. It is my understanding that the report titled ``Strengthening
U.S. Global Defense Posture,'' submitted to Congress by DOD in
September 2004, states that DOD intends to carry out ``the forward
deployment of additional expeditionary maritime capabilities and long-
rate strike assets'' in the Pacific regions. Is it still the strategy
for the Navy? If so, does the Navy still plan to forward base another
carrier in Hawaii or Guam?
Admiral Fallon. Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) remain critical to
ensuring effective dissuasion, capable deterrence, and rapid
contingency response in the Asia-Pacific region. We continue to examine
options to determine the optimum basing posture for these very capable
assets. Both Hawaii and Guam have been studied as a potential location
for a CSG forward in the Pacific.
2. Senator Akaka. Admiral Fallon, at the full committee hearing on
February 10, 2005, Admiral Clark stated that the basing of carriers in
the Pacific would be determined by BRAC. Are all decisions pertaining
to home porting of carriers dependent on the BRAC? If not, then what is
the criteria used to determine if the BRAC applies to one situation
over another?
Admiral Fallon. Carrier basing decisions depend upon many factors
including strategic considerations, joint readiness, cost,
infrastructure, contingency response time, and the recommendations of
the BRAC Commission. It is my understanding that any basing issues this
year will be considered as part of the BRAC process.
______
[The nomination reference of ADM William J. Fallon, USN,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
January 31, 2005.
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
ADM William J. Fallon, 0000.
______
Transcript of Naval Service for ADM William Joseph Fallon, USN
30 December 1944 - Born in East Orange, New Jersey.
16 September 1963 - Midshipman, U.S. Naval Reserve, Naval Reserve
Officers Training Corps.
15 May 1967 - Ensign to rank from 7 June 1967.
01 July 1968 - Lieutenant (junior grade).
01 July 1970 - Lieutenant.
01 July 1976 - Lieutenant Commander.
01 April 1982 - Commander.
01 September 1988 - Captain.
23 August 1993 - Designated Rear Admiral (lower half) while serving
in billets commensurate with that grade.
01 October 1994 - Rear Admiral (lower half).
01 January 1997 - Rear Admiral.
20 September 1996 - Vice Admiral.
06 October 2000 - Designated Admiral while serving in billets
commensurate with that grade.
01 November 2000 - Admiral, service continuous to date.
Assignments and Duties:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Air Basic Training Command, U.S. Naval Air May 1967 Nov. 1967
Station, Pensacola, FL (DUINS).................
U.S. Naval Air Technical Center, Glynco, GA Nov. 1967 Dec. 1967
(DUINS)........................................
U.S. Naval Station, New York, NY................ Dec. 1967 Jan. 1968
Reconnaissance Attack Squadron THREE (DUINS).... Jan. 1968 Dec. 1968
Naval Justice School (DUINS).................... Dec. 1968 Feb. 1969
Reconnaissance Attack Squadron FIVE, Feb. 1969 Oct. 1970
(Reconnaissance Attack Navigator)..............
Commander, Reconnaissance Attack Wing ONE, Oct. 1970 July 1972
(Administrative Officer).......................
Staff, Commander Fleet Air, Jacksonville, FL July 1972 July 1973
(Flag Lieutenant/Flag Secretary)...............
DEP COMNA V AIRLANTTACAIR (Aide/Administrative July 1973 June 1974
Officer).......................................
Attack Squadron FOUR TWO (DUINS)................ June 1974 Dec. 1974
Attack Squadron SEVEN FIVE (Avionics/Armament Dec. 1974 July 1977
Officer/Training Officer)......................
Naval War College (DUlNS)....................... July 1977 July 1978
Attack Squadron FOUR TWO (DUINS)................ July 1978 Oct. 1978
Attack Squadron SIX FIVE (Operations Officer/ Oct. 1978 Feb. 1981
Executive Assistant)...........................
Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force Feb. 1981 July 1982
(Operational Test Coordinator of Attack Weapons
Systems).......................................
Attack Squadron FOUR TWO (DUINS)................ July 1982 Nov. 1982
XO, Attack Squadron SIX FIVE.................... Nov. 1982 May 1984
CO, Attack Squadron SIX FIVE.................... May 1984 Sep. 1985
Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet Sep. 1985 Dec. 1985
(DUlNS)........................................
Carrier Air Wing EIGHT (Deputy Air Wing Jan. 1986 July 1987
Commander).....................................
Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet July 1987 Jan. 1989
(Air Wing Training and Readiness Officer)......
Commander, Medium Attack Wing ONE............... Jan. 1989 Feb. 1990
Commander, Carrier Air Wing EIGHT............... Mar. 1990 Aug. 1991
National Defense University (DUINS)............. Aug. 1991 June 1992
Office of the CNO (Deputy Director, Aviation July 1992 Sep. 1993
Plans and Requirements Branch) (N880B).........
Commander, Joint Task Force Southwest Asia Aug. 1992 Nov. 1992
(Deputy Staff Operations Officer, J-3).........
SACLANT (Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans and Sep. 1993 June 1995
Policy)........................................
Commander, Carrier Group EIGHT.................. June 1995 Feb. 1996
COMLANTFLT (Deputy and Chief of Staff).......... Feb. 1996 Sep. 1996
U.S. Atlantic Command (Deputy Commander in Chief Sep. 1996 Nov. 1997
and Chief of Staff)............................
Commander, SECOND Fleet/Commander, Striking Nov. 1997 Oct. 2000
Fleet Atlantic.................................
Vice Chief of Naval Operations.................. Oct. 2000 Oct. 2003
Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet and Commander, Oct. 2003 To Date
Fleet Forces Command...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medals and awards:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster
Defense Superior Service Medal
Legion of Merit with three Gold Stars
Bronze Star Medal with Combat ``V''
Meritorious Service Medal with two Gold Stars
Air Medal with Bronze Numeral ``6'', Gold Star, and Combat ``V''
Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with one Gold Star, and
Combat ``V''
Joint Service Commendation Medal
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal
Joint Meritorious Unit Award
Navy Unit Commendation with two Bronze Stars
Meritorious Unit Commendation with one Bronze Star
Navy ``E'' Ribbon with two Es
Navy Expeditionary Medal with one Bronze Star
National Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Star
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with one Bronze Star
Vietnam Service Medal with two Bronze Stars
Southwest Asia Service Medal with two Bronze Stars
Sea Service Deployment Ribbon with one Silver Star
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device
Kuwait Liberation Medal with Device (Saudi Arabia)
Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait)
NATO Medal
Special qualifications:
BA (Social Science) Villanova University, 1967
MA (International Studies) Old Dominion University, 1982
Graduate of Naval War College, 1978
Graduate of National War College, 1992
Designated Naval Flight Officer, 1967
Designated Joint Specialty Officer, 1995
Language Qualifications: French (Knowledge)
Personal data:
Wife: Mary Elizabeth Trapp of Scarsdale, New York
Children: Susan K. Fallon (Daughter), Born: 1 March 1971
Barbara L. Fallon (Daughter), Born: 21 November 1973
William P. Fallon (Son), Born: 31 July 1976
Christina A. Fallon (Daughter), Born: 4 March 1983
Summary of joint duty assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment Dates Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Commander, Carrier Air Wing EIGHT.... Jan. 91-Apr. 91 Capt.
SACLANT (Assistant Chief of Staff for Sep. 93-June 1995 RDML
Plans and Policy)....................
USCINCLANT (Deputy Commander in Chief Sep. 96-Nov. 97 VADM
and Chief of Staff)..................
Commander, SECOND Fleet/Commander, Nov. 97-Oct. 00 VADM
Striking Fleet Atlantic..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Desert Storm
______
[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 William J.
Fallon, 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.)
William J. Fallon.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, United States Pacific Command.
3. Date of nomination:
January 31, 2005.
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 30, 1944; East Orange, NJ.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Mary E. Trapp Fallon.
7. Names and ages of children:
Susan K. Fallon, 33.
Barbara L. Fallon, 31.
William P. Fallon, 28.
Christina A. Fallon, 21.
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.
Occidental College Global Affairs Advisory Board.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
American Automobile Association.
American Meteorological Society.
Army and Navy Club.
Association of Naval Aviation.
Deer Run Condominium Owners Association Board (Big Sky, MT).
Bishopsgate (Virginia Beach, VA) Civic League.
Hampton Roads World Affairs Council.
Knights of Columbus.
Mercedes Benz Club of America.
National Geographic Society.
National War College Alumni Association.
Navy Federal Credit Union.
Old Dominion University Alumni Association.
Smithsonian Institute.
Our Lady Star of the Sea (Virginia Beach, VA) Catholic School
Board.
Tailhook Association.
U.S. Naval Institute.
Veterans of Foreign Affairs.
Villanova University Alumni Association.
Villanova University Varsity Club.
Villanova University Wildcat Club.
11. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, 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.
Villanova University Alumni Loyalty Award.
Old Dominion University Distinguished Alumnus Award.
Naval War College Distinguished Alumnus Award.
Camden Catholic High School Distinguished Alumnus 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.
William J. Fallon.
This 27th day of January 2005.
[The nomination of ADM William J. Fallon, USN, was reported
to the Senate by Chairman Warner on February 17, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on February 17, 2005.]
TO CONSIDER CERTAIN PENDING CIVILIAN AND MILITARY NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:49 a.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Collins, Ensign, Talent, Chambliss, Graham, Dole,
Thune, Levin, Kennedy, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E.
Benjamin Nelson, Bayh, and Clinton.
Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Charles W. Alsup,
professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff
member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff member; Thomas L.
MacKenzie, professional staff member; Elaine A. McCusker,
professional staff member; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional
staff member; Stanley R. O'Connor, Jr., professional staff
member; Paula J. Philbin, professional staff member; Lynn F.
Rusten, professional staff member; Robert M. Soofer,
professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel;
Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F.
Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional
staff member; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff member;
Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Creighton
Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, minority
counsel; Peter K. Levine, minority counsel; Michael J. McCord,
professional staff member; and William G.P. Monahan, minority
counsel.
Staff assistants present: Alison E. Brill, Bridget E. Ward,
and Nicholas W. West.
Committee members' assistants present: Cord Sterling,
assistant to Senator Warner; Christopher J. Paul, assistant to
Senator McCain; John A. Bonsell, assistant to Senator Inhofe;
Chris Arnold, assistant to Senator Roberts; Arch Galloway II,
assistant to Senator Sessions; Mackenzie M. Eaglen, assistant
to Senator Collins; D'Arcy Grisier, assistant to Senator
Ensign; Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to Senator Talent; Clyde A.
Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Meredith Moseley,
assistant to Senator Graham; Christine O. Hill, assistant to
Senator Dole; Russell J. Thomasson, assistant to Senator
Cornyn; Bob Taylor, assistant to Senator Thune; Sharon L.
Waxman, Mieke Y. Eoyang, and Jarret A. Wright, assistants to
Senator Kennedy; Terrence E. Sauvain, assistant to Senator
Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assisant to Senator Lieberman;
Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Richard Kessler,
assistant to Senator Akaka; William K. Sutey, assistant to
Senator Bill Nelson; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben
Nelson; Todd Rosenblum, assistant to Senator Bayh; and Andrew
Shapiro, assistant to Senator Clinton.
Chairman Warner. A quorum being present, I ask the
committee to consider one civilian nomination, one flag officer
nomination, and a list of 2,598 pending military nominations.
First I ask the committee to consider the nomination of
Buddie Penn to be the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations and Environment. His nomination has been before
the committee the required length of time. No objections have
been brought to the attention of the chairman or the ranking
member. Is there a motion to favorably report Mr. Penn's
nomination to the Senate?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Chairman Warner. Second?
Senator Dole. Second.
Chairman Warner. All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed? [No response.]
The ayes have it. Mr. Penn's nomination is confirmed by
this committee and will be reported to the floor.
Next I ask the committee to consider the nomination of
Admiral William Fallon, USN, to be Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command. His nomination has been before the committee the
required length of time. Is there a motion to favorably report
Admiral Fallon's nomination to the Senate?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Chairman Warner. Second?
Senator Dole. Second.
Chairman Warner. Opposed? [No response.]
All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Finally, is there a motion to now consider the list of
2,598 military nominations?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Chairman Warner. Second?
Senator Dole. Second.
Chairman Warner. Any opposed? [No response.]
All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Thank you very much.
[The nomination reference of Buddie J. Penn follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
January 24, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Buddie J. Penn, of Virginia to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, vice H.T. Johnson.
______
[The nomination reference of ADM William J. Fallon, USN,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
Senate of the United States,
January 31, 2005.
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
ADM William J. Fallon, 0000.
______
[The list of nominations considered and approved by the
committee follows:]
Military Nominations Pending with the Senate Armed Services Committee
which are Proposed for the Committee's Consideration on February 17,
2005.
1. Rear Admiral Terrance T. Etnyre, USN to be vice admiral and
Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet (Reference No. 14).
2. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of Colonel
(Robert A. Lovett) (Reference No. 15).
3. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of Lieutenant
Colonel (Martin Poffenberger, Jr.) (Reference No. 16).
4. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of Lieutenant
Colonel (Timothy D. Mitchell, Jr.) (Reference No. 17).
5. In the Army there are three appointments to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with William F. Bither) (Reference No.
18).
6. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of Colonel
(William R. Laurence, Jr.) (Reference No. 19).
7. In the Army there are five appointments to the grade of Colonel
(list begins with Megan K. Mills) (Reference No. 20).
8. In the Army there are four appointments to the grade of Colonel
(list begins with Timothy K. Adams) (Reference No. 21).
9. In the Army Reserve there are two appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Joseph W. Burckel) (Reference No. 22).
10. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of
Colonel (Frank J. Miskena) (Reference No. 23).
11. In the Army Reserve there are eight appointments to the grade
of Colonel (list begins with Rosa L. Hollisbird) (Reference No. 24).
12. In the Army Reserve there are two appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Bruce A. Mulkey) (Reference No. 25).
13. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of
Colonel (Matthew R. Segal) (Reference No. 26).
14. In the Army Reserve there are two appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Casanova C. Ochoa) (Reference No. 27).
15. In the Army Reserve there are two appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Kenneth R. Greene) (Reference No. 28).
16. In the Army Reserve there are six appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with James E. Ferrando) (Reference No. 29).
17. In the Army Reserve there are nine appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Billy J. Blankenship) (Reference No. 30).
18. In the Army Reserve there are nine appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Mark E. Coers) (Reference No. 31).
19. In the Army Reserve there are eight appointments to the grade
of Colonel (list begins with Jeffery T. Altdorfer) (Reference No. 32).
20. In the Army Reserve there are four appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with David C. Barnhill) (Reference No. 33).
21. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of
Colonel (David B. Enyeart) (Reference No. 34).
22. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of
Colonel (David A. Greenwood) (Reference No. 35).
23. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of
Colonel (Sandra W. Dittig) (Reference No. 36).
24. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of
Colonel (John M. Owings, Jr.) (Reference No. 37).
25. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of
Colonel (Daniel J. Butler) (Reference No. 38).
26. In the Army there are 21 appointments to the grade of Colonel
(list begins with Scott W. Arnold) (Reference No. 42).
27. In the Army there are 33 appointments to the grade of Colonel
(list begins with Paul T. Bartone) (Reference No. 44).
28. In the Army Reserve there are 10 appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Cynthia A. Chavez) (Reference No. 45).
29. In the Army Reserve there are 17 appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Francis B. Ausband) (Reference No. 46).
30. In the Army Reserve there are 34 appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Loretta A. Adams) (Reference No. 47).
31. In the Army Reserve there are 60 appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Robert D. Akerson) (Reference No. 48).
32. In the Army Reserve there are 37 appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Priscilla A. Berry) (Reference No. 49).
33. In the Army Reserve there are 856 appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with George A. Abbott) (Reference No. 50).
34. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (Thomas S. Hoffman) (Reference No. 51).
35. In the Air Force there are two appointments to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Herbert L. Allen, Jr.) (Reference
No. 52).
36. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (Leslie G. Macrae) (Reference No. 53).
37. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of Major
(Omar Billigue) (Reference No. 54).
38. In the Air Force there are three appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with Corbert K. Ellison) (Reference No. 55).
39. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of Major
(Gretchen M. Adams) (Reference No. 56).
40. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of
Colonel (Michael D. Shirley) (Reference No. 57).
41. In the Air Force there are three appointments to the grade of
Major (Gerald J. Huerta) (Reference No. 58).
42. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of major
(Michael F. Lamb) (Reference No. 59).
43. In the Air Force there are 11 appointments to the grade of
major (list begins with Dean J. Cutillar) (Reference No. 60).
44. In the Navy there is one appointment to the grade of Captain
(Steven P. Davito) (Reference No. 61).
45. In the Navy there is one appointment to the grade of Commander
(Edward S. Wagner, Jr.) (Reference No. 62).
46. In the Navy there are 36 appointments to the grade of
Lieutenant Commander (list begins with Samuel Adams) (Reference No.
63).
47. In the Marine Corps there are 346 appointment to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Jason G. Adkinson) (Reference No.
65).
48. In the Air Force Reserve there are 21 appointments to the grade
of major general and below (list begins with Mark W. Anderson)
(Reference No. 124).
49. Major General Karl W. Eikenberry, USA, to be lieutenant general
and Commander, Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan (Reference No. 127).
50. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of
Colonel (James S. Shaffer) (Reference No. 129).
51. In the Air Force Reserve there are 207 appointments to the
grade of Colonel (list begins with Thomas William Acton) (Reference No.
130).
52. In the Navy there are 14 appointments to the grade of
lieutenant commander (list begins with Jason K. Brandt) (Reference No.
133).
53. Vice Admiral Robert F. Willard, USN, to be admiral and Vice
Chief of Naval Operations (Reference No. 134).
54. Admiral John B. Nathman, USN, to be admiral and Commander, U.S.
Fleet Forces Command (Reference No. 135).
55. In the Marine Corps there are 10 appointments to the grade of
Major General (list begins with BGEN Thomas A. Benes) (Reference No.
139).
56. In the Marine Corps there are 12 appointments to the grade of
Brigadier General (list begins with Col. George J. Allen) (Reference
No. 140).
57. In the Air Force there are two appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Barbara S. Black) (Reference No. 141).
58. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of
Colonel (Glenn T. Lunsford) (Reference No. 142).
59. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of
Colonel (Frederick E. Jackson) (Reference No. 143).
60. In the Air Force there are two appointments to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Robert G. Pate) (Reference No.
144).
61. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of
Captain (Kelly E. Nation) (Reference No. 145).
62. In the Air Force Reserve there are seven appointments to the
grade of Colonel (list begins with Lourdes J. Almonte) (Reference No.
146).
63. In the Air Force there are 128 appointments to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Brian F. Agee) (Reference No.
147).
64. In the Air Force there are 63 appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with Michelle D. Allenmccoy) (Reference No. 148).
65. In the Air Force there are 355 appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with James R. Abbott) (Reference No. 150).
66. In the Air Force there are 45 appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Joseph B. Anderson) (Reference No. 151).
67. In the Air Force there are 22 appointments to the grade of
Colonel (list begins with Jeffery F. Baker) (Reference No. 152).
68. In the Air Force there are 45 appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with Corey R. Anderson) (Reference No. 153).
69. In the Air Force there are 16 appointments to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Janice M. Allison) (Reference No.
154).
70. In the Army there are 47 appointments to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Jan E. Aldykiewicz) (Reference No.
155).
71. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Jorge E. Cristobal) (Reference No.
156).
72. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Ronald C. Constance) (Reference
No. 157).
73. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (Frederick D. Hyden) (Reference No. 159).
74. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Kathy L. Velez) (Reference No.
160).
75. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of
Major (John R. Barclay) (Reference No. 161).
76. In the Marine Corps there are four appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with Matthew J. Caffrey) (Reference No. 162).
77. In the Marine Corps there are five appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with Jeff R. Bailey) (Reference No. 163).
78. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with Jacob D. Leighty III) (Reference No. 164).
79. In the Marine Corps there are four appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with Steven M. Dotson) (Reference No. 165).
80. In the Marine Corps there are eight appointments to the grade
of Major (list begins with William H. Barlow) (Reference No. 166).
81. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with Andrew E. Gepp) (Reference No. 167).
82. In the Marine Corps there are five appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with William A. Burwell) (Reference No. 168).
83. In the Marine Corps there are five appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with Kenrick G. Fowler) (Reference No. 169).
84. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with James P. Miller, Jr.) (Reference No. 170).
85. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of
Major (David G. Boone) (Reference No. 171).
86. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of
Major (Michael A. Lujan) (Reference No. 172).
87. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
Major (list begins with Michael A. Mink) (Reference No. 173).
88. In the Air Force Reserve there is one appointments to the grade
of Colonel (Eloise M. Fuller) (Reference No. 175).
89. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with John T. Curran) (Reference No.
176).
Total: 2,598.
[Whereupon, at 9:51 a.m., the nomination hearing adjourned
and the committee proceeded to other business.
NOMINATION OF HON. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI TO BE A MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE
BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:48 p.m. in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe,
Dole, Cornyn, Thune, Kennedy, Lieberman, Akaka, E. Benjamin
Nelson, and Clinton.
Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Gregory T. Kiley,
professional staff member; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional
staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel; Diana G.
Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh,
counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Michael J. Kuiken, professional
staff member; Peter K. Levine, minority counsel; and Michael
McCord, professional staff member.
Staff assistant present: Nicholas W. West.
Committee members' assistants present: Cord Sterling,
assistant to Senator Warner; John A. Bonsell, assistant to
Senator Inhofe; Arch Galloway II, assistant to Senator
Sessions; Mackenzie M. Eaglen, assistant to Senator Collins;
Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Christine
O. Hill, assistant to Senator Dole; Russell J. Thomasson,
assistant to Senator Cornyn; Bob Taylor and Matt Zabel,
assistants to Senator Thune; Mieke Y. Eoyang, assistant to
Senator Kennedy; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator
Lieberman; Darcie Tokioka, assistant to Senator Akaka; William
K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; and Eric Pierce,
assistant to Senator Ben Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. The committee meets this afternoon to
consider the nomination of the Honorable Anthony J. Principi to
be a member of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission. If confirmed, Mr. Principi will be the President's
choice to chair this very important commission.
We congratulate you on your nomination and I note today the
President announced the remaining eight individuals to complete
the membership of the commission. The President has moved
timely on this because we have a very strict time line. It is
the intention of this Senator and I think all Senators to
adhere to that time line.
It is a great pleasure to welcome you back before this
committee, which was once your home away from home for many
years as a senior member of our staff, as you prepare to embark
on yet another opportunity in public service. You have an
impressive legacy of service to our Nation, ranging from your
appointment to the United States Naval Academy, followed by 10
years of military service as a combat decorated naval officer,
with a tour in Vietnam, followed by years of service on this
committee, as I said, and on the Committee on Veterans Affairs,
and culminating in your recent outstanding service to the men
and women of the Armed Forces and their families as Secretary
of Veterans Affairs (VA).
I want to thank you, Mr. Principi, and I thank your family,
who I understand could not be here today, but their hearts are
with us. I hope they are, because you have a tough job ahead.
You better have that support, Mister, or you have a problem.
I think I will just put the balance of this very well
prepared statement in the record. It all reads just about like
the first page.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
The Armed Services Committee meets this afternoon to consider the
nomination of the Honorable Anthony J. Principi to be a member of the
2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission. If
confirmed, Mr. Principi will be the President's choice to chair the
Commission. We congratulate you on your nomination. I note that today,
the President has announced the remaining eight individuals to complete
the BRAC Commission.
Mr. Principi, it is a distinct pleasure to welcome you back before
this committee as you prepare to embark on yet another opportunity of
public service. You have an impressive legacy of service to our Nation,
ranging from your appointment to the United States Naval Academy,
followed by 10 years of military service as a combat decorated Naval
officer with a tour in Vietnam, followed by years of service on this
committee and the Senate Committee on Veteran's Affairs, and
culminating in your recent outstanding service as Secretary of Veterans
Affairs for the past 4 years. I want to sincerely thank you for taking
on this most difficult, yet important assignment.
If confirmed as a BRAC Commissioner and chosen by the President to
be the chairman, your greatest challenge over the next 6 months will be
to ensure that the selection of bases for realignment, closure, or in
some cases privatization, is as open and fair as possible. The effected
communities deserve to have every consideration reviewed and assessed
by the Commission prior to any final decisions. The most important task
of the Commission will be to preserve the integrity of the process, so
that in the end, while decisions may be unpopular, all can be assured
that the decision-making process was clear, consistent, and untainted
by outside influence.
You and your fellow commissioners will determine whether the
Secretary of Defense's recommendations are consistent with the force
structure plan the Secretary has proposed, as well as the selection
criteria set forth by Congress last year. The criteria establishes the
priority of ``military value'' as the most important factor in
determining the contributions of military bases to our Nation's
defense. I ask that you ensure the consistent and even-handed
application of the criteria to the Secretary's BRAC recommendations. I
also ask that, in your analysis of the bases needed to support our
military forces, you carefully consider--and apply--the force structure
and major force unit requirements for the next 20 years as proposed in
the report by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I have long been a supporter of the BRAC process and have led, in
the face of considerable opposition, the efforts in the Senate to
establish and preserve the 2005 round. Congress adopted a BRAC process
that is intended to be fair, transparent, and objective. We have
enhanced the law guiding the process to remove as much politics as we
possibly can from the final decisions. However, the recommendations of
the Department of Defense and your Commission must be supported by
careful and thoughtful analysis of our national security requirements
so as to ensure that the integrity of the process cannot be called into
question. You face a formidable task to complete the work of the
Commission and to deliver your recommendations to the President by
September 8, 2005. I have confidence and trust in your ability to carry
out this critical responsibility with the same degree of dedication and
commitment you have demonstrated in your many years of public service.
I know you are ready for the challenge and that your efforts will be in
the best interests of our Nation.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I want to hear it all. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. I also place the opening statement of
Senator Collins in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Collins follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Susan M. Collins
I am pleased to welcome Mr. Principi to testify before this
committee and would like to praise his vast accomplishments during his
4-year tenure as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Fighting for our
country's veterans is an honorable cause and I am thankful for his
dedication.
Given the importance of today's topic on the upcoming Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC), I would like to take this opportunity
to highlight the extraordinary contributions made by the State of Maine
to our Nation's defense. Although Maine occupies a far corner of our
Nation's territory, it is a corner that serves as the principle gateway
to our Nation's largest and most densely populated metropolitan areas,
a region of over 22 million people. Military installations in Maine
defend land, sea, and air approaches into New England and the Mid-
Atlantic regions. Our strategic location, valuable infrastructure, and
highly-skilled and experienced workforce are models for the rest of the
Nation.
The Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station in Cutler, Maine
transmits a command and control broadcast, which is the backbone of the
submarine broadcast system for the entire Atlantic fleet. The Air
National Guard Base at Bangor is home to the 101st Air Refueling Wing
whose mission is to provide refueling, airlift, and mobility missions
in support of our Nation's defense needs in the Northeast and across
the North Atlantic. The base at Bangor also supports the deployment and
redeployment of many servicemembers overseas fighting in Operations
Enduring and Iraqi Freedom.
Brunswick Naval Air Station is the only military facility capable
of providing aerial surveillance and interdiction on the U.S. northeast
coast and maritime approaches, a capability that is absolutely
essential for effective homeland security and homeland defense.
Brunswick is the home of four active and two Reserve P-3 squadrons. P-
3s from Brunswick supported Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and, more
recently, tsunami relief efforts in southeast Asia. Brunswick is the
only fully capable and operational Active-Duty airfield remaining in
the northeastern United States.
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, also provides
essential and irreplaceable services and manpower for our Nation's
defense needs. It is the only naval shipyard with a full spectrum of
nuclear and diesel submarine maintenance experience, including reactor
servicing, overhaul, modernization, testing and other emergency repair.
Another shipyard hallmark is its impressive performance record, leading
the Nation in timely and cost-effective submarine overhaul,
modernization, and repair. The facility also home-ports three Coast
Guard cutters, expanding its homeland security role.
Finally, I would like to commend the fine contributions of Maine's
men and women in uniform. I have had the great honor to meet with Maine
servicemen and women before their deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan,
while stationed overseas, and, most happily, when they return home.
From the 112th Medical Company to the 136th Transportation Company,
from the 304th Regiment currently training the Iraqi military with 25
Mainers participating to the recently returned 619th Transportation
Company and the 133rd Engineering Battalion, these brave troops have
shown the highest standards of service to our Nation. The exemplary
work and dedication to service continues as the 152nd Maintenance
Company, based in Augusta with an attachment in Bangor, is currently
awaiting deployment orders to Iraq.
Maine's military installations enjoy a proud history of supporting
our Nation's defense. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is the oldest naval
shipyard continuously operated by the U.S. Government. Public
institutions such as the Maine Military Academy in Castine continue to
train young men and women for professions in the Armed Forces. Our
proud heritage continues through today and into the future with a
legacy of the finest service, sharpest innovation and strongest
dedication our Nation has to offer. With today's shifting priorities
and demands, Maine's location, experience, and ongoing contributions
remain essential in ensuring that our defense and homeland security
requirements are fulfilled and the most significant task of defending
our homeland is achieved.
Chairman Warner. Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in
greeting Secretary Principi and thanking him for his long-term
service to our country and his willingness to take on this
latest assignment.
I looked over your bio and I was reminded that you were
born in New York, and it struck me that the famous song will
guide you and give us confidence here: ``If you can make it
there, you can make it anywhere,'' including in the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.
I want to just say a few words of welcome and thanks for
agreeing to serve our country in this very important and
challenging assignment. Given the strain on our national
defense budget with the cost of the global war on terror and
the need to ensure our forces have the best, most modern
equipment available, it is important that we spend our defense
dollars wisely. BRAC offers an opportunity to generate some
savings so that we have the money available to fight and win
the global war on terror and so that our service men and women
remain the best equipped and best trained military in the
world.
But when we look at bases to find those savings, it is
important that we carefully weigh all the relevant issues
surrounding those military facilities. We must be sure to
arrive at the right long-term decisions that leave our country
strong, including the protection of our defense base, the
special concern that we have heard before this committee
expressed, specifically in response to a question the chairman
asked about concern about concentration of facilities
geographically, where you put many assets in one place and
therefore they are more vulnerable to the possibility of
attack.
I will say that I was very encouraged by the answers you
provided to the committee in response to the written questions,
which suggested you are intent in this position in looking at
some of the broader questions: first, military value of course;
but second, other questions like impact on the communities
surrounding the bases.
The bottom line, we have to be sure that our country
remains strong. I know I do not have to tell you this after
your extraordinary service in the military, but also to
America's service men and women and veterans: They have to have
the backup, the structure, they need to continue to excel. We
have to make sure that we do not inadvertently through this
BRAC process complicate their mission or increase the risk to
them.
Bottom line, you are a good man and I am very grateful that
you are willing to take on this assignment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Are there other colleagues desiring to make a few opening
remarks? Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have known Mr.
Principi for many years and worked with him in many ways and he
is totally unqualified for the position. [Laughter.]
Mr. Principi. May I leave now?
Senator McCain. Should I ask for unanimous consent----
Chairman Warner. To correct the record? I deny that
unanimous consent. Let the record stand. [Laughter.]
Senator McCain. I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that Tony
Principi is going to bear these responsibilities. He has
experience and knowledge in a broad variety of areas and I am
very pleased.
Chairman Warner. I share that sentiment, Senator.
Yes, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Just quickly, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it. I saw Mr. Principi yesterday outside of the office building
looking for a ride. I dare say that probably if every Member of
the Senate knew he was out there, they would have gone back and
given you a ride to just about wherever you want to go.
[Laughter.]
In any event, I just want to join in the welcome. We have
had, as I am sure others have, the challenges of the VA health
issues. You were enormously forthcoming in terms of the
meetings, in giving consideration to people's views, extremely
patient, extraordinarily tolerant, and showed a lot of good
common sense and judgment. There were some extraordinarily
tough issues there, as there are here.
So we welcome you to this position. I will say, just very
briefly, I think all of us understand, to have the best
military, you need the best-trained, best-led men and women in
the world with the best technology. The technology for the
Services and the development of that technology is, as you well
know, a combination of the best in terms of research in the
military working with the private sector, I think in
association with university-based and with well-trained and
highly-skilled individuals. Those are some centers around the
country that play a very important role. I know you are going
to be looking at these and be making some judgments on it, and
we certainly look forward to your deliberations on many of
those up our way.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Other colleagues?
Senator Inhofe. I do not want to be left out, I guess. It
does not seem like it was 3\1/2\ years ago that you went with
me to dedicate the memorial cemetery down at Eglin Air Force
Base. I have always appreciated working with you and working
very closely with you, and I will be looking forward to doing
that in the future.
Mr. Principi. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Others? Yes, the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina.
Senator Dole. Secretary Principi, I want to take this
opportunity to congratulate you on the nomination as chairman
of the 2005 BRAC commission. The President has not only
selected as chairman a person of unquestioned integrity, but an
individual with a wealth of experience, extensive military
experience, experience on this committee during a previous BRAC
round, and experience transforming Veterans Affairs' medical
infrastructure to keep pace with medical innovations and
changing demands.
The magnitude of the job ahead of you is extraordinary. I
have been extremely supportive of the Department of Defense
(DOD) in its effort to increase efficiency and streamline
operations. With our current world commitments, we must do
everything possible to ensure that no taxpayer dollars are
wasted and that every resource and installation is essentially
dedicated to keeping our military men and women safe and
effective. This BRAC round must be, more than anything,
untarnished by political influence.
That being said, North Carolina supports a unique military
infrastructure in that all of our military installations and
training ranges are located in the eastern part of the State,
creating an unrivaled region of military value. The strong
joint mission ties between Seymour Johnson and Pope Air Force
Bases, Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, and Marine Corps Air Station
Cherry Point, to include the naval depot, are only a hint of
the possibilities that exist for expansion, not closure.
Secretary Principi, again congratulations and I look
forward to hearing your testimony today.
Mr. Principi. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Well spoken.
I see the Senator from Texas.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to make a few opening remarks.
It is good to see you, Mr. Secretary. Like others on this
committee, I have had the chance in my short time in the Senate
to work with Secretary Principi on a number of matters, and I
cannot imagine a better choice to chair the BRAC commission
than Secretary Principi. I, like Senator Kennedy, had
experience with him, and others here no doubt, working through
the veterans hospitals issues through the Capital Asset
Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Commission, and I
found him to have exactly the kind of temperament, including
the patience and sensitivity to community issues, that are so
important to dealing with what is necessarily a painful
process.
No doubt with BRAC, we will see similar pain experienced in
some places. I, like others, look at this reluctantly, but with
a sense of resignation of the necessity of it, because we want
to make sure that our military continues to be the best
equipped, best trained, most professional fighting force on the
planet, and we do not want to have the taxpayers burdened with
unnecessary infrastructure.
So thank you very much for your willingness to take it on.
I appreciate your service very much.
Chairman Warner. Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to say welcome to Secretary Principi. It is
nice to have you with us. I thank you for your great service to
our country in the military and then as Secretary of the VA. I
had the opportunity to work with you and you put up an
exemplary record as the Secretary there. We did some great
things, I think, in terms of quality of service to our veteran
community and we appreciate the great work that you did there
and we look forward to having your involvement with this
important process.
I would also say that one of the qualities I think that you
bring to this is that you are a fair-minded person. I know that
any fair-minded person will see the value of Ellsworth Air
Force Base in South Dakota. I am just following up on Senator
Dole here.
But that being said, you mentioned in response to one of
the questions that was submitted to you, that you wanted to
ensure that communities and people impacted by the BRAC process
have an opportunity to be heard. You had also mentioned, I
think, to the extent possible that you would like to visit some
of these places. I would certainly like to extend an invitation
for you to come to South Dakota and to visit Ellsworth Air
Force Base and to see the great work that the men and women who
serve our country are doing there, and also the tremendous
relationship that that base has with the community of Rapid
City.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add
my welcome to Mr. Principi on his nomination to be a member of
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
I have so many good things to tell you, but I welcome you
here. I also want to tell you that we are expecting the
commission to be open, to be transparent, and to follow the
laws. For me, there is no question that you are the man to
ensure that. I am here to tell you that you have my support on
your nomination and confirmation to this position.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
In accordance with all our procedures on advice and consent
in this committee, the chair will now propound to you a series
of questions. First, have you adhered to applicable laws and
regulations governing conflicts of interest?
Mr. Principi. 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. Principi. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff comply
with the deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record in the hearings?
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree if confirmed to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views
when asked by this committee?
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Even if those views might differ from the
mission on which you are empowered at the request of the
President and in contradiction possibly of the administration's
viewpoint?
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee of
Congress or to consult with the committee regarding the basis
for any good faith delay or denial in producing such documents?
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin and I were together here
early this afternoon. He had to go to the Intelligence
Committee. He asked that I convey his strong support for your
nomination and regret that he could not be here.
The chair also notes the presence in the hearing room of
Charles Battaglia. I was privileged to be on the Intelligence
Committee when you were one of our most valued staff members
and to work with you while you were Staff Director of the
Veterans Committee. So we welcome you today. Thank you.
Do you have a prepared statement by way of opening remarks?
Mr. Principi. Just a brief oral statement, Mr. Chairman.
Shall I begin?
Chairman Warner. Yes, of course.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY JOSEPH PRINCIPI, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION
Mr. Principi. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: I
thank you. It is a pleasure to appear before you and it is
certainly a pleasure to be back in the hearing room where I
feel I grew up professionally on Capitol Hill. I also thank
you, Mr. Chairman and members, for expediting my confirmation
hearing so that if I am confirmed I will have the opportunity
to begin to build staff and put together the organizational
structure to meet our enormous responsibilities.
In preparation for today's hearing, I read the hearing
transcript of Senator Dixon's confirmation hearing to be the
chairman of the 1995 BRAC Commission, and I noted that many of
his former colleagues on the committee questioned his mental
stability on taking on this responsibility. I must confess that
I had similar thoughts about myself over the past month.
But in all honesty, it is a great honor to have been
nominated by the President to serve on the commission and, if
confirmed, to be the chairman, because it is so critically
important to our national security, as painful and as difficult
as our work will be. It is critically important because I
believe that resources that are spent inefficiently are
resources that will not be available to maximize our
operational readiness and capabilities, will not be available
to modernize our Armed Forces, and certainly would not be
available to improve the quality of life for the men and women
in uniform.
So I take this responsibility very seriously and will
ensure that our commission carefully reviews the
recommendations of Secretary Rumsfeld to ensure that they
conform to the force structure plan and the selection criteria
that must be used in making determinations as to which bases
should be closed and/or realigned.
Second, national security and military value is a priority
in the law and we will certainly treat it that way. I will be
mindful of the other selection criteria in the law with regard
to return on investment, economic impact, community
infrastructure, as well as environmental considerations. As
some of you have indicated, as Secretary of Veterans Affairs I
faced very similar type challenges in attempting to transform
the VA health care system that had a legacy infrastructure, an
aging infrastructure, to the modern technologies and delivery
mechanisms in medical care. In doing so, I visited many of the
communities that would be impacted by those decisions and
learned firsthand about the economic impact, and certainly will
keep those factors in mind as we deliberate. But of course,
national security will be our highest priority.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, let me
just say that I commit to you that there are certain principles
that I will adhere to: that this commission will be
independent, it will be fair, it will be open. We will have, of
course, our hearings in Washington. We will have regional
hearings. Commissioners will visit military installations
impacted by the recommendations so that we can hear from State
and local officials and the people in the community. This
commission will be bipartisan. I believe that if we politicize
this process we will only increase the level of cynicism around
the country and really doom it to failure.
I intend to fully comply with both the intent and the
spirit of the BRAC law as amended to include this 2005 round. I
commit to you there will be no ex parte communications, that we
will work collaboratively, that I will seek all and any
information I need from the Department of Defense to make the
right decisions, and I have been assured that that information
will be forthcoming if requested, and we will certainly share
that with the Hill.
We will work very hard, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, to do the right thing for our national security and
for our men and women in uniform.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
I am going to allocate part of my time to Senator McCain.
He has to depart. Senator, go ahead.
Senator McCain. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. No, you go right ahead.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Principi, I
would like to talk with you about this issue of environmental
cleanup. Many opponents of BRAC have said that we have
experienced unexpected costs associated with environmental
cleanups when we close the bases. I understand that, but is it
not also true that they would have to be cleaned up at some
time?
I mean, the logic seems to be that if we just ignore the
problem it is not going to cost us any money. In some cases the
problem gets worse if the environment is not cleaned up. So can
you tell me how that factors into the decisionmaking process,
the fact that you may come across some very significant costs
at one base or another that would be associated with
environmental cleanup?
Mr. Principi. Yes, Senator McCain. Clearly it is one of the
criteria that the Secretary of Defense and the commission has
to review in making its determination. Again, national security
has priority, but it is one of the other factors that we need
to look at. In doing so, we are required to look at the cost of
restoration, waste management, and contamination. We will do
that, but I agree with you that these bases do need to be
cleaned up in any event.
There are perhaps ways to work with the community to
address those issues. Parts that are contaminated obviously
should not be transferred, but other parts that are clean can
be leased to the private community. So I think it is a
partnership between DOD and the community to find some common
ground as to how that can be accomplished.
Senator McCain. Well, again it bothers me a little bit that
if you find some place that really is badly in need of
addressing an environmental problem, we will not close the base
and we will just leave it alone. That does not make any sense
to me, quite frankly. In fact, you might be able to make an
argument that we should address environmental problems when we
find them because of the hazard that they pose to the health of
the community.
Mr. Principi. I agree.
Senator McCain. Again, I hope that the commission will take
into consideration both short-term and long-term aspects of
that. But I would argue that the overwhelming criteria, as you
stated, is our national security. There may be some close
calls, but national security is obviously most important. Does
it matter, the relations between the local community and the
base?
Mr. Principi. I am sorry, sir? The relationship between the
local community and the base?
Senator McCain. Yes.
Mr. Principi. Again, that is a factor that we need to look
at, the economic impact. We need to look to see that both
current and potential receiving locations have the
infrastructure to accommodate the increased force structure
that may be at that facility. So I do think that the
relationship needs to be assessed.
But again, it is one of those other criteria that is
secondary to our national security. But I think we need to look
at it.
Senator McCain. I thank you and I wish you every success.
As one of those who has believed that this was absolutely
necessary as defense dollars become scarcer and scarcer, I am
sure you will do an outstanding job, you and the other members
of the commission.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator McCain.
I will defer the chair's questions until the end to
accommodate my members. Mrs. Dole, you were the first one here.
Senator Dole.
Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Principi, how will you factor in transformational
plans into your review process--Army transformation, Marine
Corps restructuring, Guard and Reserve rebalancing? All of
these initiatives could dramatically affect future force
structure and infrastructure requirements. I wonder how you
factor those in and, given the rigid timetable, how do you
intend to adequately analyze criteria that is only now
beginning to take shape?
Mr. Principi. Well, it is going to be a difficult
challenge, Senator. But it is one of the things that we are
required to do. Certainly the Secretary of Defense in his
report to the commission is required to take those into
consideration and has indicated that that restructuring, that
transformation, will be part of the BRAC process. So it is
going to be part of the work we are going to have to do.
We just have to have the data and the information upon
which we can do our analytical review to make sure that it has
been taken into consideration.
But the time lines are very tight. We get the report from
the Secretary in mid-May and we have to submit a report to the
President in September. That is a very tight time line. But we
are going to assemble an appropriate professional staff that I
am sure we will have confidence in.
Senator Dole. In previous BRAC rounds the individual
Services had direct input into what installations were
considered excess or of reduced military value. This year the
base closure decisions are being made by the Department of
Defense through cross-service steering groups, I understand,
and executive councils. Do you think this approach will
complicate the commission's review?
Mr. Principi. Very possibly, Senator. I really do not know
at this point. It may require some changes in how we are
organized. In past BRAC rounds the staff were organized along
service lines. This year the staff may have to be organized
along functional lines, similar type categories. We are going
to have to take a look at that.
But clearly, the joint cross-service groups are playing a
critical role in the deliberations and the resulting list of
base closures and realignments that will come to us.
Senator Dole. One further question. How do you intend to
factor overseas realignments into the commission's
decisionmaking process? Will you be interfacing with the
overseas basing commission? I think they are due to report in
August. If so, how?
Mr. Principi. Certainly that is one of the special
considerations that is contained in the statute, that the
Secretary of Defense must take into consideration the need for
and the availability of overseas bases. That needs to be part
of his deliberations and will come to us. So certainly we will
take a look at that, and certainly to the degree we can in the
time limits that we have try to get an assessment from that
overseas base commission.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, thank you, Mr. Principi, for your willingness to
serve. In my opening statement I referred to an exchange that
occurred when the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral
Clark, appeared before this committee in which he expressed his
discomfort about the overcentralization of facilities. He
particularly made reference to that with regard to naval ports.
He said he was worried, in the classic phrase, about having our
eggs all in one basket in a way that would make the fleet
vulnerable to a number of scenarios, including a terrorist
incident or even a natural disaster.
I agree, myself, and I wanted to ask you whether you will
take steps to guide the commission in a way that will ensure
the need for efficiency through fewer bases is balanced against
the need from a national security point of view to maintain
dispersed bases and ports so that our forces do not become
single-threated and vulnerable?
Mr. Principi. Senator, our responsibility and the purview
of our commission is to ensure that the requirements that are
set out in the law that the Secretary of Defense has to follow
with regard to force structure plan and inventory of bases, as
well as the selection criteria, are followed and that, if he
should substantially deviate from those requirements, then of
course we reject, change, or perhaps add bases to the list.
To the degree that centralization or decentralization
becomes an issue before the commission, we certainly will
review it very carefully.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that answer. I know that
you said earlier that military value, and I agree of course, is
the number one consideration. But there are other
considerations beyond that and I wonder if you would state some
of those that you think ought to be considered in the decision
you would make?
Mr. Principi. Well, I think there are four considerations
that are very important. They are set out in the statute. The
first being what I call the return on investment, looking at
the extent and the time line for the net savings and the costs
of the realignment and closures.
I think second, very importantly, as part of this secondary
level of criteria is the economic impact on the community.
There will be an impact, both social and economic, in the short
term and we need to review that.
Third, do the current and potential receiving stations, the
communities, have the infrastructure to support the forces at
that installation. That becomes another factor that we need to
consider.
Then finally, as Senator McCain talked about, is the
environmental issues, the cost and consideration of those.
So yes, they are very important. We will do so, but of
course national security has to be our highest priority.
Senator Lieberman. I agree with you. I thank you for
mentioning those. I would add, though it is not on the list,
just from a matter of evaluating the return for considering
closing of a base, the investments that have been made,
particularly in recent times. The Department of Defense has
been very aggressive in recent years, fortunately, in trying to
build up, for instance, housing for service people.
A lot of it has come to a position where it is really at a
level we would like it to be. I hope that you will find a way
to consider what might be called recent investments in
infrastructure, which it would seem to be a shame to negate by
closing a facility.
Mr. Principi. We certainly will. I think that a very
important component of our work, is to take a look at the model
that the Department of Defense will use with regard to the
costing, both short-term and long-term, and to make sure that
the figures, to the best of our ability, that the figures, the
savings, and the costs are accurate. It can be a very important
point.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much. I look forward to
working with you. I know we are going to have a chance to talk
tomorrow one-on-one and I welcome that opportunity. Thank you
very much for being willing to serve.
Mr. Principi. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lieberman. All the best.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Lieberman, for joining
us at this hearing. It is very important.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, Secretary Principi, thank you for your willingness
to do this job. A couple of questions following up on what
Senator Lieberman asked and Senator McCain's question earlier.
My question has to do with the process by which you evaluate
DOD's evaluated potential community impact. The question is
will you evaluate the process the Department uses to determine
potential community impact before it submits its closure list
to your commission? In other words, having the site visits, the
regional hearings, and meetings with local community leaders
after the base has been selected for closure is one thing, but
once a base is on the list it may be too little, too late.
So I guess my question is, is that something that you would
give consideration to and look at before the list is submitted?
Mr. Principi. I do not think that would be possible,
Senator Thune. I think we need to wait until we receive that
list on May 16 and then very carefully and comprehensively
analyze the data that has been provided. The Secretary of
Defense needs to take a look at all of these criteria. They
need to be the basis, along with the force structure plan, for
his decisions. Then once we get that information, then we will
begin, of course, the second round of hearings and site visits
to determine whether he has deviated substantially from what
you set out in the law.
Senator Thune. You noted earlier that the law does say that
economic impact on the local community is one of the criteria
that the Secretary of Defense must consider. You had indicated
in your written response to the committee that commissioners
would, to the extent possible, visit those impacted bases. As I
said earlier, I would love to have you come prior to any
decisions. I think after a decision has been made about that it
is too late.
But the follow-up question to my earlier question has to do
with following the receipt of the Secretary's recommended
closure list, if the commission found that DOD and the Services
had failed to adequately consider community impact for a base
on that list, given that the law says that that is something
they have to look at, would that constitute a deviation from
the final criteria to warrant the commission overturning a
decision or a recommendation that is made by the Secretary?
Mr. Principi. It is hard to say, Senator. I can assure you
if they did not adequately or accurately assess the economic
impact that certainly would mitigate, if you will, perhaps some
of the military value. Whether it would be adequate to overturn
it or not, I do not know. I think the standard that we must use
by law is, did the Secretary of Defense deviate substantially
from those criteria that you just mentioned, one being economic
impact, or the force structure plan, the 20-year assessment
based upon probable threats to the country.
If we find one or the other of those, then certainly it is
open to question whether that base should be on the list. But
there are other considerations, being national security, and it
might outweigh the economic impact issue. But we would look at
it very carefully.
Senator Thune. I appreciate the answer to that and would
simply say again that I know you have to weigh these issues.
National security clearly is the priority in this, but the law
also says there are these other issues. That is one that in my
judgment is very important.
I would also add what Senator Lieberman mentioned about
looking at the investment, the recent investment in
infrastructure, because there are a number of bases where we
have expended in military construction (MILCON) projects in the
past few years a lot of money improving facilities and
everything else, and I think that is also a factor. It may not
be enumerated in the law, but it is something I would hope you
would take into consideration.
But the economic impact criteria is obviously something I
think that would weigh heavily close behind, obviously first
and foremost being national security.
Mr. Principi. I fully expect that the Secretary of Defense
and the Department of Defense have taken those into
consideration in making their recommendations. It is our job to
be that independent check to make sure that has been done.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.
Senator Ben Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, congratulations on your nomination to this
important and challenging assignment. I did not think you could
top what you just finished for difficulty, but you may have
found a way. But I think, based on our experience while serving
on the Veterans Affairs Committee, I know that you have the
capacity to do this, and I think the President has made an
excellent choice.
As you may know, I did not support the most recent BRAC
round. I know every system has inefficiencies and redundancies
and so it has not been a question in my mind as to whether or
not perhaps we ought to do it, but I always felt we had the
process backwards. That we were not determining what
transformation would be, where that would take us, what end
strength would be, and how we were going to reconstitute our
military operations, that once we did that then I thought we
could probably decide where we were going to house them. I
could not quite grasp that the system was reversed. We decide
primarily what bases we need versus what military we needed.
But in any event, I guess I would say that I was hopeful we
would find a peaceful time. I know we are at war, but does it
make any difference in your mind whether we are at war or at
peace when we try to make these decisions and take into
consideration what our needs are versus what they may become?
Mr. Principi. No, Senator, I do not. Of course it is always
a little bit more challenging and difficult in times of war.
But I think it is so terribly critical to our national security
that the dollars we spend are spent indeed to maximize our
readiness, our capabilities, and our modernization. Those are
issues that are very important in times of war. If we are
spending money on excess capacity, we are diverting scarce
resources to ensuring that we have that capability.
So I think it is equally important, sir, in both peace and
war. But obviously, during war it becomes a little bit more
difficult.
Senator Ben Nelson. We are having enough trouble
determining end strength. Transformation is a major challenge.
Is this something that we can undertake in the midst of these
changes as well? What I am trying to find out is whether we
have the system backwards or not. It would seem to me that we
would have to know what we want our military to be, then we
could work toward where they are located, that is a secondary
issue, albeit totally important when it comes to the dollars
and spending them wisely for sure.
But I heard your answer. I still raise the question, not so
much because I have not heard your answer. I am very concerned
that we have chosen this format and we are going to stick with
it, rather than--I wanted to call it base closing and
realignment, BRAC, but I did not like the word ``closing.'' I
mean, I do not know why we start off with almost a presumption
that something is going to close before we have gone through
the process of analysis. But I think I even tried to get that
as a friendly amendment. It was not accepted in a friendly way,
so I did not succeed.
But I think if you see my point, I am not looking for an
answer so much as I am just wanting to give you my thoughts. As
you go through this, hopefully keep them in mind because it is
too easy to draw a conclusion for cost-saving purposes: We have
to close this, it is expensive, it is old, whatever. But that
may not be the primary consideration. It may be the best place
when we realign and transform the military.
Mr. Principi. Well, I would briefly answer, Senator. I
understand your point. One of the important criteria that needs
to be assessed and I am confident it is being assessed by the
Secretary of Defense and certainly will be by the commission,
is the ability to accommodate mobilization contingency planning
and future force requirements.
Senator Ben Nelson. Force requirements as well.
Mr. Principi. Yes indeed. So that should be a very
important part of the analysis that the Secretary undertakes
and that we will look upon.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
know that you will do your very best.
Mr. Principi. Thank you.
Senator Ben Nelson. Good luck.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Principi, I did something I do not very often do. I
read all of your questions and all of your answers that were
submitted early, and you were very specific and very thorough.
I appreciate it.
Question number 3 is talking about the staff. The staff is
so important. You say that they need to be impartial,
professional, and free of political influence. I agree with
that. But I would assume that under the heading of professional
you have someone who understands military values, somebody who
has a background that would be conducive to making
determinations, where they have some kind of innate experience
in that?
Mr. Principi. Absolutely, Senator, without question they
will have that experience and expertise to analyze those
criteria under military value.
Senator Inhofe. Then also, on staffing, it is my
understanding that there will be a change. Before you have
always had the Services directly go out and make
recommendations. But now with jointness, cross-service and all
that, you are going to be taking a little different approach
and looking at functions as opposed to services, am I correct,
and would you respond to that?
Mr. Principi. I believe that that might be a very
pronounced change in how we are organized, because of these
joint cross-service groups. We are going to have to adjust to
that.
Senator Inhofe. Several people have talked about the
economic impact on communities. Of course, we are all concerned
with that. To me, though, something that is more important is
community support. I know that is one thing that all five
installations in Oklahoma have done, where we have the
community providing infrastructure, roads, health care for
dependents on post or on base, and many other areas where
normally it would be paid for by the military.
I would assume that that is going to be a major
consideration.
Mr. Principi. Absolutely. That is one of the important
criteria. Again, it is secondary to national security that we
are required to follow, but community infrastructure, the
ability to accommodate increased levels of force units, is
something that we need to take into consideration--roads,
schools, housing--all very important.
Senator Inhofe. Finally, we fought what I refer to right
now as the Battle of Vieques and lost. I had 3 years of my
efforts put into that. One of the reasons was, because of a lot
of the environmental movements, particularly in Western Europe
and other places, and here in the United States, live ranges
are disappearing. They are an endangered species.
I am very much concerned about that. Right now we have
watched the influence of the European Union change the attitude
toward our use of live ranges in Western Europe. We know that
contributes to what will be a movement back stateside of a lot
of the deployments that are over there in Western Europe.
I would hope that you would take that into consideration as
you look and keep in mind that we cannot afford to give up any
opportunities to use live ranges. I am sure you already are
aware of that and that your staff will be aware of that.
Mr. Principi. Absolutely. The availability of land,
facilities, and associated air space for training purposes,
ranges, is an important criteria that is spelled out and that
we will look at carefully to ensure that it has been considered
by the Secretary in making his recommendations.
Senator Inhofe. That is great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Inhofe, I think it was very
important that you bring that up. Both you and I know full well
the thoroughness with which this committee tried to work on the
question of Vieques. That is over and done with, but there is
no substitute for live-fire training. Around this table there
are some who have been through that and know full well the
value of it. You can have all the simulators and the rest of
the stuff you want, but there is something about that live-fire
training that that soldier, sailor, airman, or marine will
never forget if they have the misfortune to ever be in a combat
situation.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember the
first time I experienced live-fire training. It sure was
different than the inert.
Chairman Warner. Yes, I assure you that, too. Well, there
sits a highly decorated hero, very silent about his service,
but he knows of what I speak.
Secretary Principi.
Senator Clinton, we welcome you.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciated the last exchange because I cannot resist saying
Fort Drum, New York, has live-fire training ranges that are
totally without any objection from anyone anywhere, and we
could grow considerably, Mr. Secretary.
I thank you for being here and I thank you for this
continuation of your public service. It has been a real
pleasure to work with you in the past and I look forward to
continuing our relationship. I really appreciated the answers
that you gave to the questions that we submitted to you in
advance, and I am particularly grateful for the way you
answered with respect to what was required of you as chairman.
Just for the record, I think this really bears repeating. I
quote: ``As chairman, I believe it is important to set the tone
for our deliberations, to ensure that our work is devoid of
politics, to address potential conflicts of interest, to be
independent, fair, open, and equitable, to build consensus, and
to ensure the communities and people impacted by the BRAC
process have an opportunity to be heard.''
I could not have anticipated a better response. It really
fits with everything that I know about you and the work that we
have done together.
Obviously, each of us is concerned about our overall
configuration for the future, where bases will be, what those
bases' missions will be, how we move people from overseas back
home. There are just a lot of large, unanswered questions that
you will have a major role in helping us answer.
Then we each have to be concerned about what happens in our
individual States. I know that you are aware of the long
history of New York's contributions to our military. In fact, I
think, Mr. Chairman, I was told the other day that, certainly
going back to the very beginning of our Nation, New York has
sacrificed more people in the service of our country than any
other State. We are very proud of that.
But we did not have a good experience in the last BRAC
process. I was not part of it, but I have talked to enough
people who have reported to me the demoralizing, discouraging
impact of having the professional recommendations at the last
minute for political reasons overturned. We ended up losing two
Air Force bases, Griffiss and Plattsburgh, that ended having
any significant Air Force presence along our northern border
for most of the United States.
Now of course, with the additional needs of moving quickly
across the Atlantic to Iraq and Afghanistan, with our homeland
security demands, in retrospect that may not have been a wise
decision.
So we are looking forward to and counting on you to be able
to fulfil those very significant pledges that you made in your
answers to our questions.
One matter I would like to raise is I know that there was
some problem with the CARES process that you were very
receptive to dealing with, that a lot of local communities felt
they did not get a chance to be heard. Have you given any
thought as to how you will ensure that communities have an
adequate opportunity to make sure their views are heard?
Mr. Principi. Yes, Senator. I think it is terribly
important and we certainly tried to do so with CARES. We may
have failed in some instances, but that was really a very core
component.
Certainly, in addition to the Washington hearings, I intend
to have regional hearings across the country, geographically
located so that people will have access and can testify, not
only State and local officials, but private citizens. It is my
intent, although I have not seen the list, I do not know what
is on the list, to send commissions out to every installation
that is going to be impacted by the recommendations that come
forward and an opportunity to meet with people, both the base
commander, the local officials, and to the degree possible the
private sector. Then I am sure we will have a web site set up
where we can get information in from the local community.
So I think if we are going to succeed and we are going to
alleviate the cynicism and the political mistrust, then we have
to reach out to the people and give them an opportunity to be
heard. I think our challenge, Senator, is that the time-lines
are so tight. On May 16, we receive the Secretary's report, and
our report has to be in to the President by September 8. That
is a tough row to hoe, but we will do our best.
Senator Clinton. Well, I appreciate that. I know that the
criteria that has been adopted certainly give us the guidelines
that we need. Looking at the contributions that a number of the
bases have made to our ongoing missions overseas, I am very
proud of the fact that our National Guard and Reserve bases
have made significant contributions.
How will you look to give geographic balance to our basing
structure, and particularly to the ability of Guard and Reserve
Forces to be able to train and deploy in an area where they
live? I am concerned that, with the stresses on the Guard and
Reserves that we have seen in the last several years, some of
the information we are getting about some difficulties in
retention and recruitment for the Guard and Reserves, if we
make it even more difficult for people to participate by moving
the bases further and further away from population centers,
that could be a real problem for us.
Mr. Principi. Well, it certainly could be, and we will
certainly look at that very carefully. It is my hope that those
factors are being taken into consideration in compiling this
list.
The criteria really does speak to the total force. It does
not speak just to the active force. It speaks to the total
force, and that includes the Guard and the Reserve. It talks
about staging areas for homeland security, the northern border,
and things of that nature. Those are all factors that this
commission needs to ensure, as an independent check, are being
done in conformance with the force structure plan and those
criteria that are established in the law.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
The record will contain your responses to advance policy
questions in an appropriate place and I will put them in.
I would suggest, Mr. Principi, that you provide for the
record a very carefully written statement by you outlining the
law and regulations and such other factors as will control the
visitation process and the timing of that visitation process.
You gave an accurate answer, as I understand it, in the
testimony, but I tell you, the visitation of a BRAC
commissioner or the absence thereof is going to be a very
meaningful event to communities all across this Nation. So I
would like to have our record today reflect with precision
exactly what guidance you are going to give your fellow
commissioners and that you yourself will follow.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Obviously you cannot visit every base and
you have to wait, as you say, to initiate any visits for fear
to prejudge a decision or reflect some measure of prejudgment,
until that list comes out; am I not correct?
Mr. Principi. Correct.
Chairman Warner. But once the list is out, then presumably
every base on that list will be visited at least once by at
least one commissioner, is that right?
Mr. Principi. That is my intent, yes, Senator, by at least
one commissioner.
Chairman Warner. That is important. Then, should the
commission, as it is authorized under law, exercise its own
initiative and wish to add some installations, there again
visitations would be a part of that preparation.
Mr. Principi. Absolutely. In that case we will send two
commissioners out to that installation.
Chairman Warner. A minimum of two.
Mr. Principi. A minimum of two commissioners.
Chairman Warner. Good. Well, I thank you for doing that.
Mr. Principi. We will have it for you tomorrow, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Well, whatever. But we would hope to get
your name to the floor before the weekend, so you can begin to
exercise your statutory authority, having been confirmed and
taken the oath of office, presumably thereafter and get
underway.
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. It is a tight time schedule. There is an
awful lot of work that has to be done.
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. In your answers to the committee's advance
policy questions, which are now part of the record, you agree
to abide by specific procedures for recusal or divestiture. Has
the White House or the Department of Defense asked you to sign
any other type of agreement regarding recusals or divestitures
due to conflicts of interest?
Mr. Principi. Yes. There was an ethics document that, in
the event of a conflict of interests, that we would recuse
ourselves. I do not recall the precise language, but it is an
ethics counsel----
Chairman Warner. You have been through it many times.
Mr. Principi. Yes.
Chairman Warner. You can check it out.
I am going to go through quickly some points here and then
give you some other written questions to respond to, because
this record should be complete on a number of points. You have
covered, I think most well, but I think it is important to have
them all in at one spot in the record in sequence, because I
went back and studied, as did my staff, previous BRAC
commissions. I have actually been here under all five of these
BRAC commissions. You remember Senator Dixon. You mentioned
him. I remember we drew up one of the laws together. It has
never been a popular task on this committee, because colleagues
have differences of opinion about BRAC. But I strongly support
the President and the Secretary of Defense, and will continue
to do so.
I guess this brings me to the last point I wish to make,
and that is the laws were designed to really have Congress's
role be very precise. Namely, we have at certain junctures the
right to come in, particularly at the end, and approve or
disapprove in its entirety of the recommendation that is to be
laid before the President. That is clear.
I answered some questions about BRAC yesterday on a visit
to our State capital when I was there on some business other
than BRAC. But they always say, he is the chairman, so he is
going to have a lot of influence. But the statute is drawn in
such a way that Members of Congress will participate,
particularly at such times should BRAC commissioners visit a
base. But, it is designed, the law, to eliminate their
influence.
If you can bear with me, I will give you a little anecdotal
experience. When I was privileged to be in the Department of
Defense as Secretary of the Navy many years ago, there was no
BRAC process. If a service secretary felt that he or she, as
the case may be, wanted to close a base, with the concurrence
of the Secretary of Defense, you closed it.
I am glad Senator Kennedy is gone, because he brings it up.
I closed the Boston Naval Shipyard. I am glad Mr. Reed is not
here. I closed the destroyer base in Rhode Island. I wish you
could have seen what occurred in the Caucus Room upstairs when
the entire delegations of the several States in the Northeast,
where I had made these closures, questioned me and the then
Chief of Naval Operations, who was Admiral Zumwalt, for hour
upon hour upon hour, because these were tough decisions and
they impacted then, as they do today, the economic structure of
a community.
Also, quite apart from economics and politics, communities
by and large all across America just adore having a military
base there. It is a sense of pride. It is a sense of history,
and extremely hard to come to grips with the question that no
longer are these facilities on the cutting edge of the
reformation, the changes, the modernization of today's
military.
But in your opening statement, and as colleagues mentioned,
you have to do it, to take out of your inventory those
facilities which are no longer on the cutting edge and of great
military value. It is painful.
I remember so well we closed some of the old posts of the
U.S. Cavalry in the west, which had been maintained since the
late 1800s when they were part of the operations out there
protecting the settlers and trying to protect the Indians on
the reservations, affording law and order. They got up every
morning--I remember President Reagan told me this story. When
he was a young lieutenant, he reported to one of those bases
right after Pearl Harbor. He volunteered and went in. He was a
young cavalryman.
He said: ``Gosh, every morning we had to get up and look
over the ramparts and see what we could see through the
binoculars. They are in the middle of the Far West out there.''
Anyway, I know it is a tough job. But I want to just touch
on this thing. We have taken, as best we can, politics out of
it. I am going to do everything I can as chairman--and I find
tremendous cooperation from my colleagues--to get this BRAC
round through successfully for the country, for the men and
women of the Armed Forces who need the money now being spent on
these bases to modernize the ones on which they are currently
serving and training together with their families. They are the
ultimate beneficiaries.
But as you undertake this commission and its work, and you
are going to do it here, hopefully, beginning next week, I
think it is important that the basing structure we now have in
place at the present time not be changed by the Department of
Defense. It must watch its daily decision process to ensure
that something is not, let us assume unintentionally, done that
would somehow indicate a prejudgment of how that Department is
going to work on its BRAC considerations of that installation.
I think that is important, just as important as keeping the
political partisan politics out of this thing. For example, I
would like to quote for the record Secretary Rumsfeld when he
was here on September 23, 2004. Senator Bill Nelson:
``Secretary Rumsfeld, on March 2, 2004, in a question for the
record I asked Secretary England if the Navy had performed any
analysis of the current strategic conditions, force protection,
and risk relative to the establishment of a second base on the
Atlantic coast for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.''
In his response Secretary England stated: ``This was
underway as part of the U.S. military global posture review.
This review identified a requirement for strategic dispersion
of the east coast nuclear aircraft carrier fleet.''
Secretary Rumsfeld: ``There are proposed moves in the
global posture report to Congress that addresses moving the
relocation of aircraft carriers and carrier assets. However,
the dispersion of aircraft carriers within the continental
United States (CONUS) was not a subject of this report. Any
relocation determination of CONUS carriers will be dependent on
recommendations from the upcoming Base Realignment and Closure
process.''
I wanted you to have that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Principi. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Would you respond to the additional
questions I have here at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:52 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Anthony J. Principi by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DUTIES
Question. Section 2914 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510 as amended;
section 2687 note, title 10, United States Code) describes the duties
of the Commission. What background and experience do you possess that
you believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I served in the United States Navy and Naval Reserve for 21
years at various military installations across the country and at
military posts overseas. Following my Active-Duty service I was
minority staff director on the Senate Armed Services Committee during
the outset of the 1993 BRAC and was involved in hearings and site
visits. As Secretary of Veterans Affairs I faced similar challenges in
conforming VA's legacy infrastructure to the changes in 21st century
healthcare.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. I will continue to review pertinent material and meet with
former BRAC commissioners and staff as well as other knowledgeable
individuals to learn the issues and challenges facing the 2005 BRAC
Commission.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect will be required of you as Chairman of the Commission?
Answer. My first duty will be to hire a staff director. As Chairman
I will lead the Commission's efforts to meet our responsibilities under
the law. I will prepare a roadmap for the conduct of our work in order
to meet the rigid timelines to submit a report to the President. As
Chairman, I believe it is important to set the tone for our
deliberations--to ensure that our work is devoid of politics, to
address potential conflicts of interest, to be independent, fair, open
and equitable, to build consensus and to ensure the communities and
people impacted by the BRAC process have an opportunity to be heard.
Question. If confirmed as Chairman of the Commission, you will be
responsible for hiring an executive director and BRAC staff. How will
you insure that your staff is impartial, professional, and free of
political influence?
Answer. Every prospective nominee for a staff position will be
interviewed to insure they have the requisite knowledge, experience,
expertise and impartiality to serve on the staff. Politics or political
influence in the selection of staff will not be tolerated.
Question. If confirmed as Chairman, will you conduct all
proceedings of the Commission in a manner that integrates the efforts,
views, and concerns of other commissioners?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The Commission's deliberations are designed to be
conducted, to the maximum extent possible, in public. If confirmed as
chairman, how will you promote public participation in the Commissions'
review process, particularly in terms of providing access to elected
officials and the local leadership of communities potentially impacted
by the BRAC recommendations?
Answer. All hearings will be open to the public and information
will be made available to the public in writing and electronic format.
The Commission will hold regional hearings at which elected officials
and local leadership will be invited and encouraged to testify. To the
extent possible, Commissioners and staff will visit impacted
installations and communities to meet with military, state and local
officials as well as the public. Regional hearings will be held at
locations conducive to maximum attendance.
CHALLENGES
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission?
Answer. The Commission begins its work with a very short timeframe
to standup a staff prior to the Secretary of Defense's submission of
base closures and realignments. The permanent core BRAC staff in
existence prior to the 1995 BRAC was disbanded at the expiration of
that round. Additionally, the Commission only has a few months to
review and analyze the data provided by the Secretary to support his
recommendations, conduct hearings, visit installations, markup the
Commission's findings and recommendations and prepare a report for
submission to the President not later than September 8, 2005. Another
challenge will be to ensure that all commissioners and staff remain
impartial and avoid political pressure and conflicts of interest.
Changes in the BRAC statute will make it more challenging to change a
recommendation made by the Secretary and add a military installation to
the closure and realignment list that had not been recommended by the
Secretary.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans as Chairman do you
have for addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, my first priority will be to hire a staff
director and professional staff to begin the preparatory work of the
Commission. A commission agenda and strategy will be prepared for
consideration by the Commissioners. I intend to stress the importance
of objectivity, impartiality and openness throughout our deliberations
and to achieve consensus on changes to Secretarial recommendations on
base closures and realignments.
Question. Do you have any views as to which military bases should
be closed or which missions and/or functions ought to be realigned?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you have any views as to which types of military bases
should be closed and which types of missions should be realigned?
Answer. No.
Question. Will you be able to devote adequate time in order for the
Commission to complete its work as scheduled?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The obligation to clean up contamination at military
sites is governed by a variety of State and Federal laws that apply to
all bases--closed, realigned, or open. Substantial concerns have been
raised about the accounting of environmental clean-up in previous
rounds. What are your views on how the cost of cleaning up
environmental contamination on military bases should be considered as a
factor in making closure and realignment decisions?
Answer. I have taken note that for BRAC 2005, Congress and
Department of Defense have amplified the selection criteria for
environmental impact to include the impact of costs related to
potential environmental restorations, waste management, and
environmental compliance activities. It is not the only criteria to be
considered, but a significant one nonetheless.
THE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PROCESS
Question. The final selection criteria for the BRAC process, which
were set out in Section 2832 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, established four criteria to
assess military value as the primary consideration, and four additional
criteria to assess potential savings, economic impact on local
communities, supporting infrastructure, and environmental
considerations in BRAC recommendations. Do you interpret any of the
eight criteria to preclude, favor, or encourage the consideration of
any specific base, mission, or military function for realignment,
closure, or privatization?
Answer. No.
Question. Military value is the determinative selection criteria
for a closure or realignment. In your view, what are the key elements
of military value?
Answer. The four selection criteria embodying military value, I
believe, adequately define that value. Two key elements contained in
the selection criteria are total force structure to include Guard and
Reserve components and maximizing joint base utilization to facilitate
joint warfighting, training, and readiness.
Question. Are there other criteria that you believe should be
considered when reviewing bases for possible closure or realignment?
Answer. Yes. Total costs and net savings associated with closures
and realignments, economic impact on communities, community
infrastructure at receiving installations and environmental
considerations are important, but secondary to military value. In
addition, consideration must be given to the impact on US base closure
proposals by any decisions to reduce overseas bases.
Question. One of the most important responsibilities of the
Commission is to ensure that communities and installation officials
have an opportunity to provide public input to ensure accurate and
complete information. Final BRAC recommendations will be respected only
if the process is conducted with integrity and transparency. What do
you see as the most important elements of maintaining the public's
faith and trust in the BRAC process?
Answer. Openness, impartiality, nonpartisan, and an opportunity to
be heard.
Question. In past BRAC rounds there have been allegations that the
Department of Defense has not fully considered all relevant information
in making its recommendations. What actions, if any, do you think the
Commission should take to ensure that all relevant information has
been, or will be considered and is available for the Commission and for
public review?
Answer. I intend to seek all relevant information from the
Department of Defense and have been assured that such requests will be
honored. The Commission will fully consider that information in its
deliberations.
Question. Section 2904 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510 as amended;
Section 2687 note, Title 10, United States Code), requires the
Secretary of Defense to carry out the privatization in place of a
military installation only if privatization is specifically recommended
by the Commission. Do you have any reason or opinion which would lead
you to preclude, favor, or encourage the consideration of any specific
base, mission, or military function for privatization in place? What
criteria would you use in making such a recommendation?
Answer. No. The criteria I would use would be similar to those
identified in the 1995 BRAC Report to the President. The opportunity to
eliminate excess infrastructure, allow uniformed personnel to focus on
skills and activities directly related to their military mission and
the opportunity to create truly cooperative ventures with the community
and the Department of Defense that would insure military requirements
are met while enjoying the efficiency of private operation.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Question. The Commission was established with the intent of
providing independent and bipartisan recommendations to the President.
Do you believe you can set aside views based on your political
affiliations and evaluate the Secretary of Defense's proposal--or make
new ones--in an independent manner based strictly on non-partisan
considerations?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Have you ever participated on a compensated or
uncompensated basis in any activity directed at precluding, modifying,
or obtaining the closure or realignment of any base during the BRAC
process? If so, please describe.
Answer. No.
Question. Have you been stationed at or resident in the vicinity of
any base while the base was under consideration for closure or
realignment during previous BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, or 1995?
If so, please describe.
Answer. Yes. I have a residence approximately 15 miles from the
former Miramar Naval Air Station.
Question. Do you or, to the best of your knowledge, does any member
of your immediate family have any specific reason for wanting a
particular base to be closed, realigned, privatized, or remain
unchanged during the BRAC process?
Answer. No.
Question. The procedures set out by Congress for the Commission
raise unique conflict of interest issues. The question of whether a
particular base closure or realignment decision would have a direct and
predictable effect on a particular nominee's financial interests is a
matter that cannot be determined until the Secretary's base closure
list is announced, an announcement that is not due until May 16, 2005.
It is likely that the Commission members will have been confirmed by
the Senate and appointed by then. Accordingly, the Senate Committee on
Armed Services intends to follow the same procedure used during the
1991, 1993, and 1995 base closure rounds.
Under that procedure, the following actions would be taken:
(1) At the time the Secretary's list is announced, the
Commission's General Counsel, working with the DOD General
Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics, will review the
financial holdings of each member of the Commission and advise
the member whether recusal or other remedial action
(divestiture or waiver) is necessary.
(2) The Commission's General Counsel will advise the
committee of the results of the review and the actions taken by
the members of the Commission.
(3) The Commission's General Counsel will establish a
procedure that will provide for similar reviews, and
information to the committee, when and if the Commission
considers taking action with respect to installations not on
the Secretary's list.
Given this procedure, if confirmed, will you agree:
(1) to take such remedial action (i.e., recusal or
divestiture) as may be recommended by the Commission's General
Counsel, working with the DOD General Counsel and the Office of
Government Ethics, to avoid a conflict of interest with regard
to a particular installation on the Secretary's list or
otherwise under consideration by the Commission?
Answer. Yes.
(2) to advise the committee, through the Commission's General
Counsel, of any such recommendations and the remedial actions
that you have taken to address them?
Answer. Yes.
(3) if the recommended remedial action is recusal, not to
participate in any discussion, debate or action regarding the
installation in question or any other installation that may be
under consideration as a substitute for the installation in
question?
Answer. Yes.
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
Question. Although the Base Realignment and Closure Commission was
established by law to provide independent recommendations to the
President, it is important that this committee and other appropriate
committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information from the Commission in order to
carry out its legislative and oversight responsibilities.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee and
other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views on
the processes and recommendations of the Commission?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee and to provide information, subject to appropriate and
necessary security protection, with respect to your responsibilities as
a Commissioner?
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. Will you be willing to provide this committee with an
after-action report on the 2005 Commission's work?
Answer. Yes.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
INDEPENDENCE OF THE COMMISSION
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, the Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) Commission will receive the Secretary of Defense's
recommendations for closures and realignments on May 16. From that date
until you submit your recommendations to the President by September 8,
2005, the Commission will be under intense pressure from all types of
groups to influence your decisions. If confirmed and appointed as
Chairman, what measures will you take to ensure the proceedings of the
Commission will result in independent decisions free from outside
influence?
Mr. Principi. Every prospective candidate for a staff position will
be interviewed to ensure that he/she has the requisite knowledge,
experience, expertise, commitment and impartiality to serve on the
Commission's staff. Politics or political influence will not be
tolerated. I will make a commitment to ensure that the Commission's
work is free from political influence or motivations, that potential
conflicts of interests are addressed adequately, and that the BRAC
process is independent, fair, equitable, and open. I will also ensure
that all BRAC Commissioners and staff are adequately trained, briefed
and otherwise conform to all ethics and related requirements.
QUALITY OF LIFE CONSIDERATIONS
2. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, one of the BRAC criteria refers to
the ability of the infrastructure in local communities to support
forces, missions, and personnel. Much of what a local community
provides to military personnel can be characterized as ``quality of
life'' issues, such as schools, housing, and local services. In
anticipation of BRAC, many State and local communities have undertaken
funding initiatives and programs specifically to improve the quality of
life for military personnel. How do you plan to address quality of life
issues and particularly the efforts of local communities in your
assessment?
Mr. Principi. The ability of local communities to support forces,
missions and personnel is one of the criteria identified in the BRAC
legislation as an important consideration in making recommendations for
realignments and closures by the Department of Defense. I am encouraged
to learn that local communities do value military presence and are
striving to ensure the highest quality of life possible for our service
men and women. Moreover, I will take these efforts into consideration
in providing local community representatives the opportunity to voice
their concerns to the Commission. I trust that our efforts in this
regard will ensure that local communities affected by recommended BRAC
closures and realignments wilt be provided with an opportunity to be
heard. It is my hope that in the end, we will build a consensus by and
through the BRAC process.
FORCE STRUCTURE DECISIONS
3. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, pursuant to section 2912 of the
BRAC law, in February 2004, the Secretary of Defense certified that the
2005 round of BRAC recommendations will result in annual net savings
for each of the Military Departments beginning not later than fiscal
year 2011. It is anticipated that the Secretary of Defense will
recommend BRAC proposals to relocate or consolidate major force units,
such as army divisions, aircraft wings, and naval aircraft carriers,
within the United States. In assessing the Secretary's recommendations
for these relocations, how will the Commission quantify the savings
from a major force unit relocation?
Mr. Principi. The Secretary of Defense is obligated to provide the
projected savings and underlying justification data that support the
recommendation he makes to the BRAC Commission. The BRAC Commission
will analyze this data, and compare it with other data, including that
provided by the affected communities.
CONDUCT OF THE COMMISSION
4. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, the BRAC process was established
by Congress to ensure base closure and realignment recommendations are
reviewed and assessed as fairly and objectively as possible by an
independent commission. In your opinion, what policies of conduct and
procedures should the Commission adopt to preserve the integrity of the
process beyond any shadow of doubt?
Mr. Principi. As a preliminary matter I intend to stress the
importance of the objectivity, impartiality, and openness throughout
the BRAC process, and I will establish internal guidelines and policies
that effectuate this commitment to fairness and openness. I will ensure
that the other Commissioners and staff members remain free from
political pressures and conflicts of interest. I will work carefully
and diligently to see that conflicts of interest are avoided so that
there will be no reason to question the appearance of impartiality of
BRAC Commissioners and staff.
COMMISSIONER VISITS
5. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, BRAC law requires that two
commissioners must visit those installations that were not part of the
Secretary's recommendations, but were added for consideration of
closure or realignment by the Commission. BRAC law does not stipulate
any requirements for visits by commissioners to bases recommended by
the Secretary of Defense, yet I'm sure the communities affected by
these recommendations will want to have an opportunity to talk to the
Commission. If confirmed as a BRAC member and appointed as Chairman, do
you anticipate establishing a policy or requirement for commissioner
visits to those installations included in the Secretary's list?
Mr. Principi. While it will not be possible for every Commissioner
to visit the installations named in the Secretary of Defense's
recommendations in light of the time constraints faced by the BRAC
Commission, I will ensure that at least one Commissioner (and also
where, appropriate, members of the BRAC staff) visits major
installations and communities in order to meet with military, state and
local officials along with interested members of the public. In
addition, the Commission will hold regional hearings in locations
designed to encourage maximum participation by affected communities so
that elected officials, local leadership and the public may be afforded
an opportunity to testify before the Commission.
RECUSALS FROM COMMISSION ACTIVITIES
6. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, in your answers to the committee's
advance policy questions, you agreed to abide by specific procedures
for recusal or divestiture. Has the White House or Department of
Defense (DOD) asked you to sign any other type of agreement regarding
recusals or divestitures due to conflicts of interest? If so, please
provide a copy of any agreement you have signed.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
Mr. Principi. The White House did request me to sign an ethics
agreement that addressed conflicts of interest and other issues. It is
my understanding that other BRAC Commissioners will be asked to sign
the same or a similar agreement, and I will be pleased to provide you
with a copy of my agreement as long as the White House Counsel's Office
does not have any objection. I plan to ensure that all financial and
other conflicts of interest that may arise during the course of my
service on the Commission, should I be confirmed, are addressed
appropriately and in a timely fashion so as not to jeopardize the
mission of the BRAC Commission.
______
Questions Submitted by Senate James M. Inhofe
STAFFING
7. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, in every committee and commission
worth its salt, it is supported by a very able and dedicated staff. I
note in your answers to the committee's advanced questions, your first
action will be to hire a staff director and that your staff will be
impartial, professional, and free of political influence. However, you
have another very important challenge with the staff. You must hire
staff who are knowledgeable in the areas highlighted in the selection
criteria. For example, you must have someone who understands the
military value, environmental impact, economic impact, etc. How do you
plan to ensure you have the ``right staff'' with the ``right stuff?''
Mr. Principi. The BRAC Commission will need to address many
important and complicated challenges very quickly with a 3-month
timeframe established by statute. Therefore, this work can only be
completed by talented individuals, and I consider myself personally,
and the BRAC Commission more generally, to be extremely fortunate in
drawing from a very talented pool of applicants and candidates,
including staff members from previous BRAC Commissions and GAO
detailees.
8. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, where will you look to get
impartial individuals?
Mr. Principi. As I have mentioned earlier in this context, I
consider the impartiality of the BRAC Commission to be a top priority
and I will seek to ensure that in both the hiring and in the completion
of the BRAC Commission's statutory duties that impartiality is
exercised at times by both the Commissioners and the BRAC staff. As I
indicated above, the Commission will seek to hire former BRAC
Commission staff members and GAO detailees.
9. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, this BRAC is unique in several
ways. For the first time cross-Service teams will take a functional
approach in an effort to combine Service functions in a joint way where
it makes sense. So, they will look at Service recommendations in areas
like depots and force the removal of the traditional Service stovepipes
to give this BRAC a more joint feel. How do you intend to make sure you
have staff with the requisite expertise in these functional areas?
Mr. Principi. I am aware of the functional areas in the BRAC 2005
and will seek staff with the expertise and experience in those areas.
DEPOTS
10. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, as you may know one of my major
concerns is with the preservation of our military industrial base. In
the last administration there was a lot of talk about privatizing
public depots. Congress passed several laws to prevent this from
happening thus preserving our core capabilities in the depots. The best
known law was probably 50/50 where we said that no more than 50 percent
of the total amount spent on depot level maintenance could be on the
private side of the equation. We felt that it was important to preserve
our depots. I think the recent war and the surge capability required
and demonstrated by the depots proved our point. I think the recent
acquisition of more and more American businesses by foreign companies
further makes the point that we cannot afford to give up these valuable
assets. It is a matter of national security. When this administration
came to power, it began to put money into the depots and the payoff has
been amazing. Efficiency has increased in many cases over 200 percent.
Are you familiar with the 50/50 legislation? Do you agree that this
BRAC cannot violate existing laws such as the 50/50 law?
Mr. Principi. While I am not familiar with the law that you refer
to, I am aware that this issue was raised in connection with the 1995
BRAC round. I am cognizant of the role that the private sector plays in
depot maintenance, and should the same issue be relevant to the 2005
BRAC round, I will take the matter under advisement.
11. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, are you familiar with the amazing
efficiencies realized by the public depots in recent years?
Mr. Principi. I am not, but soon will be.
LIVE-FIRE RANGES
12. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, another valuable resource in this
country is its ranges. You may be familiar with the fight I led, and
lost, to preserve the Vieques range in Puerto Rico. With environmental
concerns, urban sprawl, community encroachment, and other factors, our
live-fire ranges are becoming extinct in this country. Add to that, the
fact we are redeploying over 90,000 soldiers from overseas bases. This
combination tells me we cannot afford to lose any more ranges. Are you
aware of these concerns? How do you intend to evaluate our need for
preserving ranges for military value and our need to realign and close
bases for efficiency?
Mr. Principi. I recognize the availability of ranges is an integral
plan of military training. Any consideration of retaining or closing
ranges will, therefore, be measured on the basis of the DOD's
recommendations and the statutory criteria.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
REGIONALIZATION OF FACILITIES
13. Senator Collins. Mr. Principi, one of the great strengths of
our Armed Forces is its geographic diversity. Having installations
stretching across the country provides a whole host of benefits,
including reach, coverage, surge capability, and rapid response. Having
installations grouped together in only a few regions substantially
increases our vulnerability and could even raise the likelihood of a
terrorist attack, for example, in one area. Further, in this day and
age, threats can come from any direction. Finally, its important that
every part of our country participate in our national defense. Do you
believe that there is strong value in ensuring that there are Active-
Duty facilities in each region of the country?
Mr. Principi. Yes. I believe that military installations should be
located throughout the Nation to promote geographic diversity
consistent with criteria two.
HOMELAND DEFENSE
14. Senator Collins. Mr. Principi, the goal of our Armed Forces is
to defeat enemies before they reach our shores. However, as we
experienced on September 11, we need to be prepared to deal with
threats within our borders, as well. The Department of Defense is
taking on an increasing role in homeland defense missions. How will the
BRAC Commission ensure that homeland defense requirements and
capabilities will be considered during its deliberations?
Mr. Principi. The Secretary of Defense is mandated to consider
homeland defense requirements in his analysis of which bases should be
consolidated or realigned. The Commission will carefully review and
analyze the data provided by the Secretary to ensure this requirement
is met. If necessary, we will insist on the receipt of additional
information to support his decision.
TOTAL FORCE STRUCTURE
15. Senator Collins. Mr. Principi, I read in your pre-hearing
policy questionnaire that, in your opinion, the key elements of
``military value'' in BRAC criteria include ``total force structure to
include Guard and Reserve components and maximizing joint base
utilization to facilitate joint warfighting, training and readiness.''
Specifically, what do you mean by a ``total force structure
contribution?''
Mr. Principi. The statute implementing the 2005 BRAC round
specifically calls for the Secretary of Defense to consider the impact
on operational capabilities for both the active and Reserve/Guard
Forces in making the decision to close or realign military
installations. Additionally, the statute stresses the importance of
joint warfighting, training, and readiness and in determining necessary
versus excess infrastructure to consider any efficiency that may be
gained from joint tenancy by more than one branch of the Armed Forces
at a military installation.
16. Senator Collins. Mr. Principi, what is your opinion on the
value and utility of Joint Armed Forces Reserve Centers and providing a
``one stop shop'' for various Services' guardsmen and reservists to
train in one location?
Mr. Principi. There needs to be a balance between the ability of
Reserve and Guard personnel to maintain their proficiency and the
consideration of co-locating into Joint Armed Forces Reserve Centers
which may be remote from their domicile. My understanding is that both
Congress and the Department of Defense have been pursuing for the
several years the benefits of co-location of Reserve activities in
order to enhance joint training opportunities. The Commission will give
this issue serious consideration.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
CORE LOGISTICS CAPABILITY
17. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Principi, in Title X of the U.S. Code,
there is a statutory requirement for the Department of Defense to
maintain a core logistics capability. The Department is limited to
spending no more than 50 percent of its depot-level maintenance and
repair funds to contract for the performance of this workload. The
Department of Defense published comments in the Federal Register that
state that ``it is inappropriate to include statutory constraints in
the selection criteria because they are too varied and numerous.'' The
Department goes on to assure us that this absence of statutory
constraints ``should not be construed as an indication that the
Department will ignore these or any other statutory requirements in
making its final recommendations.'' Part of the Commission's role will
be to ensure that all statutory requirements are met. As you select
your staff, I would encourage you to select those that have the
requisite knowledge of these laws to ensure we do maintain a core
logistics capability and the required bases and facilities needed to
conduct depot-level maintenance. Now I know that DOD is required to
evaluate all installations equally, but can you tell us how you will
reconcile this evaluation requirement with existing statutory
imperatives and congressional intent that would preclude discarding our
depot capabilities?
Mr. Principi. Thank you for encouraging me to choose able legal
staff--I fully intend to do so. Concerning the depot-level maintenance
issue, this Commission has no interest in violating the intent of the
50/50 statue (Title 10 U.S. Code 2466) which ensures that no more than
50 percent of any Service's depot-level maintenance funds are spent
with a non-Federal workforce, or the underlying statute which requires
the DOD to maintain an organic source for core logistics workload. We
will carefully work within the data available to the Commission to
ensure that any depot-level maintenance currently performed at an
organic installation recommended for realignment or closure will be
relocated to another organic installation within the remaining DOD
infrastructure.
COST SAVINGS
18. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Principi, the fifth criteria for
consideration by BRAC relates to the ``extent and timing of potential
costs and savings'' and an analysis of the amount of time required for
the perceived savings to exceed the costs of closing a base. This
criteria is designed to ensure that bases are not closed unless there
is a clear basis for significant savings in the near term. What are
your views on the maximum amount of time that should pass after a base
closes before significant cost savings are realized?
Mr. Principi. The cost/savings profile of each recommendation must
be evaluated within the context of all the evaluation criteria rather
than compared to arbitrary or even statistically-derived metrics.
Recommendations with higher than average costs or extended payback
periods may actually be furthering and supporting transformational
initiatives that profoundly affect future military value. A discrete
evaluation of only the cost profiles of these transformational
recommendations would be incomplete and reduce the effectiveness of the
Commission's decisions. While a shorter payback period is preferred,
the Commission is best served to address costs and savings as part of a
holistic evaluation of the recommendation. In doing so, the Commission
is capable of determining the acceptability of the projected time that
will pass after a base closes before significant cost savings are
realized.
19. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Principi, can you give us your
assurances that a base will not be closed simply to meet a quota as
opposed to the result of a thorough analysis of cost savings?
Mr. Principi. You have my assurance that each recommendation will
be assessed in accordance with the criteria specified by law.
20. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Principi, how will you ensure that
closing a base will actually result in financial savings great enough
to justify the disruption of current operations while we are at war?
Mr. Principi. The BRAC law establishes quite dearly the parameters
under which the Commission must exercise its responsibilities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF FORCE STRUCTURE
21. Senator Levin. Mr. Principi, last September when DOD submitted
its ``Strengthening U.S. Global Defense Posture'' report to Congress,
then-Under Secretary of Defense Feith stated in the introduction to
that report that ``the Defense Department will incorporate its
projected overseas posture changes into the BRAC 2005 process.'' In
addition, last year the Army started using emergency authorities to buy
temporary buildings to station the first of the new so-called
``modular'' brigades. The Army provided a series of information papers
to this committee on July 28, 2004 stating that, with respect to these
10 new brigades, ``Permanent stationing for all units will be fully
addressed through the BRAC 2005 process.'' Do you believe the
Commission must consider all major force structure changes, including
the basing for forces to be relocated from overseas back to the United
States and the permanent stationing of the Army's new ``modular''
brigades, in order to ensure that the Commission takes account of all
relevant factors that would affect closure and realignment decisions?
Mr. Principi. I believe that the Commission must consider all major
force structure changes.
INTERNET ACCESS TO MATERIALS
22. Senator Levin. Mr. Principi, do you plan, if confirmed, to make
your materials available through the internet so that interested
communities and citizens across the Nation can access it?
Mr. Principi. Making the BRAC process open and accessible to the
public and to Members of Congress is an important priority for me. To
this end, I plan on making hearings open to the public with the
transcripts of the hearings made available on an electronic format
through a Web site that will be set up for the public and the BRAC
Commission's use. Further, I plan on posting public comment and letters
in an electronic format on this Web site so that the public is able to
communicate effectively and openly with the Commission.
INTERPRETATION OF SELECTION CRITERIA
23. Senator Levin. Mr. Principi, the selection criteria for the
2005 round are essentially the ones used in the past three rounds, and
are intentionally broad. The statutory criteria do not attempt to
capture every nuance that might apply to every possible type of
installation or facility. In the statement of managers on the
conference report on the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill,
Congress stated that: ``The conferees expect that the Secretary shall
adhere, to the maximum extent possible, to responses in the analysis of
comments to the draft selection criteria, as published in the Federal
Register on February 12, 2004, including the incorporation of elements
of military value, such as research, development, test, evaluation,
maintenance, and repair facilities for weapon systems; and the
interaction with a highly-skilled local work force and local industrial
and academic institutions.'' If the yardstick the Commission must use
in evaluating the Secretary's recommendations is whether the Commission
feels the Secretary adhered to or deviated from the force structure
plan and the selection criteria, do you believe that requires the
Commission to interpret the criteria the way DOD interpreted the
criteria?
Mr. Principi. The BRAC Commission is required by statute to review
and analyze the recommendations forwarded to it by the Secretary of
Defense based on the final selection criteria you refer to. The
Secretary is also required to fully justify, by submitting certified
data to the Commission the rationale for making those recommendations.
However, Section 2903 of the BRAC statute specifies that the Commission
may change such recommendations if it determines that Secretary
deviated substantially from the force structure plan and the final
criteria in making such recommendations. Therefore, there may be
differences in the way the Secretary applies or interprets the final
selection criteria and the way in which the BRAC Commission considers
the same criteria. I believe this possibility may have been anticipated
by Congress in giving the BRAC Commission the ability to make changes
to the Secretary' recommendations.
24. Senator Levin. Mr. Principi, do you believe the Commission
should consider the Department of Defense responses to the public
comments about the selection criteria to be relevant information that
provides additional guidance about the meaning and interpretation of
the selection criteria that should be taken into account when the
Commission evaluates the Secretary's list of recommended closures and
realignments?
Mr. Principi. I have not seen the DOD responses to the public
concerns about the selection criteria and, therefore, cannot comment on
it at this time.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
BASE PROXIMITY TO ACADEMIC/INDUSTRIAL CENTERS
25. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Principi, the decisions that you will make
will influence the Department of Defense and our national security for
years to come. As part of that process, you will review the
recommendations for closure and realignment of not only bases, but also
labs and technical centers. These labs and technical centers provide
the intellectual foundation that allows our military to maintain its
extraordinary advantage in technology. Many of us are concerned,
however, that the BRAC criteria overlooks the unique values of these
centers of innovative and advanced technology. Many experts have
highlighted the value of regional technology clusters as the best way
to stimulate innovation and establish valuable partnerships between the
Federal Government, industry, and academic research. The proximity of
these centers strengthens the capabilities of the Defense Department's
labs and accelerates the process of moving new technology out of the
labs and into the hands of our troops. This type of innovation has been
the engine of both our national economic growth, and our military
superiority. I know, for example, that the great synergy created by the
close proximity of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the
defense industry to the Natick Soldier Center has been of great benefit
in the development of nanotechnologies for our troops. How important do
you feel it is to keep Department of Defense centers of innovation
close to academic and industrial centers of innovation?
Mr. Principi. The proximity of DOD centers of research and
development to academic and industrial centers is very important.
LOSS OF EXPERTISE
26. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Principi, most technical employees will
not move to a new location following a BRAC decision to close a base,
so the Department will lose valuable scientific and technical expertise
when the base is closed. Do you think the BRAC criteria adequately
value this potential cost of consolidating bases?
Mr. Principi. The question the Commission must address is whether
the Defense Secretary's recommendations adequately account for this
cost.
27. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Principi, how does the Department plan to
reconstitute this expertise that is lost when a major center is moved
to a very different part of the country?
Mr. Principi. This is a question that the Commission will pose in
its analysis.
28. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Principi, how do you assess the effect of
such a move on the mission?
Mr. Principi. The law is quite clear. If the moves enhance military
value and the Defense Secretary has not substantially deviated from the
force structure plan and selection criteria, then the Commission would
most likely approve the recommendations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
BALANCING RESPONSIBILITIES
29. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, how do you plan to balance
your new employment responsibilities as a Vice President of Pfizer,
Corp. with those associated with being the Chairman of the Base Closure
and Realignment Commission?
Mr. Principi. I plan to resign from my position with the Pfizer
Corporation.
ADDITIONS TO BRAC LIST
30. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, what process will you use as a
BRAC commissioner to systematically evaluate whether or not bases that
have not been recommended for closure or realignment should be added to
the list?
Mr. Principi. The process for adding installations to the list
provided by the Secretary will be arduous and complete. The staff will
review the Secretary's recommendation to determine if the DOD analysis
was complete and, more importantly, if it was accurate. For example,
was the proper weighting assigned to all elements; were all
installations treated equally; and was the data used accurate? The
staff will also conduct independent analysis of the information
obtained during base visits and regional hearings, and other public
input. Additionally, the staff will consider the GAO report to be
submitted on July 1, 2005, in determining if other installation
candidates should be considered in addition to those on the Secretary's
list. The staff will then recommend applicable installations to the
Commissioners who will make the final determination in accordance with
the statute. Please be aware that adding an installation to the
Secretary's list allows the Commission to analyze and visit that
installation; it does not automatically result in the closure of
realignment of that installation. I should mention that, in past BRAC
rounds, the communities were a valuable extension of the BRAC staff in
that they often provided creditable analysis which complemented and
supplemented BRAC staff analysis.
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
31. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, will the BRAC Commission make
available to the general public ``in electronic media'' all information
provided by the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy
including but not limited to:
a. Base Structure Data Base (BSDB)
b. Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) Model and all
associated data
c. Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) Independent Audit Reports
d. Meeting Minutes and Associated Materials from all meetings
of:
i. Infrastructure Evaluation Group (IEG)
ii. Infrastructure Analysis Team (IAT)
iii. Department of the Navy (DON) Analysis Group (DAG)
iv. Functional Advisory Board (FAB)
v. Joint Cross-Service Group (JCSG)
e. DON BRAC Information Transfer System (DONBITS) data files
f. Data Calls (including all supplemental/corrections
requests):
i. DON Capacity Data Call
ii. DON Military Value Data Call
iii. DON COBRA/Scenario Data Call
g. Installation Visualization Tool (IVT) Data and associated
materials
Mr. Principi. The Commission will make available to the general
public in electronic media or hard copy all information provided by the
Department of Defense, except classified information.
EVALUATION METRICS
32. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, what metrics will you use to
compare and evaluate the bases recommended for and not recommended for
closure or realignment against the eight BRAC selection criteria?
Mr. Principi. The basic metrics used to accept or reject those
installations recommended by the Secretary will largely focus on the
DOD and BRAC analyses which will be independently conducted. Those
analyses will ultimately be compared with the force structure plan and
final selection criteria as spelled out in statute. Additionally, the
Commission will consider and review those metrics provided by
representatives of the affected communities. In the end, the
Commissioners will be presented the analysis and recommendations of the
DOD, communities, and Commission staff in making the final
determinations. A vital factor is the overall, professional judgment of
the Commissioners in the final determination.
33. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, since individual data calls
have been sent to multiple tenant commands that are collocated on bases
and installations, how will you evaluate the synergy of these multiple
organizations in evaluating recommendations for closure or realignment?
Mr. Principi. Comparing disparate data will certainly be a
challenge to our staff. They will ultimately be required to review many
of the individual questions asked of each organizational element, along
with the associated metric available in the answer set. Comparing these
answer sets and adjusting for differences will allow for apples to
apples analysis by our staff.
34. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, in some cases, the military
value of a base is enhanced by the local presence of a large private
firm (e.g., shipyard) that did not receive any ``data calls'' and may
not have been factored into a base closure or realignment
recommendation. How will you ensure that the BRAC Commission ensures
that such relevant information is not overlooked in your deliberations?
Mr. Principi. The availability of nongovernmental service which may
affect military value will be carefully considered during base visits
by Commissioners and staff, analysis of all the relevant facts and by
community meetings and presentations. All appropriate factors will be
weighed in our deliberations.
35. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, among the other considerations
in the BRAC selection criteria are economic impacts and environmental
remediation costs. How will the BRAC Commission utilize economic impact
data provided by host States/communities, and how will the BRAC
Commission determine actual environmental remediation costs, since
these costs are significantly affected by the future reuse of the
facility which is at best currently unknown?
Mr. Principi. I note for the record that Congress has amplified the
election criteria for environmental impact and that the DOD, in
response to such amplified criteria, has widened its analysis and the
scope of its recommendations accordingly. The criteria being employed
by the 2005 BRAC Commission includes, for example, the impact of costs
related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and
environmental compliance activities. While environmental related
criteria are not the sole criteria to be used in the BRAC process, it
is a significant factor nonetheless. Economic impact data provided by
host states/communities will also be evaluated against the information
provided by the DOD.
REGIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS
36. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, do you intend to hold regional
public meetings, and if so, how many BRAC Commissioners will be present
at each public meeting and how much time will a community have to make
its appeal?
Mr. Principi. I intend to hold as many regional hearings as may be
deemed adequate to provide public outreach and input. This, along with
base site visits and public input from other sources, will provide the
Commissioners and me, if I am confirmed, with a good overview of the
impact, militarily, economically and in terms of the human factors that
the closure and realignment process will play. While it may not be
possible for me to predict with any degree of reliability the number of
regional hearings and visits that may be required, I will work to
ensure that at least three Commissioners are present at regional
hearings. Further, local communities will be allocated adequate time to
present issues, questions, and evidence for the BRAC Commission to
consider.
37. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, do you intend to have BRAC
commissioners visit each base that is recommended for closure or
realignment, and during these visits will the BRAC commissioners meet
with representatives from the local/host community?
Mr. Principi. While it may not be possible to visit every facility
in light of the time constraints faced by the BRAC Commission, I fully
intend to ensure that major base site visits and the regional hearings
are organized so that the public and local leaders have an adequate
opportunity to reach out to the BRAC Commission and make their concerns
known to it. BRAC Commissioners will participate in all regional
hearings and as many site visits as possible.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
38. Senator Akaka. Mr. Principi, you stated in your answers to the
advance policy questions that you were the minority staff director for
this committee at the outset of the 1993 BRAC and that you were
involved in hearings and site visits for that round of BRAC. You also
state that you faced similar challenges as Secretary of Veterans
Affairs (VA) when conforming VA's legacy infrastructure to the changes
in 21st century healthcare. What lessons have you learned from these
experiences that will assist you as Chairman of the 2005 BRAC
Commission?
Mr. Principi. My experience has shown that every organization must
right-size itself from time to time to reflect changes in policies,
requirements, technologies, etc. I have also learned that these changes
affect peoples' lives in profound ways and that their concerns must be
factored in.
INFORMATION REQUESTS
39. Senator Akaka. Mr. Principi, you state in your answers to the
advanced questions that you will seek all relevant information from the
Department of Defense and you state that you have been assured that all
requests will be honored. Should information not be provided to you
from the Defense Department, will you inform Congress of this problem?
Mr. Principi. Yes, Mr. Senator, I will certainly keep you and
Congress fully advised of such problems, should they occur.
______
[The nomination reference of Anthony J. Principi follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 4, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Anthony Joseph Principi, of California, to be a Member of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. (New Position)
______
[The biographical sketch of Anthony J. Principi, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Anthony J. Principi
During his 4-year tenure (2001-2005) as Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, New York-born Anthony J.
Principi directed the Federal Government's second largest
department, responsible for a nationwide system of health care
services, benefits programs, and national cemeteries for
America's 25 million living veterans and dependents. Commanding
a budget in excess of $60 billion, Mr. Principi led an
organization of 230,000 employees in hundreds of VA medical
centers, clinics, benefits offices, and national cemeteries
throughout the country.
Mr. Principi is a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy
at Annapolis, Maryland, and first saw Active Duty aboard the
destroyer U.S.S. Joseph P. Kennedy. He later commanded a River
Patrol Unit in Vietnam's Mekong Delta. During his service in
Southeast Asia, Mr. Principi was awarded the Bronze Star with a
V for valor.
Upon returning from Vietnam, Mr. Principi earned his law
degree from Seton Hall University in 1975 and was assigned to
the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps in San Diego,
California. In 1980, he was transferred to Washington as a
legislative counsel for the Department of the Navy.
From 1984 to 1988, he served as Republican chief counsel
and staff director of the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, following 3 years as counsel to the chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Principi served as Deputy Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, VA's second-highest executive position, from March 17,
1989, to September 26, 1992, when he was named Acting Secretary
of Veterans Affairs by President George H.W. Bush. He served in
that position until January 1993. Following that appointment,
he served as Republican chief counsel and staff director of the
Senate Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Principi was chairman of the Commission on
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance established
by Congress in 1996.
Mr. Principi was nominated by President George W. Bush on
December 29, 2000, and was confirmed by the Senate on January
23, 2001.
Prior to his nomination as Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Mr. Principi was president of QTC Medical Services, Inc. During
the past decade, he was Senior Vice President at Lockheed
Martin IMS, and a partner in the San Diego law firm of Luce,
Forward, Hamilton & Scripps.
------
[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 Anthony J.
Principi 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.)
Anthony J. Principi.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commissioner-Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
3. Date of nomination:
March 4, 2005.
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 16, 1944; New York City, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Ahlering.
7. Names and ages of children:
Anthony, 31; Ryan, 28, John, 26.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Mount Saint Michael Academy, 1958-1962, Diploma.
New Mexico Military Institute, 1962-1963, None.
U.S. Naval Academy, 1963-1967, BS.
Seton Hall University School of Law, 1972-1975, JD.
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.
Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
QTC Medical Services, President, Diamond Bar, CA.
Chairman, Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans
Transition Assistance, Washington, DC, 1996-1998.
Lockheed Martin IMS, Senior Vice President, Santa Clara, CA, 1995-
1996.
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.
Vice President for Government Relations, Pfizer Corp.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Board of Governors American Red Cross.
Board of Directors Mutual of Omaha.
State Bar of California.
State Bar of Pennsylvania.
Real Estate Broker-California.
American Legion.
Disabled American Veterans.
Veterans of Foreign Wars.
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.
$1,000 Bush-Cheney 2000 election.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Honorary Doctorate Degree-Seton Hall University School of Law.
Bronze Star with Combat V.
Navy Commendation Medal (3).
Numerous awards from military and veteran service organizations for
service as Secretary of Veteran Affairs.
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.
Anthony J. Principi.
This 8th day of March 2005.
[The nomination of Anthony J. Principi was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on March 17, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was recess appointed by the President on April 1, 2005.]
NOMINATIONS OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE; AND ADM MICHAEL G. MULLEN, USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John
Warner (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe,
Collins, Talent, Cornyn, Thune, Levin, Kennedy, Lieberman,
Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, Clinton, and Hutchison.
Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: William C. Greenwalt,
professional staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional
staff member; David M. Morriss, counsel; Stanley R. O'Connor,
Jr., professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general
counsel; and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional
staff member; Creighton Greene, professional staff member;
Bridget W. Higgins, research assistant; Peter K. Levine,
minority counsel; and William G.P. Monahan, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Catherine E. Sendak and Pendred
K. Wilson.
Committee members' assistants present: Cord Sterling,
assistant to Senator Warner; Arch Galloway II, assistant to
Senator Sessions; James P. Dohoney, Jr. and Mackenzie M.
Eaglen, assistants to Senator Collins; Lindsay R. Neas,
assistant to Senator Talent; Russell J. Thomasson, assistant to
Senator Cornyn; Bob Taylor, assistant to Senator Thune; Mieke
Y. Eoyang, assistant to Senator Kennedy; Frederick M. Downey,
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to
Senator Reed; Darcie Tokioka, assistant to Senator Akaka;
William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; and Andrew
Shapiro, assistant to Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good morning everyone. We have before the
committee this morning the current Secretary of the United
States Navy, Gordon R. England, nominated for the position of
Deputy Secretary of Defense and Admiral Michael G. Mullen, U.S.
Navy, who's been nominated to be the next Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO). We will have the two panels. Admiral Mullen
will follow the Secretary.
We welcome Secretary England, his wife, Dotty, and other
members of the England family. We thank Mr. England for his
willingness to continue to serve this Nation in a new and a
challenging post.
I now recognize you, Secretary England, to introduce your
family.
Mr. England. Thank you very much, Senator. I have with me
today my wife and great supporter here for 43 years. I want to
introduce my wife, Dotty. We have been together for 43 years
and have three wonderful children and grandchildren, and I
thank her for her great support of my rather erratic career
over the years.
I also want to introduce my daughter, Marisa Walpert, and
also my son-in-law, Major Bill Walpert. They're both about to
deploy to Okinawa in a few weeks with the United States Air
Force, and we're very proud of my daughter and my son-in-law.
So it's nice to have the three of them with us this morning.
Chairman Warner. It's a very special occasion. We welcome
you, Major, and your lovely wife.
The role of the family in providing support to individuals
in government who hold these senior positions of importance and
responsibility is something this committee has always stressed
through the many years that I've been privileged to be on it.
We thank the members of the families for your special role in
supporting these individuals, particularly the long hours in
the Department of Defense (DOD).
I've often said based on my experience over there, every
decision made after 7:30 is turned around the next morning. So
I urge you to try and get your principals home again.
Secretary England, of course, is well known to the
committee and to the Senate as the 72nd Secretary of the Navy.
He served from May 2001 until joining the Department of
Homeland Security, as its first Deputy Secretary in January
2003. During his initial tour of duty as Secretary of the Navy,
Secretary England is to be commended for, among other things,
his compassionate response to the families of those military
and civilian personnel in the Department of Navy who died in
the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
The Navy command center was hit hard on that tragic day,
and survivors of those brave sailors and Department of the Navy
employees will always remember the strong leadership that you
gave, Mr. Secretary, that you exhibited in the immediate
aftermath of that attack.
I'd like at this time to recognize our distinguished
colleague, Senator Hutchison, for purposes of an introduction.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so pleased
to be here to introduce my friend, my constituent in Texas,
Gordon England, to be number two at the DOD, and I can
truthfully say I can't think of anyone more qualified.
Mr. Chairman, all of you know people in Washington who
clamor to get administration jobs, who clamor to move up the
ladder. Gordon England is not one of those people. I don't
think that he has asked for any of the promotions that he has
ever received. He serves the President; he serves our country;
and he does it because he wants to do something to make a
difference.
I have known him since before he came into this
administration, because, of course, he was a leading citizen of
Fort Worth. He was president of General Dynamics Aviation. His
background is electrical engineering, and his career really was
aviation-related. He became Secretary of the Navy, as you said.
He then became number two at the new Department of Homeland
Security, bringing a business management capability there that
was so important. He then came back to his love, the Secretary
of the Navy position, and has done a wonderful job there of
trying to modernize our Navy for the security risks of the
future.
Today, you know his background; he's been to this committee
several times. I can just say that in addition to his
qualifications, in addition to his educational background, his
business experience, and his management experience, Gordon
England is the person who can take over the day-to-day
operations of the Pentagon better than anyone I know. He has
proven himself. Not only is he a great manager, not only is he
a person who knows the business of the Pentagon, but he is also
a good person, and I can't think of a better recommendation for
this job.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator, we thank you. Those of us who had
the privilege of serving with you have the highest respect for
your judgment. You delivered that introduction with a
tremendous sense of compassion and understanding and belief,
and attaching your credibility to this individual is important
to him and to the Senate. We thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. I recognize now the junior Senator from
the State of Texas.
Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join
Senator Hutchison, my colleague, the senior Senator, in
speaking in support of the nomination of Gordon England to be
our next Deputy Secretary of Defense.
As you've already heard, he has an impressive record of
accomplishments as a businessman and as a public servant. He's
a person of the highest integrity, and I am delighted that the
President has seen fit to nominate him as the Deputy Secretary
of Defense.
Senator Hutchison has already covered his impressive
resume, but let me just try to bring one other nuance to those
trying to piece together what kind of person this is. He was
the first Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, and first to take on that important challenge in the
wake of September 11, trying to bring together disparate
cultures of different agencies, and bring them together in the
interests of the homeland security of this country.
But something that gave me personal insight into what kind
of man this was, is my daughter happened to be working at the
Department of Homeland Security at just an entry-level
position. The kind of kindness he showed to her in going out of
his way to engage her and find out about her, it reflected to
me the kind of character and the kind of person that he is in a
way that I found very reassuring.
So, we are fortunate to have public servants like Gordon
England who have not only the necessary skills, but the vision,
and are willing to take on tough challenges. I know at this
stage in his career he might have just said I'll let this one
pass me by and continue on as Secretary of the Navy or in some
other capacity. But I'm delighted that he is willing to take on
the tough challenge, and I'm sure Secretary Rumsfeld is looking
forward to having someone of his caliber serve as his deputy.
So in conclusion let me just reiterate my strong support
for Secretary England and urge his speedy confirmation. Thank
you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. It's important that we
have your perspective. You have a very special responsibility
in this nomination, and I'd be happy upon the completion of the
committee work to have you sign the papers to bring it to the
floor. Thank you very much.
The committee has asked Secretary England to answer a
series of advance policy questions. He's responded to those
questions, and without objection, I will make the questions and
responses part of the record.
I also have certain standard questions we ask of every
nominee who appears before this committee. If you will respond,
Mr. Secretary, I will now propound the questions.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
Mr. England. Yes, sir, I have.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. England. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record and hearings?
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to questions or requests?
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before any duly constituted committee of
the United States Senate?
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, when asked by any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to provide
documents, including copies of electronic forms of
communications, in a timely manner when requested by a duly
constituted committee, or to consult with the committee
regarding the basis for any good-faith delay or denial in
providing such documents?
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I thank you very much. I'll now ask
Senator Levin to say a few words, and we'll then proceed by
having the opportunity to listen to any opening comments that
you may wish to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. I just have a few words, Mr. Chairman. I
join you in welcoming Gordon England and his family to the
committee. We appreciate the sacrifices which you and your
family have already made and will continue to make in the
service of our Nation.
Secretary England has been the Department's ``Mr. Fix-it''
for the last 4 years. In his brief period of time, he has
served as Secretary of the Navy, Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of the Navy again,
and recently under consideration to serve as Secretary of the
Air Force. At the request of the Secretary of Defense, he has
taken on such critical jobs as designing the new National
Security Personnel System (NSPS) and overseeing the review of
the status of DOD detainees at Guantanamo.
If there's a problem to be solved, Gordon England has
frequently been the one that the President has looked to to
provide that solution. Now, Secretary England has agreed to
take on an even more critical position. 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 it faces
today, including: the transformation of our military forces;
including how do we balance the requirements of the current
military missions, including operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, with the investments that we need to meet future
national security threats; the problems of recruiting and
retention; training, compensation, benefits; and how we balance
force structure costs against other programs
Mr. Chairman, particularly in recent months, we've had the
problem of questionable acquisition practices on the part of
the Air Force, which have resulted in heightened risk of fraud
and abuse in terms of the lease of tanker aircraft. The
Department has recently agreed to restructure two other defense
acquisition programs--the Air Force's C-130J aircraft program
and the Army's Future Combat System program.
I want to particularly thank Senator McCain, who has
highlighted, again, the very urgent need of this Nation to go
back and review this acquisition system of ours, which has
either been violated, obviated, voided, abused, or misused. We
have problems, Mr. Secretary. We need you to use your
particular talent to address those problems that we have.
The demands and the problems in this department are huge.
The Department of Defense now accounts for more than half of
the 25 high-risk management problems that the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has identified across the entire
Federal Government.
The GAO has identified more than half of those in the
Department of Defense itself. This list appears to be growing
longer rather than shorter.
Secretary England, you bring the kind of strong management
background and commitment to addressing these issues that are
so needed in the Deputy Secretary position. The Department
needs your leadership on these issues. We admire your
willingness to take them on. I know very few people in this
town who have almost no critics and who have as many friends as
you do. You bring that particular personal talent to this job
as well--the ability to work with people, to listen to people,
to be accessible to people of all points of views, before
making a balanced decision.
We look forward to your continuing service, and again, we
thank you and your family.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator. Any other
colleagues desire to make some opening comments with regard to
this nominee?
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. We're looking forward to hearing from the
witness. I just want to join with those that have welcomed
Secretary England. I think we'll be very fortunate to have his
service in the Department of Defense. We've had an opportunity
to work with him in the past, in our subcommittee, as Secretary
of the Navy. I think as Carl Levin mentioned, that the Fort
Worth Star Telegram says--I don't often read that, and I don't
often listen to it, but on this occasion they are 100 percent
right--this man has no enemies in Washington after a long and
distinguished career, which says something about his ability to
bring divergent views together.
Just finally, I would hope that you had a good hearing the
other day on the personnel issues, trying to find ways of
working together on them. I know that the Secretary will
continue to work with us, and I'm grateful for that comment,
and we look forward to his service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. We'll now
proceed to hear from the distinguished nominee.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND, TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
Mr. England. Well, Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to express
my deep appreciation to a pair of American patriots, my dear
friends from the great State of Texas, Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison, and Senator John Cornyn. I thank them both for their
kind introductions and their very kind remarks.
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, and members of the
committee, it is a distinct privilege and a great honor to
appear before you today. I am truly humbled by the confidence
President Bush has shown in nominating me for the position of
Deputy Secretary of Defense, and I sincerely value Secretary
Rumsfeld's strong support.
The opportunity for dialogue this committee has provided me
during my time in government over the past 4 years is deeply
appreciated. Be assured that if confirmed, I will continue to
have candid dialogue with you and will be open to your comments
and suggestions.
As a citizen of this great Nation, I also wish to thank
you, this entire committee, for your consistent and bipartisan
commitment to the welfare of our military personnel, their
families, and the security of our country. This committee has
an historic role to ensure the defense of our Nation and the
readiness of our Armed Forces. I thank each of you for that
service.
The first time I appeared before this committee was in May
2001. The world and the security environment have changed
dramatically. Americans, and most people throughout the world,
will never forget where they were or what they were doing at
just about this time on September 11, 2001. I vividly recall
President Bush's visit to the Pentagon the very next day. The
Pentagon was still burning. The President told the leadership
of the Defense Department to get ready. He said that the war on
terror would be a long struggle, that it would be diplomatic,
economic, and military, but that the military had to succeed
for the Nation to succeed.
Since then, the American people and the world have
witnessed the magnificent performance of our men and women in
uniform, on whose behalf I vow to commit my time and my
talents. Our military's efforts in support of the President's
vision of freedom and liberty are already starting to make a
profound difference in the Middle East. The world watched as
the courageous people of Afghanistan cast ballots for the first
time.
Since then, we have seen historic elections in Iraq, among
the Palestinians, and in the Ukraine twice. Syria is beginning
to disengage in Lebanon, and other countries are moving closer
to free elections. Freedom is on the march, but never
guaranteed, even in America. The world is still a dangerous
place. President Ronald Reagan, I believe, said it very well.
The President said freedom is never more than one generation
away from extinction. We don't pass it on to our children in
the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed
on for them to do the same.
America no longer faces just the traditional and the
predictable threats of the past. Rather, we are now also
threatened by enemies who operate from the shadows, outside
governments, outside the rule of law, and without compassion
for humanity.
From my time at the Department of Homeland Security, I am
keenly aware that you cannot protect America from solely inside
America. It takes both a defense and an offense. We need to
continue to take the fight to the enemies of freedom, where
they train and where they organize.
To protect and defend our great Nation and to help those
who still do not live on the right side of freedom, the
Department of Defense recently published the new National
Defense Strategy, aligning the Defense Department's efforts
with the President's commitment to the forward defense of
freedom.
If confirmed, I will work alongside the Secretary of
Defense and all committed patriots in the Department of Defense
and in Congress to achieve the following goals: secure the
United States from direct attack; secure strategic access and
retain global freedom of action; strengthen alliances and
partnerships; establish favorable security conditions; assure
allies and friends; dissuade potential adversaries; deter
aggression and counter coercion; and defeat adversaries.
Our duty to the American people in carrying out these goals
begins with earning and maintaining the trust and confidence
our citizens have placed in the Department of Defense. My value
system is aligned with President Bush's statement on this
subject in his inaugural address. In America's ideal of
freedom, the public interest depends on private character, on
integrity, and tolerance towards others, and the rule of
conscience in our own lives. Ethical leadership is especially
critical in DOD, because trust and confidence define the
strength of the link between a nation, her citizens, and her
military.
In closing, I am reminded of what President Kennedy said in
his inaugural address in January 1961 at the height of the Cold
War: ``In the long history of the world, only a few generations
have been granted the role of defending freedom in the hour of
maximum danger.'' It is a blessing for me, for our men and
women who wear the cloth of our Nation, and for all Americans
who live in this time of maximum danger, to have the
opportunity to defend and advance the cause of liberty.
Thank you for the confidence you have placed in me these
past 4 years. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to
work with you on the challenges ahead. Again, I thank each of
you for what you do every day for our men and women in uniform.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering the questions of
the committee.
[The prepared statement of Secretary England follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Gordon R. England
I'd first like to express my deep appreciation to a pair of
American patriots . . . my dear friends from the great State of Texas,
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Senator John Cornyn. Thank you for
your kind introductions and remarks.
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, members of the committee . . . it
is a distinct privilege and a great honor to appear before you today. I
am truly humbled by the confidence President Bush has shown in
nominating me for the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense and
sincerely value Secretary Rumsfeld's strong support.
The opportunity for dialogue this committee has provided me during
my time in government over the past 4 years is deeply appreciated. Be
assured that if confirmed, I will continue to have candid dialogue with
you and will be open to your comments and suggestions.
As a citizen of this great Nation, I also wish to thank you for
your consistent and bipartisan commitment to the welfare of our
military personnel, their families and the security of our country.
This committee has an historic role to ensure the defense of our Nation
and the readiness of her Armed Forces, and I thank each of you for that
service.
The first time I appeared before this committee was in May 2001.
The world and the security environment have since changed dramatically.
Americans and most people throughout the world will never forget
where they were . . . or what they were doing . . . on September 11,
2001.
I vividly recall President Bush's visit to the Pentagon the very
next day. The Pentagon was still burning. He told the leadership of the
Defense Department to ``get ready.'' He said that the war on terror
would be a long struggle; that it would be diplomatic, economic, and
military . . . but that the military had to succeed for the Nation to
succeed.
Since then, the American people and the world have witnessed the
magnificent performance of our men and women in uniform . . . on whose
behalf I vow to commit my time and talents.
Our military's efforts in support of the President's vision of
freedom and liberty are already starting to make a profound difference
in the Middle East. The world watched as the courageous people of
Afghanistan cast ballots for the first time. Since then, we have seen
historic elections in Iraq, among the Palestinians and in Ukraine.
Syria is beginning to disengage in Lebanon and other countries are
moving closer to free elections. Freedom is on the march, but never
guaranteed, even in America. The world is still a dangerous place.
President Ronald Reagan said it well:
``Freedom is never more than one generation away from
extinction. We don't pass it to our children in the
bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on
for them to do the same.''
America no longer faces just the traditional and predictable
threats of the past. Rather, we are now also threatened by enemies who
operate from the shadows, outside governments, outside the rule of law,
and without compassion for humanity.
From my time at the Department of Homeland Security, I'm keenly
aware that you cannot protect America from solely inside America--it
takes both a defense and an offense. We need to continue to take the
fight to the enemies of freedom where they train and where they
organize.
To protect and defend our great Nation, and to help those who still
do not live on the right side of freedom, the Department of Defense
recently published the new National Defense Strategy, aligning the
Defense Department's efforts with the President's commitment to the
forward defense of freedom.
If confirmed, I will work alongside the Secretary of Defense and
all committed patriots in the Department of Defense and Congress to
achieve the following goals:
Secure the United States from direct attack
Secure strategic access and retain global freedom of
action
Strengthen alliances and partnerships
Establish favorable security conditions
Assure allies and friends
Dissuade potential adversaries
Deter aggression and counter coercion and
Defeat adversaries.
Our duty to the American people in carrying out these goals begins
with earning and maintaining the trust and confidence our citizens have
placed in the Department of Defense.
My value system is aligned with President Bush's statement on this
subject in his Inaugural Address:
``In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends
on private character--on integrity, and tolerance toward
others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives.''
Ethical leadership is especially critical in DOD because trust and
confidence define the strength of the link between a Nation and her
citizens and her military.
In closing, I am reminded of what President Kennedy said in his
inaugural address in January 1961 at the height of the Cold War:
``In the long history of the world
Only a few generations have been granted
The role of defending freedom
In the hour of maximum danger.''
It is a blessing for me . . . for our men and women who wear the
cloth of the Nation . . . and for all Americans who live in this time
of maximum danger to have the opportunity to defend and advance the
cause of liberty.
Thank you for the confidence you have placed in me these last 4
years and, if confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work with you
on the challenges ahead.
Also, thank you again for what each of you do every day for our men
and women in uniform.
I look forward to answering your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We'll proceed to
a 6-minute round, and depending on the number of participants,
the chair, in consultation with the ranking member, will
determine if we can have a second round, given that we have a
series of votes and we're very anxious to get to the second
panel, namely, Admiral Mullen.
Mr. Secretary, it's been my privilege to have had the
opportunity to know and work under and with a number of Deputy
Secretaries of Defense. I cut my teeth with Dave Packard. My
first request of you, a personal one, would be to go back and
review the Packard Commission Report as it relates to the
acquisition process.
Senator Levin quite justifiably recognized the strong
contribution of our colleague here, Senator McCain, who is
currently, as a subcommittee chairman, pursuing this subject of
reviewing the acquisition process in the Department, and God
willing, when I relinquish this seat, I expect that to
continue.
But I want to go back to, if I may be personal, Dave
Packard used to call the Secretary of the Navy or the Under
Secretary, depending on the subject matter, into his office,
and I remember many times before he would let the Department of
the Navy pursue a contract and affix the signatures on it, he
would look you square in the eye and say, ``I'm holding you
accountable for this contract.'' I remember that very well,
because I did the F-14, and the S-3, among other airplane
contracts, and many others. Believe me, I had personal
involvement.
As I look at this Air Force situation, it's a tragic
situation. I'd like to say for the record at this time, I hope
we can quickly put it behind us, and let that Department once
again retain its distinguished position in the hierarchy of the
Department of Defense, parallel with the other military
departments, and get on with its business. Regrettably, there
are still a number of things that have to be resolved before we
can reset.
What initiatives do you intend to take that your
predecessor may not have taken? I do not suggest that by way of
criticism. It's just that you have spent a life as a business
manager and had that experience, which others have not had. I
would want the record to say that I'm speaking for myself, and
I think a number of this committee. We had a very high regard
for Secretary Wolfowitz, but I think there have to be some new
initiatives, a new approach. This is your opportunity to lay
that foundation.
Mr. England. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have to tell
you, I haven't read the whole Packard report. It's about 1,000-
1,300 pages, but I actually have read a lot of the Packard
report, and I am familiar with the findings of the Packard
report. This entire area, I've had a number of discussions with
members of the committee, and I agree with the members of the
committee that we do need to look at the whole acquisition
area. That is part of the effort of the Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) this year.
I can tell you it has my personal attention. We have
acquisition issues in the Navy. We do not have ethical issues
in the Department of the Navy, and I believe that those issues
have largely now been fixed in the Air Force in terms of the
processes and the procedures to make sure that we don't have
the kind of issues they have had in some of their procurements.
But this is an area that will require a lot of attention
and work, and I can commit to you that I will work with this
committee and I'll work with Secretary Rumsfeld and everyone in
the Department. It is part of my basic responsibility as the
Deputy, and that is to put systems in place with defined
accountability and responsibility, specific measures and
metrics, so we can measure the health of the organization. So
this will be my primary emphasis, and I will be working this as
Deputy Secretary if I'm confirmed by this committee, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. We will work along with you. There will be
a lot of attention from this committee on that subject.
Integral to any review such as you're going to perform, and
integral to your daily responsibilities, is just the
fundamental doctrine of accountability, holding those with
responsibility accountable. I mentioned the story of Dave
Packard. I hope that you have your own system of
accountability, and recognize those instances where it goes
beyond the purview of your immediate office and it goes into
the various judicial systems, to accord all of those full
protection under the judicial system.
In the end, there has to be, I think, a greater degree of
accountability. Again, speaking for myself, but I believe
others, we're very dismayed at the acting Secretary of the Air
Force. The last thing he did when he walked out of office was
to wipe the slate clean with regard to questions regarding the
infamous scandals of abuse of the women cadets at the Air Force
Academy. This case was reviewed by the Fowler Commission and
many others. We, in Congress, and the Fowler Commission,
expected a greater degree of accountability for that episode in
the contemporary history of the Academy.
So I just point out that the subject of accountability is
high on the agenda of this committee. It's to be meted out
fairly and in every way in accordance with due process. We
expect it.
Mr. England. Senator, if I could just make one comment. I
believe the hallmark of my tenure and that of the CNO, Admiral
Vernon Clark, is to set high standards, hold people
accountable, and stay with those standards. We have a policy
called the slippery slope policy; that is, you never even start
down that slope. We hold people accountable even for the
smallest transgressions, whether they be moral, ethical, or
technical.
I have with the CNO, I believe, set high standards for the
Department of the Navy, and we'll continue to do so in the
Department of Defense if I'm confirmed, sir.
Chairman Warner. I think the combined team of yourself and
the CNO have relieved about as high a number of ship captains
as any Secretary and CNO have in recent history. I'm fully
aware of the accountability standards that you've employed, and
I commend you and the CNO.
To the subject at hand, and that is Iraq, perhaps the most
tragic chapters have been the start and stops and the failure
to anticipate a number of situations. Foremost was the body
armor, the uparmoring of trucks, and all of those issues. That
should have been foreseen in some measure and planned for, but
it wasn't.
I believe today, everything that can be done is being done,
but the tragic loss of the life and limb, the heartbreak to the
families of the victims and others will never be replaced.
Likewise, the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and the task
force assigned to look into the IEDs, I would hope that you
would put both of these subjects as your very top agenda items.
Mr. England. Mr. Chairman, you have my assurance I will.
You know my capacity, again, as Secretary of the Navy, working
with the United States Marine Corps, this was a very top
priority. Also you should know, of course, I don't have the
responsibility in my current job for Iraq, but I did have the
responsibility to equip the United States Marine Corps, and we
had every single marine with plates and armor before they
entered into Iraq. I do understand the urgency of this, and we
are working those issues today. They will receive my complete
attention if confirmed, Mr. Chairman. I share your views on
this subject.
Chairman Warner. Well, now you don't have just the Marine
Corps and the Navy. You have them all.
Mr. England. Absolutely. I understand. It's daunting.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to the
pervasive failure to establish accountability in the
Department, particularly in the acquisition area, there's a
number of other problems. We had some testimony recently where
the acting Secretary of the Air Force acknowledged that his
Department had gone too far in downsizing the acquisition
organization and removed critical checks and balances from the
acquisition process. That problem is not unique to the Air
Force, by the way.
Your strong background in acquisition puts you in a very
advantageous position in terms of reversing some of the
degradation that we've seen in the acquisition process. I
welcome your assurance to this committee that you will work
with us to re-examine the acquisition organization, the
acquisition process in the Department of Defense, and to ensure
that we have the structures and processes that we need to
deliver high quality systems to the warfighters on a cost-
effective and timely basis.
Mr. England. Senator, you have my personal assurance to do
that. That is an area obviously of significant interest to me,
so be assured that this will receive my highest attention, and
we will indeed work with this committee, sir.
Senator Levin. One of the principles that we've adopted in
acquisition is that you ``fly before you buy'' for weapons
systems. We have not followed that the way we should in the
area of ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems. This letter
came to us from Under Secretary Wynne last year, and I want to
see if you would concur with Secretary Wynne's assurance to us.
He said that he would ensure the Department conducts
operational testing on that system as required by statute. The
Department has committed to adequate testing, even at this
early stage of the BMD system.
Therefore, a focused operational test and evaluation (OT&E)
consistent with the capability demonstrated during combined
developmental and operational testing will be conducted on each
future block configuration of the ballistic missile defense
system. The director of OT&E, will approve the operational test
planning, evaluate test results, and provide a characterization
of operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability.
Is that an approach which you are willing to support that
Secretary Wynne laid out for us?
Mr. England. Senator, that does sound appropriate. What I
understand is we do now have the signed-off test plan by the
director of OT&E as we go forward. The system, of course, was
fielded, and I would say fielded earlier than some systems, but
that was in accordance with the Missile Defense Act of 1999,
which specifically said to start to field as soon as
technically capable.
That said, the design test in fielding as that proceeds
does require a test plan that is operationally--that is
operationally suitable, as close to operational as possible. I
believe--without having the memo in front of me--I believe
that's basically what Secretary Wynne is outlining.
Senator Levin. The operational test plan that you make
reference to is very different from a developmental test plan.
What we would ask is that you would understand that difference
and support the operational testing, which is required by law.
Mr. England. Yes. Senator, I do support the operational
testing. I believe we're doing operational development testing
together as an integrated test plan. But I will definitely look
at this, if confirmed. I will definitely look at this and I'll
get back with you, Senator.
[The information referred to follows:]
In January 2002, the Secretary of Defense directed that the Missile
Defense Agency be responsible for Developmental Testing and Evaluation
(DT&E) of the Ballistic Defense System and its elements, and that
Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) be conducted after a block
configuration is transferred to service for production.
The Missile Defense Agency has taken an aggressive approach towards
ensuring that the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, and the
Operational Test Agencies are involved in Ballistic Missile Defense
System developmental test activities. This approach recognizes that
early involvement by the users and operational testers leads to their
deeper understanding of the Ballistic Missile Defense System
development processes and operations, which can only serve to improve
the operational Ballistic Missile Defense System.
The Missile Defense Agency, the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation, and the Operational Test Agencies approved an Integrated
Master Test Plan in December 2004. This plan adds operational realism
to the test program, as directed by section 234 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. The Integrated Master Test Plan
will be revised annually to expand on the combined developmental and
operational test approach. More realistic operational testing will be
planned and executed, consistent with the maturity and capability of
the system, as we move from subsystem to fully integrated system-level
testing for each block. Currently, every major Ballistic Missile
Defense System ground and flight test includes operational test
objectives to provide data for an operational assessment.
To specifically address section 234 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 on Increasing Operational
Realism, the Director, Missile Defense Agency and the Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation, issued a joint report (Ballistic
Missile Defense System, response to section 234, Increasing Operational
Realism, April 4, 2005) which expanded on the criteria for
operationally realistic testing provided in the Ballistic Missile
Defense Integrated Master Test plan, and provided a brief description
of the significant tests that were planned over the next 2 years.
Because of our recent test setbacks, MDA has established a Mission
Readiness Task Force to implement the corrections needed to ensure we
return to a successful flight test program. To address the task force
recommendations, the Department determined that we needed additional
time to address mission readiness before meeting the test timeline
specified in paragraph (b), section 234 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Upon resumption of the flight
test program, we will work with the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation, and the Service operational testing communities to ensure
an adequate testing program is executed that provides essential data to
evaluate and adequately demonstrate the operational capability of the
Ballistic Missile Defense System.
Senator Levin. Thank you. After your confirmation,
Secretary England, do you expect to play a role in the QDR?
Mr. England. Yes, I do, Senator.
Senator Levin. One of the issues which has arisen relative
to that is that former Department of Defense officials are
going to be given a role inside the QDR development with panels
that they are going to participate in. I just want to let you
know that I find that troubling, that former officials would be
playing a role internally with those panels, and I would only
ask that you look at that and get back to this committee as to
whether or not you think it is appropriate.
Mr. England. Yes, sir, I will.
Chairman Warner. Would you allow for an intervention?
Senator Levin. Sure.
Chairman Warner. Secretary Wolfowitz called me on that
issue, and I seem to have a view that is different than yours.
I believe that the breadth and scope of that review is such
that if he wishes to access talent beyond what had been in
previous reviews, it might strengthen the report. I just want
that on the record.
Senator Levin. Sure. My issue is not that he accessed
talent with outside recommendations. It's that outside people
formerly with the Department would participate on the internal
panels reviewing the QDR, which is a very significant
difference. I would just simply ask that you look at that
difference and report back to this committee on it.
Mr. Secretary, are you going to continue to play a leading
role in the implementation of the National Security Personnel
System (NSPS) the way you've done so far? It's been a
critically important role. We've gone through this at other
hearings, and we commend you again for your accessibility, your
openness, your willingness to listen, and consider different
points of view. I hope you're going to continue to play that
role, but my question is, are you going to?
Mr. England. Yes, Senator. I am going to continue that
role. I would only moderate that and say I will continue that
role at least through the publication of the final regulations
and through the implementation of the first round. At some
point we do hand it off, but I will make absolutely certain we
get through the finishing of the development of the NSPS and
the initiation then of the system in the first round.
Senator Levin. Thank you. The report of Vice Admiral Church
on interrogation techniques cited the fact that the Navy
General Counsel, Alberto Mora, raised serious concerns
regarding aggressive interrogation techniques which had been
approved by Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002 for use at
Guantanamo Bay. According to the Church report, Mr. Mora said
that the head of the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
at Guantanamo, Mr. Brant, reported to him, Mr. Mora, that a
detainee at Guantanamo was being subjected to physical abuse.
Concerns about this interrogation were so serious that the
Defense Department's Criminal Investigative Task Force, of
which NCIS is a part, decided to disassociate itself from that
interrogation. Now, after a briefing by Mr. Brant and the head
of the NCIS, chief psychologist Dr. Gellis, Mr. Mora concluded
that those interrogation techniques would ``be unlawful and
unworthy of the military services.''
Based in part on Mr. Mora's objection, Secretary Rumsfeld
rescinded the approval of those aggressive interrogation
techniques in January 2003. My question to you, Mr. Secretary,
is whether you were aware of your General Counsel's objections
to those aggressive interrogation techniques which had been
approved for use at Guantanamo?
Mr. England. Senator, I was aware, but retrospectively,
because I had left about the end of November for the Department
of Homeland Security. So I was aware, but frankly, I wasn't
that deeply involved, so I'm really not in a position to
comment on that, Senator.
Senator Levin. You had left in November 2002?
Mr. England. Yes, that's correct.
Senator Levin. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to
add my words of congratulations and support for your
nomination, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. England. Thank you.
Senator McCain. I've had the pleasure of working with you
for many years, and I strongly applaud and appreciate the
outstanding work that you've done in the past. I know you are
keenly aware of the significant challenges that you face.
I'd like to talk about acquisition and procurement with
you, but first of all, I would like to mention I'm very
interested in bringing closure to the whole Boeing affair, and
I can't do it until we get the e-mails that were promised. The
latest promise was the middle of February, and here we are in
April and we still haven't gotten them, and it's largely due to
the obfuscation by the General Counsel of the Department of
Defense. I hope you would address that issue so we can bring
closure to this issue and move on.
Mr. England. I will address it, Senator.
Senator McCain. On the issue of procurement, a specific
question. We were told in testimony and published information
that if the C-130J is canceled, which is the present budgetary
proposal sent over by the President, that would increase the
cost of the F-22, because they're made by the same
manufacturer. When Boeing shuts down a line of their commercial
aircraft manufacturing, they don't add cost to the other
product.
We're going to want some answers on that. I understand that
it could be hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs
to the F-22, which has already sustained significant cost
increases. Will you look into that for me? I've asked the Air
Force to give us some information on that. I'd appreciate it if
you'd look at that.
Mr. England. I'll definitely look at it. We'll get back
with you, Senator. It sounds like it's an allocation of
overhead, but I'll definitely look at it and we'll get back
with you, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
It is a common practice within industry to apportion overhead costs
across a portfolio of products from a single manufacturer, shifting
that spread as changes in the portfolio occur. In this particular case,
the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) estimated that
termination of the C-130J program would have added $175 million total
overhead across F/A-22 lots 6-8 because the F/A-22 and C-130J share a
production facility. Other Lockheed Martin programs would have also
seen smaller increases in overhead. In each case the exact amount
however would have been negotiated, had the C-130J multi-year contract
not been re-instated.
Senator McCain. Thank you. We'll get into it more later on.
I'm sure you saw the article in today's New York Times which is
very disturbing about Navy shipbuilding. We all know that the
budget request for next year is for four new Navy ships, which
is the all-time low that I've ever heard of. I guess, according
to this article, we now have less Navy ships, than we've had
since World War I.
But the interesting thing in the facts that we have been
able to obtain is the dramatic cost overruns that are
associated with acquisition of ships. Now, it isn't just ships.
We are running into the same thing with Future Combat System
(FCS) and other weapons systems. We all know that Navy ships
have more than one mission. One of them is to fight. Another
one is for presence. Another is to be prepared to respond. In
the new kind of warfare we're fighting, it may not require the
most sophisticated weapons systems, and yet, we're now at a
point where, at least according to this article, we may be
building 4 or 5 of the new destroyers, as opposed to the
original 24.
Assistant Secretary Young is quoted as saying the
shipbuilders' complaints about stability are way overstated. If
I give you $30 a week, you'd find a way to eat lunch for a
week. You'd find a way to do it, but if I said lunch for a week
and whatever it costs, things would come out differently.
We have to get a handle on this, Mr. Secretary, and if
we're now evenly dividing the ship production between two
shipyards and there's no real competition, then the only answer
is some kind of government control, if there is no competition.
We all want competition, but apparently there is none.
I know you've been heavily involved in this issue before
you went to the Department of Homeland Security. I know you're
aware of it. When we have the increase in costs of $3 billion
in 2005 dollars to $13 billion in 2005 dollars for aircraft
carriers, we're just pricing ourselves out of the business.
I'd be very interested in hearing your views as to how we
can address this problem, and quickly.
Mr. England. Senator, it is a significant problem. You're
absolutely right. I do not disagree with you on this. This is a
significant problem. I will tell you it does not lend itself to
a simple solution. I believe this is very complex. A lot of the
industrial base is basically ``captured by DOD,'' so we have a
very small industrial base for the Department. A lot of that
industrial base relies solely on funding from the Department of
Defense. That makes it very difficult for the Department and
for the companies, particularly when we're in a period of
change and transition, as we are today.
So I don't know the answers. I do know that we need to work
this issue. We do have an effort underway as part of the
Quadrennial Defense Review to look at the whole acquisition
aspect. We're also looking at Goldwater-Nichols. Of course, it
came out about 1986. It was a different world. It was a lot of
contractors and large production, and now we have small rates
and a small number of contractors, and speed is important.
So we need to look at the whole premise of how we're
proceeding on acquisition. There have been a lot of studies. I
don't know the answer, Senator. The most I can tell you is I
will be very open. I'll work with Congress and the industry and
approach this problem, because it is an issue.
Our cost in every single weapons system is going up
dramatically, and is going up dramatically above the inflation
rates.
Senator McCain. Could I just mention, Mr. Chairman, I
understand that the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) is doing a comprehensive study that may give us
some ideas for reform. Clearly, we need to go back and look at
Goldwater-Nichols. I think the fact that the Department of
Defense encouraged consolidation amongst Defense corporations
was a mistake in retrospect. We need to at least examine a need
for possible legislation, and I'm obviously thinking out loud,
but for us to impose more bureaucracies, more regulations, and
more strictures, then that increases rather than decreases
costs.
Thank you for saying you don't know the answer. I don't
either, but I do believe that it has to be of the highest
priority. Obviously, I have some previous bias towards the
Navy, but the thought of having less ships in the Navy than at
any time in the last 100 years in an era when we're facing a
challenge--I don't say a threat, but a challenge--in the
emerging superpower in Asia, is something that I think should
concern all of us.
I thank you for your appreciation of the problem, and I
believe that this committee should make it a very high priority
to address this issue, and I thank you.
Mr. England. We will definitely support you in those
efforts, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator McCain. I'll volunteer,
if I may, my time. On the floor right now we've got an $84
billion supplemental, and much of that is to replenish and
augment what's perceived to be the needs of the United States
Army. I'm not here to argue that.
This shipbuilding situation is going to get turned around
only if a persuasive case is made to the President of the
United States that he must direct his budget authorities to
begin to include in the Department of Defense's budget
earmarked for the United States Navy those funds sufficient to
turn this curve around, and once again restore America to its
preeminence in naval shipbuilding. That's this Senator's
response to an answer.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
England, welcome. Thank you for being willing to accept this
responsibility. You're making your way up rapidly at the
Defense Department with a good cause, and I appreciate it.
In a city that is very ideological and partisan, you are a
wonderfully sensible man who keeps his head while a lot of
others around are losing theirs.
Mr. England. Thank you.
Senator Lieberman. So I admire you very much. It's been a
pleasure to get to know you, and I look forward to working with
you in this new position. I must say also that I found your
opening statement to be stirring, and I appreciate very much
your patriotism.
In the programmatic give and take that we have around here
most of the time, we don't get to hear what motivates you, and
I appreciate that very much. I'm not surprised by it, but I
respect it. I thank you.
You may get a feeling that we're either jumping on here
today or we're all reaching a conclusion at a similar time, and
there is clearly growing and deep concern about the acquisition
process within the Defense Department on this committee, which
is obviously a pro-Defense committee. To some extent, Senator
McCain acting on his instinct that something was wrong with the
Boeing tanker lease agreement, began the unraveling of a
problem here that is much more complex and wide than the
unethical conflict of interest behavior of one former employee,
Ms. Druyan, who is now incarcerated as a result of her
behavior. It is my pleasure to serve with Senator McCain as the
ranking Democrat on the Airland Subcommittee.
I do want to come back and ask you something and emphasize
a point. I quoted, at the hearing we had last week, testimony
by General Martin about the, not quite collapse, but the
weakening of the acquisition offices within the Air Force, and
that the offices were reduced in number during the 1990s as we
scaled down the budget of the Defense Department, but now as
we've raised it up again in the middle of a war now, we haven't
raised up the acquisition forces within the office.
General Martin, at least, thought that that was part of the
problem beyond the ethics of Ms. Druyan. The failure of a lot
of others besides Ms. Druyan to blow the whistle on that
particular proposal with Boeing, and why the incredible cost
escalation.
So my question is, from the time you've been in the
Department, do you think we've let the acquisition offices
atrophy to our detriment?
Mr. England. Well, Senator, I have to say I perhaps have a
different view. Frankly, my view is we need to greatly simplify
the system. I believe it's very complex. It's very difficult to
do work with the Department of Defense. We have a lot of rules,
regulations, and complexities.
My tendency is, at least, to try to simplify. It's better
oversight if it's better understood, and it's easier to manage
if it's better understood. That may be difficult to do. We
haven't been able to simplify it over these many years. It
always gets more and more complex. But my tendency is, if it is
simpler, then it is easier to manage; it's more
straightforward, as we have better metrics to understand where
we are. I think industry would understand our process better.
We may open up the industry base to more competition across
companies in America. So my tendency is to make it simpler.
Now, do we have enough people or not? In the Department of
Navy, my assessment is we do, and I believe we do the job very
well. I really can't speak for the Air Force, Senator.
Senator Lieberman. Well, that's not the answer I expected,
but it may be the right answer. I wish you well, and please
continue to be in touch with us about that. There's no question
that some of the complications in the acquisition process, I
presume, have been put there to instill accountability.
But if they are part of the cause for the escalation in
costs in acquisition, which is making it less and less possible
for us to acquire the systems that we need, then let's give
simplicity, or some more simplification, a try.
Mr. England. Well, Senator, in the QDR this year, this is a
key part of the QDR, the whole acquisition aspect. So with the
QDR, which I will be managing for Secretary Rumsfeld, it will
get my personal attention. Plus, in addition to that, it's
going to get my personal attention because I'm interested and
I'm concerned, as you are, about the whole acquisition process.
I previously participated in a number of Defense Science Board
studies before I came into government on this very issue. I am
familiar with it, and so I will work this, because this is at
the bedrock of what we do in the Department of Defense.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that. Look, we're talking
about cost, which is critical. I've always been amazed at how
long it takes to get a new plane, a new ship from research and
development to actual delivery. It's unbelievable, at a time
when cycles of technology are changing every 6 months to a year
in the private sector.
Mr. England. That was a concern.
Senator Lieberman. Go to it, and be as strong as you can.
Obviously the other point we're making is set forth in the
shipbuilding story in the paper today. I understand that the
sophisticated systems we're building are better than single
vessels or single planes produced before. But at some point,
quantity does stop quality and inhibits our ability to defend
ourselves.
Thank you very much for your answers and for your
willingness to serve in yet one more position in the Defense
Department.
Mr. England. Thank you very much, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When Senator
Lieberman talked about the time it takes for systems to be
delivered after ordering, I remember the problem we had in some
of the fast-moving technologies such as global positioning
system (GPS). By the time the system was delivered, it was
already obsolete. That is a serious problem that has been
looked into and needs to be followed up on, I think.
Secretary England, during the development of the budget and
what came out of the administration, the thing that upset me, I
guess, more in terms of being inadequate was the fact that
they're cutting the C-130Js, J-models, and actually eliminating
them and cutting the Marine version, which is the KC-130J, down
from 51 to 33.
When Secretary Teets was here about a month ago, just prior
to his retirement, that was at a time when 30 of the KC-130Es
were grounded and another 60 C-130 Es and Hs were restricted,
or being restricted due to cracks and highly stressed areas.
The study that has taken place, the mobility and capability
study, was in process when they came out with the elimination
of this program.
I think there's one area that we are deficient in and that
is the area of lift and lift capability. I know that they're
talking about it. I've heard a variety of figures, on the
termination costs. Apparently these were not considered at the
time that the budget was developed. While I do agree with
Senator McCain, and it may be a stretch sometimes talking about
the effect on the F-22, certainly it would definitely have an
effect on the KC-130J models that the Marines have.
I think both Secretary Teets and General Jumper stated that
there would be a review of this cancellation. I'd like to have
you make some comments as to your feelings about that
particular review and about the problem that we have in that
capability.
Mr. England. Well, Senator Inhofe, I do know it's being
reviewed. We did have a requirement for an additional, as you
indicated, I believe, 17 KC-130Js in the United States Marine
Corps. That was part of the input that led the DOD to look
again at the C-130J contract in terms of how to go forward.
My understanding is it is being re-looked at, partly in
response to the Department of the Navy. I don't know exactly
where that is, sir, because that's really outside my purview
now as Secretary of the Navy. But I will look into that. I'll
be happy to get back with you, Senator, and I'll let you know
the reports of that.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Department is reviewing the decision to cancel the C-130J
multi-year contract, based on new information regarding contract
termination costs. I anticipate Secretary Rumsfeld will announce his
decision soon.
My understanding is we are going to go forward at a minimum
and build out the KC-130Js for the United States Marine Corps.
Senator Inhofe. I'd like to have you really look at that
and consider that, because when you go into the field and talk
to these people, they talk about their deficiencies and lift
capability, and this doesn't seem like the right time.
Senator McCain ended his questioning by talking about the
emerging superpower in Asia, obviously talking about China.
I've had occasion to give four China speeches on some of the
things that are happening recently. We remember back during the
1990s, China was caught stealing some of our nuclear secrets,
the W-88 warhead, the crown jewel, I guess you'd say, of our
arsenal. They were able to get that and have capabilities and
are trading those capabilities with North Korea.
I'd like to have you comment as to your concern over that
emerging superpower in Asia, as Senator McCain put it.
Mr. England. Senator, obviously a concern, because it is a
growing power, and so we obviously need to keep track from a
military point of view to make sure we are prepared to
dissuade. That said, I certainly hope that in the course of
China's development, we find mechanisms to make them our great
friends. Today they account for a lot of our trade, and a lot
of our trade deficit, but the trade between countries is also a
way to build ties of prosperity and peace so, hopefully, we
don't end up in a conflict. China and all other countries need
to be monitored by the Department of Defense.
Senator Inhofe. I understand that, but let me specifically
request that you spend some time on the Cox report. They spent
about 4 years working on a bipartisan approach to the emerging
threat that China presents. I will read you one of the
statements that was very disturbing to me that came from two of
the top senior Chinese colonels. As they said, military threats
are already no longer the major factor affecting national
security. Traditional factors are increasingly becoming more
intertwined with grabbing resources, contending for markets,
controlling capital, trade sanctions, and other economic
factors. The destruction they do in the areas attacked are
absolutely not secondary to pure military wars.
It's something that I have been very much concerned about.
While there's not time to pursue this, and I won't be here when
Admiral Mullen is here, I would like to have him for the record
respond to some of these things. Right now in certain areas,
whether it's in Venezuela, Iran, or any number of countries
like Benin and Nigeria in Africa, the Chinese are doing things.
They're building stadiums, doing things free for all these
countries.
But what do they all have in common? They have in common
that they have huge resources in terms of the deficiencies that
China has. In other words, they have oil. The greatest need
that China has right now, and that they can foresee in the
future, is that of oil.
So, I would like to have Admiral Mullen spend a little bit
of time for the record in responding with his opinion. Also, as
to what we should be doing and the threats that are there.
I know that you have been confined to the Navy, but here's
just one thing that came out of the report. China is looking
not only to build a blue water Navy to control the sea lanes,
but also to develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to
deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from
potential threats, including the U.S. Navy, especially in the
case of a conflict with Taiwan.
Now, we know also that they have been in a position to buy
in one purchase some 240 SU-30s, which are better--in so many
ways--than our F-15s and F-16s. I consider this to be very
serious, and would hope that you would share that concern and
start addressing it.
Mr. England. Senator, I do share that concern.
Obviously, the Navy has taken a lot of actions. I'd like to
not discuss it here, but would be pleased to get with you and
have those discussions, and also with Admiral Mullen. From a
naval point of view, we are keenly aware of the actions being
taken by China. We would be pleased to meet with you at your
convenience and discuss that, Senator.
But as a matter of policy, I understand your input and do
not disagree with this, sir. Obviously it's an area of
interest.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Secretary England.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, and welcome indeed.
I've enjoyed working with you in your capacity as Secretary of
the Navy, and look forward to continuing that relationship.
I think from the questions that have been posed thus far,
Secretary England, you get an idea of the unanswered questions
and some of the frustration that members of the committee feel.
Speaking just as one member of the committee, it was a very
difficult relationship with your predecessor. Very often we
didn't get answers. We didn't get follow-up, we rarely got the
kind of response that this committee and this body deserve to
have. So it's a welcome change to have you before us.
There are a number of concerns that have already been
raised, and I'd like to focus on just a few more. I'm concerned
about the continuing use of supplementals to fund permanent
force structure changes. We've seen the Department rely on
supplementals in both fiscal year 2005 and 2006 to fund
existing or planned end strength increases, as well as
permanent changes in force structure, known as modularity in
the Army, and the force structure review group for the Marine
Corps.
Earlier this year, when I asked the Army's Chief of Staff,
General Schoomaker, why the Army's 2006 budget did not fund the
personnel level of 512,000 the Army actually plans to have
instead of the 482,000 that are funded in the budget, he stated
that he was given the option of funding those extra people in
his core budget or in a 2006 supplemental. He chose the
supplemental so he wouldn't have to displace other programs.
Now, if the senior leadership of the Department gives the
Services the choice of funding programs below the line or above
the line, of course they're going to pick the same option that
the Army did and that the Marines did in this budget, and put
it on the supplemental tab. But programs like modularity are
not surprises. They're intended to be permanent changes in the
way services operate. In my view, it's not responsible
budgeting.
So let me ask you, do you believe it is sound budgetary
management practice to submit budgets that do not fund the
actual level of Active-Duty people DOD intends to have on board
in 2006, and to include only a small portion of the operating,
construction, and modernization costs of ongoing restructuring
plans such as modularity? If confirmed, would you work with us
to ensure that DOD sends us a budget that realistically
reflects personnel levels and long-term modernization efforts?
Mr. England. Senator, we will definitely work with you, and
I appreciate the opportunity to do so. Regarding the
supplementals, my understanding as the one responsible for the
Department of Navy budget is that when we have predictable, and
what I call everyday things that we know are going to happen,
we put those in the budget. If it's unpredictable, like a war
contingency, we put them in the supplemental.
I don't know about the Army, Senator. I wasn't given an
option about what goes in or out of the budget. I mean, it's in
our budget. Now, the devil's in the details. Right now, we are
working on the 2007 budget, so there is this long lead time in
terms of what is predictable. When we know what it's going to
be, and it is the course of business of the Department, it
definitely should be in the budget. When we know those costs,
they should be in the budget. However, for unpredictable,
contingency sort of operations, obviously we'll need a
supplemental.
So, I think that's the policy, and I believe that is a
valid policy. There may be some differences in the details, but
keep in mind we have a long lead time in terms of putting those
budgets together.
Senator Clinton. Well, I'm very happy to hear that. The
Senate passed a Sense of the Senate resolution yesterday making
the same point so that we would have budgeting that would be
reflective of the long-term costs that we know we're going to
be incurring.
With respect to that, my colleagues, Senator Reed and
Senator Hagel, have been the leaders in arguing that we need to
grow the end strength of the Army, and that is something that
we've not yet really come to terms with from the Department's
perspective. What are your views about increasing Army end
strength, and is it something that will be addressed in the
QDR?
Mr. England. Yes, it will. We will specifically look at
force size in the QDR, Senator, and I would recommend that we
go through the QDR, because it will be starting with
capabilities, but we will get down to a force-sizing construct,
and that report is due next February. Hopefully, we can hold to
that schedule.
It is a very complex and a very important QDR. The last
QDR, of course, was before September 11, so this is now
reflecting the world that exists today. It will be very
complex, but it will certainly point to force sizes. In terms
of total force, my expectation is that we will be able to get
down in terms of numbers of specific assets, and that's a
question that's come up here today, how many of what assets do
we need. There will be a very comprehensive look in the QDR,
and, hopefully, we'll have some answers for you at the end of
this QDR, Senator.
Senator Clinton. We look forward to that. I know that
there's a continuing effort on the part of many of us to try to
get an answer on the end strength of the Army.
My time is up, but yesterday on Long Island, my colleague
from the House, Congressman Steve Israel, and I held a hearing
with military families and vets, and the problems that our
Guard and Reserve families are encountering are heartbreaking.
Despite the fact that we have tried to address some of these
issues like the absence of health care, like the continuing
problems with companies foreclosing on homes, repossessing
autos while a loved one is deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan,
they are having a terrible impact on the morale of families,
which of course has a boomerang effect on the morale of the
serving Guard or Reserve member.
I would just urge that some of us, Lindsey Graham and I and
others, have been pushing for some very positive changes with
respect to health care and retirement, and we need to do that.
I'm worried about our recruitment and retention goals in the
Guard and Reserve, and we would look for some support and
guidance from you in your new position. I thank you very much.
Mr. England. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I also have some
concerns along the lines that you talked about concerning the
Guard and Reserve, but I don't want to suggest that in any way
are the Active Forces and the families of the Active Forces
having similar experiences. So there's a uniqueness to those
who are brought from civilian life rather abruptly and
integrated, but there are comparable hardship cases in the
Active Forces.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Mr. England. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Collins. The total shipbuilding budget has fallen
from $11.4 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $10.4 billion in 2005
to $8.7 billion in this year's budget request. Last week,
Admiral Clark testified before the Seapower Subcommittee that
he really needs $14 to $15 billion for shipbuilding.
He also made a second, very important point. He talked
about the lack of stability in the shipbuilding budget, and
what he said he needs is level funding for a number of years.
Similarly, the shipbuilding industry representatives testified
last week that they are unable to respond economically and
effectively to the instability in the budget fluctuations.
Continual revisions to the Navy's shipbuilding budget has a
ripple effect on their workforce, on their suppliers, and they
made the point that this contributes to the cost growth problem
that I know is of tremendous concern to you.
In other words, absent a predictable plan, the industrial
base cannot fully leverage its capabilities to provide the Navy
with the most affordable ships possible. Do you believe that
more stable funding, and an end to this up-and-down approach,
as well as increased shipbuilding funding, would be better for
the Navy, for the industrial base, and for our Nation's
security?
Mr. England. Well, certainly stability is good for
everyone, Senator. There's no question. I would have to agree
with that. I do have to comment, we are down this year, but our
research and development is also at an all-time high. The Navy
is at a point of transitioning to a whole new class of ships.
So while everyone's concerned, and I am this year, we have
four ships that we count, but we also have a vast amount of
money in DD(X) and LHA(R) that do not ``count,'' so we're not
counting them this year. That said, our procurement investment
is down this year, but if you look at our projections as we go
forward, it does continue to increase.
Frankly, my concern is more on the increasing costs. We
have 40 ships in the backlog right now, and almost all of those
ships in the backlog continue to go up. I am concerned about
the increasing costs of ships. I know it's an integrated
problem. Certainly we like to have stable funding, but I
believe it's more than just stable funding.
Senator Collins. I think it's an important element. Mr.
Secretary, in your answers to the advance questions submitted
by the committee, you said, in discussing the DD(X) acquisition
strategy, that, ``Competition is a key component of any
strategy to control costs, however, it is not certain that the
acquisition strategy for the DD(X) class will force a sole-
source environment for all future surface combatant work.'' You
go on to say that yards that have not built surface combatants
in the past may choose to enter that line of work.
But the fact is, currently there are only two shipyards,
Bath Iron Works and Ingalls, that have the capability to build
major surface combatants, and indeed, all of the major surface
combatants in the past 20 years have been built at just those
two shipyards.
Your comments, as well as the Navy's commitment to what I
call the one shipyard acquisition strategy have led some
observers to question whether the Navy plans to use foreign
shipbuilders to lower costs and to ensure competition. In other
words, is the Navy sacrificing an American shipyard, knowing
that it could do this work and introduce competition eventually
by using foreign sources?
Have you had any discussions at all about using foreign
shipyards to construct ships for the Navy?
Mr. England. No, we haven't.
Senator Collins. I'm glad to hear that. That is the rumor
that is out there.
Mr. England. That's not correct, Senator.
Senator Collins. I'm glad that we can get that on the
record.
Finally, Secretary England, the Senate has sent numerous
and strong messages that the Pentagon should take a second look
at its winner-take-all acquisition strategy for the DD(X).
Twenty of us have written to the President to express our
concerns about the impact on the industrial base, our national
security, and the future of the Navy. We have included language
without any objection in the Senate in the budget resolution
that passed. There is binding language that would prohibit the
Navy from going ahead with the winner-take-all strategy that
has been included in the supplemental appropriations bill that
is on the floor.
In view of these repeated, unambiguous, very clear messages
that the Senate is sending to the Navy, are you taking a second
look at the proposed acquisition strategy?
Mr. England. Senator, obviously we're going to do whatever
the law of the land is. If Congress takes action, obviously
we're going to do that. We are at this decision point in terms
of either competing a program or allocating, and with that
choice is a very significant difference in cost. Cost has been
an issue here today, and our analysis says we save $300 million
a ship if we allocate, as opposed to competing. That's very
significant for the Department of the Navy.
So we propose what we believe is in the best interests of
the Navy, but I understand there are other discussions and
other views, and at the end of the day, whatever that decision
is, the Navy will go forward. But, the Navy view is that we do
need to compete programs, we do need to bring about
efficiencies, and we do need to save costs on the programs.
Otherwise, we will be, frankly, in a death spiral as the cost
goes up. If we allocate and the cost goes up, then we build
less ships. If we build less ships, they cost more. We need to
break this cycle, and that's been part of the discussion today
about the whole procurement aspect, to look at this whole
acquisition policy, not just in the Navy, but across the entire
DOD.
I'm pleased to do that now on a much broader scale than
just the Navy. I'm not sure this isn't a microcosm of perhaps a
larger issue to be looked at in the whole Department of
Defense.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. England. But we'll be pleased to work with you on this
as always, Senator. I mean, this is an issue important to the
Navy and to America.
Chairman Warner. We thank you, Senator Collins. I sit here
year after year watching you--the Guardian of the industrial
base for Navy shipbuilding. I'm working in my mind, feeble as
it is, to try and draw an analogy between World War II and a
famous woman, Rosie the Riveter, who exemplified the commitment
to build our naval ships and commercial vessels in World War
II. I don't wish to append that accolade on you now. I'll
figure out a better one, but for the 21st century----
Senator Levin. By the way, Rosie is someone who was
building tanks and building planes as well, not just ships.
Chairman Warner. We better bail out now while the getting
is good.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first, let me
commend Secretary England for his extraordinary dedication and
patriotism in many different roles, and I look forward to
working with the Secretary in his new role.
Mr. England. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Reed. It's a very wise choice, and I know you will
perform magnificently, as you have done in the past.
Let me also associate myself with Senator Clinton's
comments about the use of supplemental budgets. Technically,
emergencies should go into supplementals, but when you have a
3-year emergency in a global war on terror, which even the
President talks about in terms of generational aspects, that's
not really an emergency. I think we have a pretty good idea of
end strength of the Army and Marine Corps particularly, that
we'll need over the next several years to accomplish that
mission.
I think the supplemental budgets are just setting us up for
a real shock and disaster, because I think it will be harder
and harder to generate the kind of support for the huge
supplementals we've seen the last few years going forward,
leaving the military services to begin to cannibalize their
other programs and accounts, because they won't get the extra
funding they've been getting.
I think if we recognize that now and start working now, it
might provide for a smoother landing. I wonder if you have any
additional thoughts, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. England. I understand the input, Senator. I'm not sure
all these matters are predictable at the time we do the
budgeting, because, again, we're working the 2007 budget now,
and it's very hard to predict the number of people we'll have
in Iraq, and the kind of equipment, what will be destroyed, et
cetera.
I think in theory I don't disagree, and I don't believe the
Secretary disagrees, but in practice, we can only put in the
budget those things we know about well in advance that are
predictable in terms of the cost. So it's very hard. War is not
very predictable by definition. Things happen that you don't
know about, a lot of changes occur.
Again, the devil's in the details, but from a policy point
of view, I think we can all agree, but the problem is a
practical problem of trying to project war costs in advance. I
mean, that's why we have the supplemental. As far as I know,
we're following that policy to the extent we can in terms of
being predictable in the base budget but handling our
contingency and war costs in the supplemental.
Senator Reed. Well, Mr. Secretary, I think there are
certain aspects which will change in that category, such as
expenditure of ammunition and battle damage, but the end
strength numbers for the Army, frankly, that's something that
last year we knew. How many soldiers we needed for this year,
about 512,000, around there. I think we have a good idea of
what we need next year for the next budget cycle.
I agree some issues are difficult to calculate, they are
episodic. But, this end strength number I think is something
that we have to recognize.
Also, I continue to speak about the Army, but it pertains
also to the Marines, who are doing an extraordinary job. I had
a chance to see them on Good Friday, Holy Saturday, out in
Fallujah. They need the same kind of support.
Let me shift gears if I may. You talked about the QDR, and
inherent in the QDR is looking forward based upon our recent
experience about the size of all of our forces: air, naval, and
land forces. Critical to the QDR are the assumptions that
you're going to use, and that the Secretary is going to use. It
strikes me that if we look at our experience in Iraq and
Afghanistan, we understand that in addition to fast-striking,
very decisive forces, air, naval, land forces, we need staying
power, because in a lot of places we might be involved with
will require the same after-conflict application of force that
we see in Iraq, which argues for a large-scale land force at
least.
That assumption, I think, might be ignored or not used if
we don't factor in our recent experience in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Can you comment on that, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. England. We will definitely factor that in, Senator.
The last QDR, again, was before September 11. We actually
finished it just weeks before September 11. At that time, one
of the conclusions was that terrorism was the greatest threat
to America, and that was before September 11. But nonetheless,
none of us were in, I would say, the mental frame back then
that we are in today, now having had over 3 years of experience
in this war on terror.
Certainly this QDR is going to reflect, I would say, a more
mature, more knowledgeable understanding of where we are with
this war and what we see in the future. We will be looking at
different kinds of threats to America, not just the
traditional, but the catastrophic and the irregular, et cetera.
We will be covering the full gamut of threats to America in
this QDR, and we are much better informed now than we were 4
years ago.
Senator Reed. Just a final point, because my time has run
out. But, it strikes me that we're preparing through our
research and technology for high-tech solutions in the Air
Force, and the Navy is beginning to downsize because they can
take advantage of technology in their ships and their aircraft.
When you get into a situation as we are in Iraq, however, and
if you look around the globe, unfortunately there are other
places that might be havens for terrorists that would have to
be peremptorily reduced and taken out.
That type of conflict is manpower-intensive, as we've seen
in Iraq. It requires skills of translators, civil affairs
officers, a new way to deal with the State Department and the
Agency for International Development (USAID) in the aftermath
of battle. My concern, frankly, is that if we don't factor that
type of manpower-intensive operation into a QDR calculation,
budget pressures, or other pressures could lead to a solution
that is short on boots on the ground. I just want that concern
to be registered.
Mr. England. Senator, we do not disagree on the issue. I
find a high degree of sensitivity in DOD to that exact topic,
and I can assure you it will be addressed in the QDR.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and again,
congratulations. This is not only a well-deserved appointment,
but one that your performance, I think, will justify everyone's
faith in you. Thank you.
Mr. England. Thank you very much, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Reed. I now wish the
committee to turn to Senator Levin for a very important
announcement.
Senator Levin. Each of us have expressed our joy to Jack
and to Julia. They were married last weekend at the chapel in
West Point. A lot of notable events have taken place in that
chapel. But, now your marriage is certainly added to that list.
Each of us, expresses our own delight. But, we also should
express the committee's delight. I thank our chairman and
Senator Talent and others for suggesting that we do that right
now, notoriously and openly. We will just take a moment to tell
our dear colleague that he probably has set the record for the
shortest period of time after marriage before returning to
senatorial duty.
This is probably the shortest honeymoon on record. We talk
about acquisition policy. In the old days we could have talked
about acquisition, but that no longer is politically correct.
So we will just simply talk about Julia's acquisition in terms
of Jack. We are really so pleased that the two of you are now
married and that you join the Senate family.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
Senator Talent, do you wish to be recognized on this subject?
Senator Talent. Well, only to say that maybe what we've
been telling the Department of Defense about revising their
acquisition policy ought to go for Julia as well. Perhaps she
ought to consider a--no, we--I certainly want to join with
every member of the committee in expressing my felicitations to
the couple. We're all pleased for Senator Reed.
Chairman Warner. In consultation with the ranking member,
the two of us are planning an event for the committee, as a
formal event to recognize this very important point in your
combined lives.
Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, if I could just simply thank
you for your graciousness and your kindness, and Senator Levin
also, and all my colleagues. It's very thoughtful. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Dear friend, we're delighted.
Mr. England. Senator Reed, the Department of the Navy
wishes the Army very well. [Laughter.]
Senator Reed. You did pick up on West Point.
Mr. England. Yes, I did, sir.
Chairman Warner. In consultation with the ranking member,
it's the intention of the chair, at the conclusion of the
questioning by the distinguished Senators from Texas and
Missouri to then turn to the second panel, the President's
nomination for the Chief of Naval Operations.
Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary England,
when I travel back to Texas and I talk about the Federal
budget, I try to explain to my constituents how we have two-
thirds of the budget for entitlement spending and one-third for
so-called discretionary spending. But, I wanted to note how
ironic it is that our defense budget is part of what's called
discretionary spending, because obviously, providing for our
common defense is not in the normal sense of that term.
I expressed to you privately, and I just want to raise the
issue again here publicly, as others have, my concern that the
initial estimated costs of many of our weapons systems,
airplanes, ships, things that are used to provide for that
common defense, ultimately bear little resemblance or little
relationship to the final cost. Others have expressed concerns
about that.
My concern specifically deals with the threat to our
ability to provide for our military requirements. In other
words, as the cost of these systems go up, we are buying fewer
units, whether it's planes, ships, what-have-you, and thus
falling short of meeting what our military leadership and
civilian leadership are telling us are our military
requirements.
For example, the GAO just in March noted that it's not
unusual for estimates of time and money to be off by 20 to 50
percent. They note that when costs and schedules increase,
quantities are cut and the value for the warfighter, as well as
the value of the investment dollar, is reduced. They noted that
just 4 years ago, the top five weapons systems cost about $281
billion. Today in the same base year dollars, the top five
weapons systems cost about $521 billion--$281 to $521.
Of course, the GAO report notes, as you already know, and
we've discussed privately, how the unit costs have gone way up.
I know you expressed earlier your belief that this is a
complicated subject, and I'm sure it is, and your commitment to
work with the committee to try to find a way to address it. But
in the subcommittee that I chair on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities, we recently had a hearing on the Chemical
Demilitarization Program. That is another example of out-of-
control costs, but it really appears to be due to very poor
management and oversight of a program, which ultimately may
threaten our ability to comply with our international treaty
obligations.
I know you understand very well the seriousness of this
matter, but I would appreciate your commitment to work with us
to try to find the answer. All of us here on this committee are
strongly pro-Defense. We believe that our national security is
the paramount concern of the Federal Government, and so we're
not talking about shortchanging our defense or our national
security requirements.
I know you understand how troublesome this matter is and
how big a concern it is, and I'd just appreciate your strong
commitment to work with us to try to find some answers.
Mr. England. Senator, you have my commitment. We talk about
acquisition, but you have to use the big ``A'' in terms of
acquisition, because it's how fast and how hard we push the
technology to set our requirements, this whole contracting
process. So, I mean, it's a big ``A'' here. It is complex, but
you do have my commitment, Senator, we will work this. We'll
work it with the committee.
I know Senator McCain had some discussions about
potentially having some hearings. Obviously we'll support that.
I would like to at least have the opportunity to work through
this year with our QDR and our processes and understand this
before we just try to put a fix in place, because the fixes
generally add to the complexity. Again, my tendency is to try
to simplify this process.
We will work with you, and not prejudging the outcome, but
it will get my personal attention. It has the attention of the
Department. Obviously, we do need to do something. You can't
have our top five programs go up by $200 billion.
Senator Cornyn. Well, I appreciate that very much and I
know you're sincere in that commitment, but I just wanted to
make the point, and hopefully I did leading up to my first
question, that this actually could have the potential of
threatening our ability to meet our military requirements. As
important as spending the tax dollar wisely is, that's not the
only impact this could potentially have.
Finally, let me just ask you, we're all anticipating, some
with more anxiety than others, the upcoming release of the base
realignment and closure (BRAC) list on May 16. In the past, the
Department of Defense has put out a resource guide for
communities that are impacted by BRAC that I believe helped
explain to them the process, and helped them work through the
issues that communities where military bases are located have.
Do you know whether the Department of Defense plans to put
out such a resource guide this year? I'd appreciate any
observations.
Mr. England. Senator, I don't, but I'll get back with you
on that subject.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Department is in the process of conducting an extensive review
of the Base Realignment Implementation Manual (BRIM) that was developed
to implement the previous round of base closure recommendations. The
purpose of this review is to provide a common set of guidelines for the
2005 round of base closures and realignments that allows for
flexibility in base use implementation, identifies common-sense
approaches and general practices to follow from successful past
practice, and provides supplemental guidance to carry out the laws and
regulations for closing and realigning bases and revitalizing base
closure communities. We hope to have this review completed by this fall
and will provide you with a copy of the BRAC 2005 implementation
guidelines at that time.
Chairman Warner. Senator, if I might interject, I put an
amendment on the current appropriations bill before us
requiring that the Department do that in the forthcoming year,
because, Mr. Secretary, that's been a very helpful document to
those committees. The first news of a closing brings total
distress, sadness, and concern. I think this document has some
well-tested principles that have been utilized in previous BRAC
rounds that can be of help to these communities and other
interests affected by a closing. Thank you for the
intervention.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. England. Senator, I will look at the status of that
today, and I'll get back with you before the day is over.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. Senator Nelson has
rejoined us. Senator Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Mr. Secretary.
Mr. England. Senator, good morning.
Senator Bill Nelson. Do you, as a matter of Defense
strategy, feel that the United States should have an aircraft
carrier homeported in Japan?
Mr. England. Yes, I do.
Senator Bill Nelson. What is your feeling if the Japanese
government, and this may be a municipal government, decides
that they will not accept a nuclear carrier? Trace that out for
us in your thoughts as to how we would project our force in
that part of the world?
Mr. England. Well, I think that's speculative at this
point, Senator. Our plan is to decommission the U.S.S. John F.
Kennedy, but keep it in mothballs so we could always bring the
Kennedy back. We could also, if necessary, I would guess we
could extend the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, so we would have a couple
of options to do that. But those discussions are ongoing with
the government of Japan right now.
Senator Bill Nelson. Let me just continue the line of
thinking here--the Kitty Hawk is the oldest of all the
carriers, is it not?
Mr. England. It is the oldest, but it is also
extraordinarily well-maintained.
Senator Bill Nelson. By 2008, the time of the retirement of
the Kitty Hawk, if Japan said no on a nuclear carrier, are you
suggesting that by 2008 that the Kitty Hawk could be extended?
Or would she have to go into dry dock at that point?
Mr. England. Senator, again, it's all speculative. I mean,
there's no plan to do anything but retire the Kitty Hawk. That
is the plan of the Department of the Navy.
Senator Bill Nelson. That's right.
Mr. England. So that's our plan.
Senator Bill Nelson. I'm speculating because if that
happens, I want to know about the defense interests of this
country.
Mr. England. Again, I think that's speculation as to what
we would do. We're in negotiations right now with the
government of Japan in terms of replacement carriers. So I
think what we would do is wait for the outcome of those
discussions before we would make those decisions.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, I'm posing a question to you, to
not wait till the outcome. If Japan said no on a nuclear
carrier, in 2008 how are we going to have a carrier in Japan?
Mr. England. There would be two options, which, again, I'm
sorry, Senator, I thought I answered those. There would be two
options. There are two non-nuclear carriers, and either of
those nuclear carriers would be options in terms of providing
them for the country of Japan if we reached that point in the
discussions.
Senator Bill Nelson. So, you're saying that--I'd like a
little more specificity--that in 2008 that the Kitty Hawk would
be able to continue in service? You said there are two options.
Is that one option?
Mr. England. My understanding is we could extend the Kitty
Hawk if that were necessary. It's not the plan of the
Department of the Navy, but it could be done.
Senator Bill Nelson. It would not have to go into dry dock
at that point?
Mr. England. That's my understanding.
Senator Bill Nelson. The second option you said is to bring
the John F. Kennedy out of mothballs. How long and how much
money would that incur?
Mr. England. I do not know. I have to get back with you on
that subject, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
At a minimum, the JFK would have to undergo the deferred complex
overhaul (COH) and upgrades to modernize it for the point in time that
it would come out of overhaul. That cost would increase over time due
to the increased requirements for modernization upgrades. If
reactivated in the 1-5 year period after mothballing, the cost to
reactivate, including the deferred COH, is estimated to be in the $390
million to $700 million range. An estimated 15-20 months would be
required to accomplish the total task.
Senator Bill Nelson. Okay. I think there has been ample
testimony here in front of this committee that it is clearly in
the defense interests of this country, with the looming
challenges posed by China, that we have a carrier that is
stationed in Japan. You have stated that today, and that has
been stated on numerous occasions here by other witnesses,
including the CNO.
I would like also for you to get back with the committee on
the question of the first option that you've mentioned, in
2008, what is the additional life expansion of the Kitty Hawk
without having to go into dry dock, because clearly if she had
to, you can't bring another ship out of mothballs immediately.
There is a cost associated with that, as we saw when the
Kennedy in the 1990s was taken not into mothballs, but merely
from operational status down to training status, and it cost
$100 million plus to bring her back up to operational status
from training status. Ergo, the cost to bring the ship out of
mothballs would seem to be much more than the cost to bring out
of training status to operational status.
Looking at what's in the defense interests of the country,
I would like you for the record please to answer both of those
questions.
Mr. England. We'll get back with you, Senator, absolutely.
[The information referred to follows:]
The time period from the end of one dry-dock period to the
beginning of the next dry-dock period is 57 months. Kitty Hawk last
came out of dry-dock in October 2003. Therefore the next dry-dock
period would need to begin by July 2008. A life extension beyond 2008
of up to 2 years would be possible based on a condition-based analysis
of the underwater hull and running gear.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator. I'd like to
interject here. As you're probably aware, a group of us
introduced an amendment on the floor late last night to the
effect that prudent planning would be to retain the Kennedy in
an active status for some determinate period of time. I
recognize this is in contravention to the views of the
Department, but nevertheless, we have our own view, and we
think that would be recognized by the Senate hopefully today.
But I point out, and I'm not an expert, but I'm becoming
one on the politics of Japan, you frequently said we're working
with the government, but there is, I think, a very interesting
dichotomy between the central government of Japan, and--is the
word prefecture--that is, the mayors and so forth. Sometimes
the last word doesn't rest with the government. It's with the
mayor, and mayors change.
Mr. England. Senator, I've used the term loosely. It is the
local government, but I've also met with the mayors. So, you're
right, it is local, and it's national, and I believe we do
understand that situation.
Chairman Warner. I wasn't giving you a tutorial, but there
are those that may not be as familiar as you are. I'm pointing
out that a future mayor may wake up one morning and have a
different view with regard to this issue.
I think a great deal of careful planning has to be put in
place, and I think we're performing our duty here in the
Senate, and we'll just see what happens today, tomorrow, and
the next day.
Senator Talent.
Senator Talent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator, for your patience. You
are the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, so we'll give
you an extra minute.
Senator Talent. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had to be
patient. I was late coming.
I want to thank you for your service to the Navy, and look
forward to your service to the whole Department of Defense. I
want to say right up front I agree with you on the whole
regulation issue. I do not think we will reduce development
times or costs by having more acquisition regulations. My gut
tells me that. I don't think the system will be more honest.
People, bad actors, find a way to get around complex
regulations too, so I think simplicity is a good direction to
go in.
I'm also hopeful that we can leave you enough time to run
the Department of Defense or help run it, rather than have you
down here all the time. Consultation is important, but so is
you doing your job.
Mr. England. Thank you.
Senator Talent. Now, let me just express a concern that has
been expressed a lot, but I really want to make certain that
you hear it and that you hear it from somebody who has no
parochial interest in the shipbuilding industrial base. I have
plenty of parochial interests on this committee, but not in
that.
It's the conjunction of a number of things coming together
that I think raises cause for concern. The last official
statement we've had from the Navy is that we need 375 ships.
I'm not so sure anybody's adhered to that. I know we have to
have a QDR, but that's what the record says.
We're all confronting the growing power of China. I agree
with you there's no reason why China need be an enemy. But one
way to make certain China does not become an enemy is to be
strong, not provocative, but strong in the region. There are
growing tensions between China and Japan, which I think will
only be exacerbated by any sense or inkling that we are
withdrawing from the region or that there may be a vacuum or a
diminution of American presence or power.
We have gone quietly in the Navy from a policy of forward
presence to presence with a purpose. I understood why, and the
response plan supported the CNO in doing that. But there's an
inference available that maybe we're not as worried about being
in the key parts of the world, and I think, hence, the
questions to you about basing a carrier in Japan. The
industrial base for shipbuilding is clearly a problem,
whoever's fault that is.
We all understand that you can't recover overnight if the
Navy has gotten too small. We can't run out and do what we've
done with the uparmored high mobility multipurpose wheeled
vehicles (HMMWVs) and spend a lot of money and get a lot of
uparmored HMMWVs. You just can't build ships in 6 months or a
year.
So these are the concerns that we feel. I really hope that
both in your new post, assuming you're confirmed, and I hope
you are, and also in choosing a new Navy Secretary, that
commitments are made regarding stable funding at a level the
Navy has indicated we need, at the $12 billion level. I'm not
trying to tell you your job. I'm just saying that we should
pursue, Mr. Chairman, these flexible funding avenues, and
you've tried to do that, and the Navy supports us. We second
just sit down with the appropriators and get it done.
In some kind of organized way we should have--and this
could be with us and you at the same time--a really empowered
task force to look at shipbuilding expenditures. You can
comment on this if you want. I just want you to take these
comments that have been made here in a constructive fashion.
All these factors coming together that lead us to have some
concerns about whether the Navy is big enough and whether you
all are focusing enough on that. If you want to comment, you
can. You already have, I know.
Mr. England. Senator, just one comment, and that is that
rather than count ships, I'd rather talk about combat power
forward. Our Navy and, hopefully, all of our Services must take
advantage of technology to put more combat power forward. So
it's not the numbers we have, it's the capability we have and
the ability to put that forward. We have more combat power
forward today than perhaps in the history of Navy, so it's not
numbers of ships. The CNO has said the number of ships in our
30-year plan is somewhere between 260 and 325, depending on how
various concepts turn out. Our planning is at this point, while
we're low this year, the numbers do go up, and we look at over
300 ships in our Navy now in terms of our current 5-year
planning.
It is about capability. I believe we're on the right path,
and we're trying to do that in a way to free up funds to move
to the future. We are trying to do the things we need to do to
combat an emerging threat against America and against our naval
forces, and we need to transition to do that. It is stressful
to change from the past to the future, and that's part of what
the Navy is about, and we're trying to do that and have the
funding and resources available to make that change.
I believe we are acting responsibly for the American
people. I understand it's stressful, but it's the right
direction for the Navy.
Senator Talent. I want you to hear the concern here. I
mean, I agree. Capability is much less number-based than it
used to be, but it still has some relationship to numbers,
particularly when you're talking about sustainability over
time. I just think the QDR must take that into account, must
give us a number and explain how you get the metric, and then
the Navy budget submissions should reflect that over time.
I don't think you disagree with that. I think we have a
commonality there, and I certainly want to work with you, and
I'm sure the chairman and the ranking member do also.
One other point I want to raise, and thank you for the
extra minute, Mr. Chairman. On this committee, the audience
should be aware, an extra minute is a great boon. I will talk
for a little bit about the dangers of IEDs. I'm totally
switching now. You and I have discussed this privately. I
believe, it is the asymmetrical threat that is paramount that
we have to be concerned about in the war on terror.
Talk a little bit, if you will, about some of the things
you've done already in your current role and what you want to
do. I hope you will make this a personal priority as Deputy
Secretary.
Mr. England. First of all, it has been a personal priority,
Senator. I've been personally involved since the first day we
knew our marines were going to Iraq. We started taking
measures, and the Department has $1 billion, and we have an IED
Task Force working all aspects of this problem. By the way, the
number of casualties is coming down, even though the number of
attacks is about the same, our casualties are way down. The
number of people killed is down from IEDs, but this is a long-
term threat, not just to our Armed Forces, but I think to our
citizens. If there's ever an attack, it will be this kind of
attack or potentially this kind of attack in America.
We've also started a program in fundamental research to
understand this in terms of new techniques that may be
developed, not just in the near future, but what's the
underlying physics so we may come out with some new
technologies to attack this.
We have discussed this with Dr. Marburg at the White House
and also at the National Academy of Engineering and Science.
They are taking the initiatives with us to start some
fundamental research across America in this regard. I will
continue to work this from the fundamental research to the
application and make sure that we do everything America can do
to defeat this threat.
Senator Talent. Thank you.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question
about Scott Speicher?
Chairman Warner. Of course you may. It's a very important
question, and we traditionally always want that as a part of
the record through our proceedings.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, sir. Share with us the
latest.
Mr. England. Senator, about 2 weeks ago, we received the
final highly classified report from the Defense Intelligence
Agency that's been involved in all of the ongoing efforts in
Iraq to find Captain Speicher. It summarizes all the efforts
and all the intelligence and everything, and, hopefully, that's
been made available to you at this point.
When the report came to me, I stood up a board to look at
this, assimilate it all, and decide what the next step should
be. We are working with the families and with the investigators
to try to understand and pull all this together for
recommendations to me. That's where we are. If it comes to my
office, if I'm still Secretary of the Navy at that time, then
of course, I'll make a decision, whatever that may be. I don't
know what the recommendations will be, either status quo or
change designation. I don't know what that will be. I've had no
recommendations.
But, there has been a concerted effort by the country to
find or find more information about Captain Speicher.
Senator Bill Nelson. When do you anticipate the board will
report to you?
Mr. England. At first I said I wanted the report in, I
believe it was like 2 months. But it's actually open-ended,
because, frankly, in discussions with the family and with other
people, they wanted to make sure we did not short circuit
anything, and I said, just make sure this is thorough and
complete and get back to me. About 2 weeks ago, that was the
decision to leave this open-ended and work with the family. So
that said, I asked for them to come in next week and give me
their estimate of when they would come back with the
recommendations.
That's where we are today, sir. It is an extraordinarily
serious effort on behalf of the government to find out
information about Captain Speicher. That still continues, but
now that the report's in, the question is, does that have any
immediate impact in terms of any decisions by the Department of
the Navy. That's still open.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Secretary, I think that you should
double check with your people about the consultation with the
family. I'm not sure those consultations are going on in the
way that you have expressed here.
Also, I think that you also ought to have your people
inform you about whether, basically, they have pulled out of
Iraq on any search for additional evidence.
Mr. England. Senator, first of all, I don't want to discuss
the report here, because the report is very classified. I know
we've had people in Iraq all this time, but I can tell you my
last discussion with all my people was after they had a
discussion with the family regarding their involvement in
providing input to the board. I'll verify that. I mean, if
there's a misunderstanding, I'll make sure that's corrected,
Senator. But our intent is to be thorough, to be all-inclusive,
and I'll make sure that's the case.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. That's an important
issue. Before we conclude, I'd just like to make an
observation. Are you not the only Secretary of the Navy who
served twice?
Mr. England. I am the second Secretary of the Navy to serve
twice.
Chairman Warner. Second?
Mr. England. Yes. There was another Secretary of the Navy
who served, I believe, at one point when the Whigs were in
power in 1844, and then served again several years later.
Chairman Warner. I went back and checked the record. I was
the only Secretary, I thought, that served both in the Navy and
the Marines, but there was one fellow who preceded me back in a
period that, I think, did that also.
What a wonderful position. You and I have often talked
about it, and I look back on it with such great respect and
humility. What a privilege it is to have that position. I
talked to the Secretary of Defense the other day about it a
little bit, and he said he's overwhelmed with individuals who
want to succeed you, who want the Senate to confirm you and
move on.
I have a great deal of respect for Secretary Rumsfeld, and
he very much needs and looks forward to your service. Secretary
Wolfowitz was a strong deputy, and I'm sure that you will in
every way be the one that will help Secretary Rumsfeld in these
very important times.
I'm hopeful that the Senate will move expeditiously to your
confirmation. We have two technical things remaining, which you
fully understand, and that is some completion of your papers on
the ethics side that are routine. Senator Levin and I still
have to do the usual check on certain areas that we check on.
With that having been said, we'll conclude this panel, but
I wish to advise my colleagues that we'll now take up the very
important nomination of Chief of Naval Operations. We're not
going to rush it. We have adequate time. I'll inform all
members who may not be here that it's my intention to continue
this hearing. At the appropriate time we'll break for the two
votes. I will return and preside for a period in which, if the
votes run as scheduled, that it would be about 12:25 when I can
get back here and reopen the hearing. If any member not present
at this moment desires, please inform the chief of staff of the
committee, and we will make certain that this hearing is
available to all who wish to participate in the very important
hearing for the next Chief of Naval Operations.
So, we adjourn panel number one. I thank you, and in about
2 minutes, we'll start panel number two.
Mr. England. Mr. Chairman, thanks for your support. Thank
you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. [Recess.]
Admiral Mullen, we are delighted to have you appear before
us, together with your lovely wife, Deborah, as the President's
nominee to be the 28th Chief of Naval Operations. I now ask if
you have any additional guests beyond your full partner in
life?
Admiral Mullen. No, sir. The rest of my family is serving
as we speak.
Chairman Warner. You might, if you wish, put into the
record some details about them.
Admiral Mullen. I am delighted to be able to introduce my
wife, Deborah, who's been with me throughout this career, and
it is very much a team effort. She's, in particular, very
dedicated to our Navy families, has spent an awful lot of time
working those very important requirements over the years, and
has taught me a lot about that. Sometimes you don't get real
information, and I can get it from her on what's going on.
I have two sons, both of whom are in the Navy, one of whom
is currently deployed to Japan and the other one is on a ship
out of Norfolk. We're both very proud of them both serving in
the Navy.
Chairman Warner. Their ranks at this time?
Admiral Mullen. One is an ensign and one is a lieutenant
junior grade.
Chairman Warner. As we say in the Navy, well done to both
of you.
Admiral Mullen. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. You currently serve as Commander, U.S.
Naval Forces, Europe, and Commander, Joint Forces Command,
Naples. Just prior to this assignment in Naples you served from
2003 to 2004 as the 32nd Vice Chief of Naval Operations.
There's no question that you're a proven leader, having
commanded the U.S. Second Fleet from 2000 to 2001, the George
Washington Battle Group from 1995 to 1998, the Destroyer Group
II, and on an earlier occasion, U.S.S. Noxubee, AOG 56, U.S.S.
Yorktown, U.S.S. Goldsborough, and following your tour as
commanding officer of the Goldsborough, you received the
Admiral James Stockdale Award for inspirational leadership. I'm
certain, Admiral, that is one of your most highly valued awards
over your distinguished career. I was privileged to know Jim
Stockdale very well when I was at the Department of the Navy
and that was during the Vietnam period.
Senator Levin, your opening remarks.
Senator Levin. Let me join you in welcoming Admiral Mullen
and his family. We thank them both for their service to the
Nation. Admiral, you've had an extraordinary 37-year career in
the Navy. We look forward to your being CNO.
Admiral Mullen. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Admiral, you responded to the usual series of advance
policy questions. Without objection, they'll be put into the
record. If you will now proceed to reply to the standard
questions given to each nominee and then we'll proceed to your
statement.
First, have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Admiral Mullen. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record and hearings?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views
when asked before this committee to do so, even if those views
differ from the administration in power?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communications, in a
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee,
or to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any
good-faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. If you have an
opening statement, could you kindly proceed?
STATEMENT OF ADM MICHAEL G. MULLEN, USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
Admiral Mullen. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, distinguished
members of this committee, it is a great honor to appear before
you today as the nominee for the office of Chief of Naval
Operations. I appreciate greatly the time you are affording me
this morning.
I want to thank you as well, Mr. Chairman, for your kind
and generous introduction and the confidence you have expressed
in me. I'm also grateful for the confidence expressed in me by
President Bush and by the leadership of my Department,
Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary England, and of course, Admiral
Vern Clark, a dear friend who has led our Navy brilliantly for
the better part of 5 years now.
Perhaps more than anything, I am grateful for the
opportunity to continue serving this Nation as a sailor in the
United States Navy. To me, there is no higher honor. Our Navy
men and women are the best they've ever been: talented,
patriotic, courageous, as are their families. There are more
than 38,000 forward deployed right now across the globe, in
Afghanistan and Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and in support of East
Asian nations hit hard by natural disaster. They are performing
magnificently.
I had the opportunity to visit with some of them in Iraq
and in the Northern Arabian Gulf in Bahrain and in Kuwait not
very long ago. I can tell you they know they're making a
difference. They are proud of what they are doing, and I am
proud to be on their team.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard you speak often of your own
humble beginnings as a sailor in World War II and as a marine
in Korea, and how much that experience influenced your life,
how it created opportunities only possible in this great
country of ours. I must tell you, sir, that I feel much the
same today myself. This country and this Navy I love so dearly
have offered me opportunity beyond my wildest dreams and given
me countless, priceless gifts, not the least of which are our
two sons who serve our Navy on Active-Duty, and what will soon
be 35 wonderful years with my partner for life, Deborah,
present with me here today.
That this same country would now offer me the opportunity
to serve as the uniformed leader of the greatest Navy the world
has ever known is humbling beyond words. I know that with great
opportunity comes even greater obligation, an obligation to
listen, to learn, and to lead. If you confirm me as the next
Chief of Naval Operations, I pledge to you, to my counterparts
in the other Services, and to everyone serving in our Navy
today, my firm commitment to all three.
I can assure you that I will lean upon and always know that
I can rely upon the continued support of this committee and
Congress as a whole. Your devotion to national defense,
particularly during this time of war, has been unwavering, and
I am personally very grateful.
I come to this hearing as a Navy and North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) commander in a theater undergoing
remarkable and historic change. Fledgling new countries in the
Balkans taking democracy on the wing; West African nations
learning new ways to cooperate with each other; old and new
NATO allies helping train Iraqi security forces. The face of
the future is being drawn in colors, shapes, and sizes we
wouldn't have dreamed of just a few short years ago.
But the one constant, and what made the biggest impact on
me, has been the need to create a safe and secure environment
that allows democracy to flourish, and in so doing, creates
opportunities for millions of families to live better, safer,
freer lives.
I believe the United States Navy is a big part of that and
has been since the beginning of our republic. We take the
power, will, and commitment of this Nation wherever we go, and
we can go on short notice. We can stand watch over large areas
of the globe, exert influence from near or far. We can be where
the Nation needs us when it needs us to be there.
Mr. Chairman, that's what navies do. Under Admiral Clark's
exceptional leadership, our Navy has done it better than I've
seen in my 37-year career. It would be difficult, indeed, to
overstate the significance of the reforms he has put in place
over these last 5 years.
I see three principal challenges confronting our Navy.
First is the need to preserve our current readiness, to answer
the bell for the President and this Nation with exactly the
right combat capability for exactly the right cost today.
Second is the need to build a Navy for the future, to
create a fleet that is properly sized and balanced to meet head
on the uncertain and dynamic security environment that awaits
us.
Third, underpinning everything else, is the need to shape
the Navy's uniformed and civilian manpower system for the 21st
century, to transform our assignment, distribution, and
compensation system into one that is more reflective of, and
quite frankly, more responsive to, the men and women serving
our Navy.
These are tough challenges, and every one of them is
significant, but I know that with the support of the Navy's
leadership and the Department's leadership and this committee,
we can and will succeed. I believe the only constant in our
future is change. Our Navy, your Navy, is leading that change.
It is a Navy that has met well the Nation's call since the
world changed on September 11, but one that must continue to
adapt to the ever-changing demands of this fight against
terror. It is a Navy at war, but one that must also invest now
in an uncertain future, balancing a multitude of capabilities
with sound acquisition policies to meet our needs. It is a Navy
of incredibly talented people, but one that must maximize the
potential of all who serve, be they active, Reserve, or
civilian.
Mr. Chairman, I sit here today more dedicated than ever to
that Navy and to its future. Should you choose to confirm me as
the next CNO, I pledge to you and to the sailors I hope to lead
the full extent of my effort. I know you expect it, and I know
they deserve it. Thank you, sir, for your support, to this
committee, and I stand ready to answer your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Admiral. I appreciate the brief
reference to my modest periods of Active-Duty and modest
contributions while on Active-Duty and in the Reserves. But
like you, I would not have achieved my goals in life had it not
been for the training that I received, the discipline that I
received, and the incentive I received as a very young man in
World War II, a year in the training command and then in the
Marines. I've always acknowledged that. I hope perhaps my
statement and yours could provide some similar encouragement
for the young people who are looking at military service today.
I say to them, if I can do it, you can do it. You can come and
be in this seat someday and any sailor hopefully will consider
that he or she can be in your seat someday.
Thank you, sir. I find that, Senator Levin, as you and I
have sat here the many years together to be one of the most
moving statements I've ever heard by any presidential nominee
that has appeared before this committee. I congratulate you,
sir, for your thoughtful and very wonderful statement.
You perhaps listened to the very interesting and, I think,
thorough colloquy between members of this committee and
Secretary England with regard to the deep concern, not only on
this committee, Admiral, but really throughout Congress and
throughout the Nation regarding the size and composition of our
current ship platforms.
We always go back, and I don't say this for any reason of
competition with the other branches of the Service, but the
founding fathers wrote in the Constitution of the United States
that it is the duty of Congress to raise an army, presumably
when the Nation felt it was needed, but maintain a navy. I mean
very explicit different instructions to Congress and the
Commander in Chief of the United States, our President, under
the Constitution.
There's a deep concern about the size and number of our
ships today. I can recall again in World War II, I think, we
had close to 22,000 commissioned ships. Now, some of them were
very small, and I acknowledge that. There were close to 100
carriers in my recollection, 25 to 30 battleships, and on and
on. There are marvelous scenes of the ships of the fleet as far
as the horizon could see proceeding in a direction.
Now, the world has changed a great deal. The threat to our
Nation has dramatically changed. I stop to think--and I spoke
about this the other day--as we sit here today, 60 years ago
the last great naval battle of the last century took place, and
that was at Okinawa. The United States Navy suffered, I believe
history records, the largest number of casualties in terms of
the ship damages and ships sinking it ever incurred. I think--
I'll correct the record if I'm wrong, but there was about 30-
some ships sunk, 260-odd ships damaged. The combined casualties
of the Navy, the Army, and the Marine Corps, and perhaps
elements of the Coast Guard and the Air Force, in that battle
were 12,000 killed, some 36,000 wounded.
[The information referred to follows:]
The attack on Okinawa took a heavy toll on both sides. The U.S.
lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the U.S. lost
5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and
7,400 men taken prisoner. It is possible that the Japanese lost another
20,000 dead.
The U.S. also lost 36 ships, 368 ships were also damaged, and 763
aircraft were destroyed. The Japanese lost 16 ships sunk and over 4,000
aircraft were lost.
I mention that because the magnitude of those casualties is
not likely to reoccur in military confrontation in the world
today. The importance of our forward-deployed structure of the
joint services to interdict terrorism beyond our shores,
combined with the efforts here at home, is what will prevent a
degree of casualties and damage comparable to that one battle,
Okinawa, being suffered here at home, or possibly some
scenarios abroad, given the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
The Navy is the, so to speak, the point of the spear of our
forward-deployed concept. Also, as Senator McCain pointed out,
who is indeed an extraordinary naval historian of his own, a
warship represents more than its combat functions. It's really
an ambassador. The presence of a warship in a foreign port
attracts a great deal of attention, not given, understandably,
to other military types of platforms. That has been recognized
since the very beginning of mankind.
I think all of those who are entrusted with our respective
responsibilities regarding the structure of our present force
and future forces have to go back constantly and refer to the
Constitution and that word ``maintain''.
Now, you have the highest regard, as do I, for your
predecessor, and he has courageously dealt with this issue of
the levels of ship construction, and expressed his concern. I
think you should have this opportunity today to give your
thoughts on the direction and how we should proceed to augment
the current size of our fleet today, and to redirect the
shipbuilding so that we fulfill the constitutional mandate of
maintaining that size and capability of a Navy that's needed to
defend this Nation against any type of aggression.
Admiral Mullen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a very
thoughtful summary of a very important requirement and
challenge. Clearly, the kind of capability that we need for the
future is what we are trying to embed in the systems and the
ships that we're buying now. We are in a time of transition and
looking to the future. The current number of Navy ships we have
today, which is 288, as I know you know and was pointed out
earlier in the hearing by Secretary England. There is an up-
vector in the years to come.
The concern I have is consistent I think with everybody
else's. The enormous growth and cost, the spiral you get in
when costs grow and you have to reduce quantity, and somehow
moving ourselves forward from that position, I think, is a
requirement. Obviously, if you confirm me, my job as a chief is
to set the military requirement, and the impact of our Navy, is
as you've described it. It needs to be out there. It needs to
be in places with meaningful purpose, as it has been throughout
the years. I personally experienced the kind of presence that
you've described in terms of its impact.
A navy gives you an opportunity to take advantage of
freedom and maneuver space that you can't get as you look
around the globe in places that are shutting down access
rights. So that issue is also critical, and it's critical to
have a navy properly sized for that.
I am concerned about it clearly. In my tours in Washington,
I have spent a significant amount of time looking at how to
build ships and the impact of decisions that we make. I think
the requirement to have a significantly larger and steady
stream of income, if you will, is important. That kind of
stability is critical.
I also think that the discussions about alternative
financing policies that get to other options and get at the
entire spectrum of building a fleet for the future are really
critical. If you confirm me as chief, I will spend an
extraordinary amount of my time focused on that problem to make
sure we get it right, and would hope that as a team, both
industry, certainly Congress, as well as the Department and the
Navy, are able to work together to try to solve this very tough
problem.
Chairman Warner. I thank you. I would also come back to an
earlier comment I made. I feel strongly that the redirection of
the type of naval shipbuilding program has to originate with
the President. It's a privilege to work with the current
President. He's a man of great courage and conviction, and his
father was a naval person. I may ask his father to help me
lobby a little bit to see what we can do to get some
presidential direction with regard to the size and the
magnitude of our budget in the remaining years of his
administration.
At this point in time, Admiral, I take note that the floor
is awaiting--I see I've been abandoned ship here. So I will
recess this hearing until the return of the first member of the
committee following the two votes, at which time he or she--but
I hope to be that first member--can resume the hearing. Thank
you. [Recess.]
Senator Levin [presiding]. The committee will come back to
order. The chairman, with his usual graciousness, has
authorized me to resume, even though we are in the minority
here. I just have a few questions, Admiral, that I want to ask
you. I know that the chairman is on his way back. There may be
others who will come back too. That vote was unusual. That
first vote took a lot longer than is usually the case, for all
kinds of procedural reasons.
Admiral, my first question has to do with the Aegis
cruisers and destroyers and the ballistic missile defense
capability, which the Navy is developing and fielding for those
Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers. Some of the ships have
a radar capability to track ballistic missiles and others have
a capability to intercept missiles which are coming in. So we
have both the radar and the actual intercept missiles
themselves.
The first question has to do with the operational testing
of these systems as to whether or not there will be operational
testing of those radars and those missiles.
Admiral Mullen. Senator, I'll have to take that for the
record. I just don't know the answer to that question. I'm
familiar with the system. I just don't know where we are in the
development cycle in terms of testing.
[The information referred to follows:]
Yes, there has been and there will be further operational testing
of these radars and missiles. Navy has a significant advantage in the
testing regime in comparison to the challenges faced by our sister
Services. The firing tests of our Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)
capability which includes the SM-3 missile--and we've been successful 5
of 6 times on the test range with this capability over the past 3
years--have been conducted by an operational cruiser with fleet sailors
manning the control positions just as they'll do in combat. This
provides a tremendous advantage in terms of operational realism to Navy
Aegis BMD testing and represents a ``leap ahead'' as contrasted to
controlled experiments with scientists, engineers, and contractors that
are more often the rule in BMD testing. In fact, a Director,
Operational, Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) official in attendance at our
most recent successful firing in February 2005 stated: ``This is the
most operationally realistic BMD test yet seen.''
For a shipboard system to successfully and lethally engage the
target, the entire combat system has to function perfectly; the
tolerance for error is very small at the speeds and altitudes that are
involved in ballistic missile defense. When we get a ``bulls eye'' on
the test range, that really tells us everything we need to know: the
ship's radar acquired the target properly and tracked the target
correctly, the fire control system computed the fire control solution
perfectly, and controlled the missile precisely to a direct hit. While
the engineers examine the data minutely after each firing event, to a
Navy operator the proof is contained in that last frame of video before
impact. When a target hit occurs, the entire system has done its job to
perfection.
Navy and MDA are working very closely with Commander, Navy
Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COMOPTEVFOR--the Navy's
operational test authority) to ensure that the testing program for
Aegis BMD comprises all of the elements that would normally be required
of a conventional major defense acquisition program. The Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation, has commented favorably on Aegis BMD
testing in their fiscal year 2003 and 2004 assessments of MDA's
Ballistic Missile Defense System. Additionally, the assignment by Navy
of U.S.S. Lake Erie (CG 70) as the designated MDA test platform has
enabled an increasing degree of operational realism in each succeeding
test.
In summary, the Navy takes operational testing very seriously; it
is crucial to ensure that our systems will be reliable, maintainable
and effective aboard our ships at sea. We're satisfied that the testing
that MDA is sponsoring aboard our ships is getting the job done
properly.
Senator Levin. We're interested as to whether there's going
to be realistic operational testing of both the radar
capability and the interceptor capability.
Admiral Mullen. Right.
Senator Levin. Second, relative to the submarine force
structure, some years ago, perhaps 6, there was a force
structure requirement assessment and analysis, which stated
that the Navy in the near term needed 55 attack submarines, and
that by the middle of the next decade, in other words, this
decade, that there would be a need for 68 to 72. So let's take
the midpoint of that and say there would be a need for 70
attack submarines in the fleet.
Now 6 years later, the latest 30-year shipbuilding plan,
which was submitted to us in March, indicates that the long-
term force structure goal for attack submarines would be 41 to
45. The midpoint of that would be 43. Now that's quite a change
from about 70 to about 43 in just 6 years.
The Navy leadership has suggested that other systems or
capabilities could provide adequate capability to substitute
for some or all of the peacetime intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance needs that are being met now by the
submarine force, thereby permitting us to drop to a smaller
submarine force with acceptable risk in the future.
I am wondering if you could share with us more specifically
what systems or capabilities that the Navy has identified that
would fulfill those peacetime intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance requirements of the combatant commanders.
Admiral Mullen. The study to which you refer, Senator, I
think is a 1999 study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
subsequent to that, there was the 2001 QDR which laid a
baseline out of a requirement for 55 submarines. I know that
internal to the Department and to the Navy there's been a great
deal of analysis which has occurred over the last year, which I
believe supports a requirement that heads in the direction. I
have not seen the analysis which gets us to 41 per se, but
certainly heading in that direction, and I generally support
that.
There are investments in programs, I think both in--and
your question was some--to replace some or all. I would
probably find myself in the some part of that, that replacing
some of that, and the investment in systems that are tied to
distributed systems that we have looked at over the last year
or two to try to basically give us the kind of intelligence or
give us the kind of real time information that allows us to
respond in a much shorter timeline. All these warfighting
requirements are driven typically by the ability to do
precursor operations, which is very important, as well as the
requirements to respond once the balloon goes up.
It is particularly important that the value of that
information be evaluated early and then being able to respond
with platforms like submarines to the requirement at the time.
I can flesh this out more, but there are investments in
space which also potentially would provide us the kind of
information that would allow us to displace some of those
requirements from the past.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Senator Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Mullen. Senator Nelson, how are you, sir?
Senator Bill Nelson. Good afternoon, Admiral. Since we
talked a day or so ago, Senator Warner has in fact offered his
amendment, which would extend the life of the U.S.S. John F.
Kennedy aircraft carrier by going to dry dock using existing
funds that have already been appropriated in the 2005 budget.
Senator Warner is walking in right now, and I was just
explaining to the CNO, Mr. Chairman, that since I talked to him
that in fact you had offered your amendment, and what the
amendment would do. It would have the Kennedy go into dry dock
with the funds that are already appropriated in the 2005
Defense budget. It would keep the fleet at 12 carriers, and the
reasons being are reasons that we talked about, and we had a
discussion with Secretary of the Navy England earlier today
with regard to the delicacy of the issue of having a carrier in
Japan in order to project our force, and what if Japan, or the
local government, decides that it doesn't want a nuclear
carrier? Then we have to have the backup of a conventionally-
powered carrier.
Okay, all of that is preparatory for me now asking a
question. It has been expressed to me by a number of
constituents in Florida, specifically in Jacksonville, that the
word is out on the street that if Senator Warner is successful
with his amendment and that this goes all the way through, and
that we extend the life of the Kennedy, that the Navy will
punish the Jacksonville area by refusing to make plans for the
preparation of a follow-on nuclear carrier at some point in the
future. I'd like your comment.
Chairman Warner. Might I interject here, my good friend and
colleague? I had not heard of that, and you know full well that
Senator Levin and I and others who are very active here
wouldn't allow something of that nature to happen.
I do feel the distinguished presidential nominee for CNO at
this point in the Senate process of advice and consent should
perhaps limit his views to his professional judgment and only
those matters on which there's a factual basis. I wouldn't
suggest you indulge in any conjectures or what-if type of
response. I want you to respond to my colleague, but this is a
matter on which the Members of the Senate have views that are
in opposition to the decision by the Secretary and the current
CNO, our very distinguished dear friend, Admiral Clark. I think
until such time as confirmed by the Senate that we can't ask
too much accountability from this individual.
Senator Bill Nelson. I understand, Mr. Chairman. I'm just
simply asking the question had the CNO nominee heard of any
talk of the Navy wanting to punish Jacksonville under these
circumstances?
Admiral Mullen. No, sir. I have not.
Senator Bill Nelson. As CNO, and you will be confirmed and
you will have my vote, would you allow such a punishment to
occur if Senator Warner is successful in keeping alive the
Kennedy?
Admiral Mullen. It is not my style to punish. I mean,
that's just not how I handle my business. Clearly in the kinds
of terms that you're describing, that's not a path that I would
normally follow, or follow as you've described it. Along with
what the chairman said, at this point it clearly is to some
degree speculation on what might happen. I'm aware of the
debate, I'm aware of the amendment, and I take that all in, and
I recognize these are challenges I'll have to deal with,
assuming I get confirmed.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, indeed it will be a challenge.
But you need to know what's being said in Jacksonville.
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. The so-called attempted punishment
would be that Jacksonville would never be fitted out for a
nuclear carrier, and it would be beyond my realm of belief that
the United States Navy would do that, and that they would
rather make judgments as what's in the best defense interests
of the country.
Chairman Warner. Senator, if I might interject again, I
assure you, and I said at a previous hearing publicly, that the
QDR process, the BRAC process are important steps which could--
I'm not suggesting absolutely--but could develop facts and
conclusions and decisions which would direct a course of
action. I assure you that the Secretary of Defense, I'm
confident, together with the Department of the Navy, will at
the appropriate time decide whether or not the option to put a
nuclear carrier in the Mayport facility is one that's in the
interests of the national security structure of this country,
not just Florida or Virginia, but the whole of the country, and
outline to Congress the steps that they would take to arrive at
a final decision.
The threshold decision would be is this something that
should be examined? If they reach that as a consequence of
BRAC, QDR, and other decisionmaking, then if they reach the
decision, we should look at it as a Nation. Then here are the
steps by which we're going to look at it, and each of those
steps will be carefully reviewed by Congress and members of the
committee. Presumably the two of us will have a voice in those
steps. We will be guardians to see that the type of
hypothetical, as you said, punishment, will not take place.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, you know that I trust
you, and I do, and you've been a great leader of this
committee. You also know some of the emotion that has been
brought to this table this morning by other Senators on both
sides of the aisle with regard to matters that are in front of
this committee and in front of the Pentagon. I think my
philosophy is the best thing to do is get it all out on the
table, and that's what I've attempted to do. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank you for your active participation.
One of the reasons I'm a few minutes late coming back, I
consulted with your colleague, Mr. Martinez, on the floor about
the bill of which you and I are the two sponsors. I feel
obligated that the Senate should have a voice in this very
important decision of the retirement of this ship, the Senate
as a body, because it is a major decision with regard to force
structure to go from 12 carriers back to 11. I don't think
Congress should be silent.
I don't know what the outcome will be. We have an unusual
parliamentary procedure. Cloture will in all likelihood be
invoked on the main bill, and that could pose some
parliamentary problems, but we're going to diligently pursue
allowing the Senate to have an expression, a voice in this
matter. So as we say in the Navy, stand by to cast off.
Thank you. Any further questions you might have of the
distinguished witness?
Senator Bill Nelson. Only just to mention in passing that
as a Navy man the issue of Scott Speicher will continue to
arise, and it will arise in this committee until evidence is
found so that his family can reach closure.
It is no secret that I am not happy with the Department of
Defense when they abandoned the search over a year ago. I will
continue to speak out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. Admiral, just one
wrap-up question, and I once again announce for all those
following this hearing that the chairman and ranking member
announced that we would resume following the vote for purposes
of entertaining questions by any Senator. It's an unusual
situation on the floor now with party caucuses, and that
explains the absence of so many members, but I'll now ask and
concede to myself unanimous consent that the record for this
hearing will remain open for a week's time within which
Senators may submit questions to Admiral Mullen, and we'll
await the responses.
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. It's giving all an
opportunity to participate, because this is a very important
hearing.
I do wish to get one thing further on the record here. In
its budget proposal for 2005, the Navy cut almost 8,000 Active-
Duty sailors from its end strength. By the way, that was one
that I discussed at length with Admiral Clark. It came at a
time when the Army was pressing for increased end strength. The
Marine Corps likewise, needed additional end strength. But, I
felt it showed a typical measure of courage that Admiral Clark
has always manifested and a pragmatic assessment of the
situation with respect to that proposal.
In 2006, the Navy plans to cut over 13,000 more from the
Active-Duty rolls. Again, a situation which the previous CNO
worked. In order to achieve these reductions, the Navy has
sought the authority to implement tools used during the
drawdown of the 1990s, such as buy-outs and early retirement
boards and reduced the number of new recruits. You characterize
these reductions in your written responses as a ``goal,'' and
state that the Navy's overall personnel policy is still
evolving. But, it sounds as if the Navy is implementing the
personnel cuts even as it deliberates where future manpower
will go.
What is the Navy's optimal Active-Duty strength, in your
judgment? Or maybe you prefer to take this question for the
record and do some careful research on that. How do you plan to
achieve these cuts in such a way that some sailors who really
made a decision to make the Navy a career could be affected by
this? I know how well you understand the commitments we make to
our people, and how they go on and work towards their careers,
and the excitement within the family with every red stripe
that's added to the sleeve or gold stripe to the cuff. The need
to have it clearly understood in the greater family of the Navy
that we are making these personnel decisions in the best
interest of and in the security interests of this country. We
want to minimize the hardship on those who have made
commitments, and for whatever reason, the Navy has decided that
maybe certain individuals just won't have the opportunity to
fulfill their dreams.
Admiral Mullen. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back to you
on what I think the optimal size would be, because I don't
think we know that yet.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Chairman, during my congressional confirmation hearing in
April, you asked me two questions regarding future reductions in Navy
manpower. Those questions were as follows:
``What is the Navy's optimal Active-Duty end strength in your
judgment?'' and, ``How do you plan to achieve these cuts . .
.?''
In April, I asked for some time to consider what I thought the
optimal size would be.
On 4 November 2005, the Navy's active end strength was 361,478. The
President's 2006 budget submission reflects Navy's fiscal year active
end strength request of 352,700.
Navy's optimal end strength numbers are determined by force
structure. This process takes into account the current and future
manning requirements of our ships, aircraft, and associated
infrastructure, requirements that are even now under review as part of
the QDR process. It is imperative that we more critically evaluate and
manage our infrastructure and associated end strength, and we are
actively pursuing further efficiencies.
Navy is increasingly leveraging technology to improve our
warfighting advantage. Advances in ships and system design are allowing
us to shed some obsolete, labor-intensive functions while improving
productivity and warfighting readiness. Economies are gained by
eliminating redundant and nonessential skill sets. Until we have
completed our review of force structure requirements, I cannot forecast
Navy's exact long-term optimal end strength. However, I assure you that
I am committed to determining that number, that it will reflect the
economies derived from transforming the force to meet the challenges we
face in this new century, and that I will share it with you in a timely
manner.
It is my intent that as potential reductions in manpower are
identified, the Navy will execute these reductions in a planned,
control, and responsible manner that is consistent with the security
interests of the country.
Chairman Warner. If you feel that you want to get onboard
and get on the bridge for a while and take a look at it with
the full authority and advice and consent of the Navy, I would
urge you do that.
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I don't think it's one you can answer in
that quick of a period.
Admiral Mullen. I would like to do that. Just a couple
thoughts, however. One is that I know that these initial steps
have been taken in a measured way. I was in the personnel
business in the early to mid-1990s when we reduced our size
dramatically. The intent of where we're headed now is to do it
in a measured way so that we can reach the potential for every
sailor that is a member of the United States Navy, and do it in
a way in which we provide opportunity and we still hold out the
kind of dream that you just described for each and every member
of the Service.
It's with that kind of thought we will proceed, and with
recognition that we need to invest from a technological
standpoint, because some of our ships, our future platforms,
will require fewer people. We believe there is an opportunity
in the future to actually reduce the size of the force. We just
haven't, to the best of my knowledge, we haven't gotten to what
we think the optimum number is. We don't know what that number
is yet. There's an awful lot of work going on, and it's a
priority for me, assuming I get confirmed, to continue that
work to be able to answer the kind of question you asked, and
do it in a way that makes sense not just to you and me, but to
everybody in the Navy.
Chairman Warner. I'm going to suggest the following. It's a
bit unusual, but I think it's so important when a new Chief of
Service steps up. We're going to proceed to mark up the 2006
authorization bill in the coming weeks, and if we can have the
good fortune, which I anticipate would be the case, of the
Senate acting on your nomination promptly, to invite you to
come back and brief the members of the committee before we go
to print, so to speak. I can hear the reverberation of the
staff behind me, but anyway, I'll take their wrath later.
I want to make sure that this bill basically is consistent
with your initial concepts of where you want to go with this
great Navy. There may be some options by which we can
incorporate a provision here or a provision there to begin to
set your course of speed.
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir. I'd very much appreciate that.
Chairman Warner. All right. We'll determine the time table
for that.
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. But, in no way is this to suggest that
you're going to change a great deal from the distinguished
helmsman, Admiral Vern Clark, and his lovely wife, the First
Lady of the Navy. We're going to--at least I am--going to be
very sad to see him leave. I've enjoyed working with him. But,
I really look forward to working with you.
Admiral Mullen. Thank you, sir. Well, I've worked on and
off for him since 1996, and I am a big believer in where he's
taken us, and I expect to continue that momentum.
Chairman Warner. I guess that change of command will take
place at Annapolis, will it not?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir. That's the plan.
Chairman Warner. Well, I've been there many times for those
change of commands. There isn't a one of us when that old flag
comes down and the other one goes up that doesn't get a bit
choked up. Thank you, sir.
Admiral Mullen. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. The hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Secretary England by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. You previously have answered the committee's advance
policy questions on the reforms brought about by the Goldwater-Nichols
Act in connection with your nomination to be Secretary of the Navy.
Have your views on the importance, feasibility, and implementation
of these reforms changed since you testified before the committee at
your last confirmation hearing on September 23, 2003?
Answer. My views are unchanged regarding the emphasis in the
Goldwater-Nichols Act on jointness and the establishment of unified and
specified combatant commanders. The effectiveness of joint operations
has been clearly demonstrated in OIF and OEF, and I strongly support
continued and increased efforts to improve the jointness of our
military forces. However, the acquisition reforms of Goldwater-Nichols
were designed for a different world and need to be re-examined in light
of a new environment with far fewer prime contractors, far fewer new
starts, fewer production items and a need for speed and agility in
acquisition.
Question. Do you see the need for modifications of Goldwater-
Nichols Act provisions based on your experience as Secretary of the
Navy and Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security? If
so, what areas do you believe it might be appropriate to address in
these modifications?
Answer. The acquisition reforms of Goldwater-Nichols were designed
for a different world and need to be re-examined in light of a new
environment with far fewer new starts, fewer production items and a
need for speed and agility in acquisition. In my judgment, we need to
examine the entire spectrum of defense acquisition to include the
authority and responsibility for establishing requirements, procurement
processes themselves, and the aligning of authority and responsibility.
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. Almost without exception, the Deputy and the Secretary
share the same authorities and responsibilities. However, we will each
emphasize different areas. My role, should I be confirmed as DEPSECDEF,
will be more of a classic Chief Operating Officer responsible for the
operation of DOD and implementation of national defense policy and
strategy. This will include financial management, personnel policies,
acquisition management and integrity, oversight of military
departments' roles, BRAC, Quadrennial Defense Review management,
legislative affairs, public affairs and the like. At the same time,
SECDEF's and DEPSECDEF's area of emphasis will necessarily overlap to
ensure consistency of leadership and direction.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense
Answer. I will ensure that the priorities of the Secretary are
implemented and that issues of significant importance are brought to
his attention with sufficient analysis and recommendations for his
action. My relationships with the Under Secretaries of Defense will
derive from my role as Chief Operating Officer. My management style is
to form integrated project teams to work in a collaborative process to
ensure that issues are fully considered, decisions weighed, accepted
and implemented by each member of the management team.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense
Answer. As Chief Operating Officer, my relationship with the
Assistant Secretaries of Defense (ASDs) that report to me will be
similar to that of the Under Secretaries. For ASDs that report through
Under Secretaries, I will rely on the Under Secretaries to manage their
areas of responsibility.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Answer. As the principal military advisor to the President and to
the National Security Council and to the Secretary of Defense, the
Chairman has a unique military role. If confirmed, I will work closely
with the Chairman and the Vice Chairman to ensure that their issues are
addressed and to ensure that all essential matters are fully
coordinated with them.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments
Answer. As the current Secretary of the Navy, I appreciate the role
of the Secretaries in implementing the policies of the President and
the Secretary of Defense. To ensure that the Secretaries are fully
coordinated and operating in unison with each other and with the
SECDEF's office, I plan to reinvigorate the Senior Executive Council
consisting of the Secretaries and the USD (AT&L).
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services
Answer. Regarding the Service Chiefs, I will work to see that they
are fully cognizant of appropriate policies and initiatives of the
Secretary's office and also ensure that appropriate actions from the
Secretary's office and with the Service Chiefs are fully coordinated
with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Question. The National Intelligence Director (NID) and the Deputy
NID
Answer. It is premature to define precisely the relationship with
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Deputy Director of
National Intelligence. Most likely, the interface with the DNI will
usually be handled directly by the Secretary of Defense and the
interface with the Deputy DNI will usually be handled by the USD(I). My
expectation is that I will be fully cognizant of these discussions and
issues but not as an area of primary emphasis.
Question. The Service Acquisition Executives
Answer. I expect to be actively participating in setting the
acquisition policies and the major acquisitions of the Service
Acquisition Executives. However, most of their activities will be
handled with me through the relevant military department secretary or
the USD (AT&L). My objective will be to ensure that we have the
appropriate policies and procedures in place such that all acquisitions
meet all rules and regulations of the Federal Government, are conducted
to the highest ethical standards and meet the needs of the military
departments and are timely and affordable.
Question. The Inspector General
Answer. I expect to encourage the Inspector General to carry out
his or her duties as prescribed in the Inspector General Act and will
make sure that there are no impediments to that accomplishment. The
most valuable contribution of an Inspector General, while preserving
his independence, is to suggest constructive solutions of any problems
or issues identified.
Question. The General Counsel
Answer. I expect to seek advice and counsel from the Department's
Chief Legal Officer on all relevant matters.
Question. The Service Judge Advocates General
Answer. Judge Advocates General of the military departments and the
military department general counsels are critical components of their
respective departments' legal infrastructure. The military department
Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant
perform functions in their respective organizations that are essential
to the proper operation of their Service and Departments as a whole.
Their unique expertise and experience contribute significantly to the
proper functioning of the Services, the military departments, and the
Department of Defense.
QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES
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 to you?
Answer. Assuming I am confirmed, I expect to serve as a traditional
deputy and alter ego of the Secretary. However, my expectation is that
the Secretary of Defense will function as the Chief Executive Officer
and the Deputy will function as the Chief Operating Officer. As such,
the Deputy will be responsible to implement the Secretary of Defense's
priorities, better integrate functional management of DOD to align
authority and responsibility and accountability within DOD, manage BRAC
to conclusion, manage financial and personnel policies and procedures,
implement DOD-wide metrics as a management tool, meet the President's
Management agenda, respond to the Government Accountability Office
critiques and suggestions, and the like. While the Secretary and the
Deputy emphasize different aspects of DOD, they will inherently overlap
due to their joint overall responsibility and to ensure uniformity of
leadership and direction.
Question. What background and expertise do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. Deputy Secretary of Defense will be my fourth confirmed
position in the Federal Government if my nomination is acted upon
favorably by the Senate. My experience to date as the 72nd Secretary of
the Navy, the 1st Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and the 73rd
Secretary of the Navy has provided me broad experience in dealing with
matters within DOD, across Federal agencies, with Congress, with
industry, and with a large number of foreign governments. My corporate
experience includes president of a number of large companies with
hands-on management and technical leadership for a broad range of
domestic and international programs. I have also served on a City
Council and have participated in a wide range of local and national
boards and committees. That said, the Department of Defense is
astonishingly broad in scope and complexity and will be a profound
challenge for even the most experienced executive.
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. In my judgment, no one is fully qualified to perform the
duties of the Deputy Secretary of Defense without first serving some
time in that position. As such, it is important for the Deputy
Secretary to be very open to constructive inputs and opinions and to be
sure that important issues are fully vetted prior to decision.
Additionally, without presuming confirmation, I have been receiving
many briefings to understand better the full breadth of DOD
responsibilities and have also received views and opinions from many
Members of Congress. My objective will be to utilize my experience and
expertise while also expanding my knowledge and understanding and
valuing the advice and counsel of other DOD, government, and corporate
executives.
MAJOR CHALLENGES
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Deputy Secretary of Defense?
Answer. As noted in the recently released National Defense
Strategy, we live in a time of confrontational challenges and strategic
uncertainties. Our Nation is confronted by fundamentally different
challenges than those faced by the American defense establishment in
the Cold War and in previous eras. The major challenge confronting the
Secretary and the Deputy, along with our Nation, is to influence events
before threats become more dangerous and less manageable. Our goal is
to defeat today's threats and to prepare the DOD to meet the threats
and uncertainties of the 21st century.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, my immediate emphasis will be to manage the
Quadrennial Defense Review that will specifically address traditional,
irregular, catastrophic and disruptive capabilities and methods that
threaten U.S. interests. For the longer term, I will work with
Secretary Rumsfeld to implement the National Defense Strategy.
QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW
Question. Congress recently received the National Defense Strategy
and the National Military Strategy. These are the overarching
strategies that will guide the conduct of the Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) in which, if confirmed, you will play a major role. There
has been a major shift in recent years in the way the Defense
Department establishes its military requirements, with a focus on
capabilities rather than a threat-based approach.
Do you envision the results of the QDR addressing not only required
capabilities, but the force structure needed to ensure those
capabilities are available at the times and places necessary?
Answer. The QDR will address not just required capabilities, but
the force structure needed to ensure those capabilities are available
at the times and places they are necessary.
This QDR will consider the proper mix of military capabilities the
Nation needs. Given today's complex and uncertain security environment,
these challenges involve not only the traditional threats from nation-
states that we've faced throughout the past century, but also a new set
of post September 11 national security challenges. These include
irregular threats of unstable environments, catastrophic threats of
devastating attacks on the homeland, and disruptive threats of new
asymmetric military technologies getting into the hands of our
adversaries before we've developed adequate defenses.
Based on a determination of this capability mix needed to meet
these traditional, irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive national
security challenges, the QDR will suggest a force sizing construct that
appropriately accounts for the contribution of our interagency partners
and international allies, as well as our own forces.
Question. As part of the 2005 QDR process, you were designated to
lead a panel that would examine aspects of the United States Code that
might have to be changed to allow the Department to implement proposed
changes to the U.S. military.
What areas of the U.S. Code, in your view, require examination as a
part of the QDR process, in order to implement necessary changes?
Answer. The panel is looking at a very broad range of authorities
that DOD needs to accomplish its mission. In addition to applicable
statutes, directives, and policies, the panel is also looking at
international and interagency agreements. An additional focus is to
ensure the existing authorities are properly aligned with the
responsible entities within DOD to speed and streamline mission
accomplishment.
Question. Who do you anticipate will head this panel if you are
confirmed?
Answer. My expectation is that the Department will name another
senior DOD official and that I will replace Secretary Wolfowitz as the
co-lead of the Capabilities Panel along with General Pace as the other
co-lead.
Question. If you are confirmed, what role do you expect to play in
the QDR?
Answer. My expectation is that that I will replace Secretary
Wolfowitz as the co-lead of the Capabilities Panel along with General
Pace as the other co-lead. I also expect to manage the QDR process for
Secretary Rumsfeld.
Question. We understand that the Department may plan for senior
officials currently leading integrated product teams responsible for
developing options for the ongoing QDR to continue serving in those
roles even if they leave the Department.
What role, if any, do you believe is appropriate for former DOD
officials to play in the QDR?
Answer. QDR 2005 seeks a greater degree of inclusion than past
QDRs. Consultation, input, and sometimes participation, is being sought
from Defense Boards, interagency partners, Congress, key allies,
industry, and knowledgeable individuals--all of which are composed of
membership from outside the department.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING AND PRIORITIES
Question. The Department's science and technology (S&T) programs
are designed to support defense transformation goals and objectives.
These programs should ensure development of the latest, most
technologically advanced devices, capabilities, equipment, and
protection solutions for the current and future warfighter. The Defense
Science Board and the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review recommended a
general funding target of 3 percent of the total Defense Department
budget for the S&T program, a goal which has been endorsed by the
Secretary of Defense and other Department officials. However, the
proposed DOD budget for fiscal year 2006 for S&T falls short of this
goal.
What, in your view, is the role and value of S&T programs in
meeting the Department's transformation goals and in confronting
traditional and asymmetric threats?
Answer. Science and technology, when integrated with new
operational concepts and organizational constructs, are critical
elements of transformation. Leveraging technology is the key to
ensuring a decisive U.S. advantage across the range of military
operations, from asymmetric threats to major combat operations. The
results of past S&T investments are used to win today, and DOD is
keeping the pipeline full to win tomorrow.
Question. If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding
funding targets and priorities for the Department's long-term S&T
research efforts?
Answer. The Department pursues an integrated and comprehensive S&T
program, from basic research through manufacturing technology. Long-
term S&T is our ``seed corn.'' DOD programs emphasize integrating basic
research with applied science and technology, and promoting the
effective and expeditious transition of discovery and invention into
real-world applications. Moreover, ``transition'' has become of utmost
importance, as the success of S&T is not measured simply by the basic
science it supports, but also by the active and successful transition
of that science to supporting America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines. If confirmed, I will support a balanced program of DOD
investment in basic research, applied research and advanced development
across the spectrum of military needs.
Question. Do you believe there is an adequate investment in basic
research to develop the capabilities the Department of Defense will
need in 2020?
Answer. At this time, the Department's basic research program is
balanced and appears adequate to support the needs of the warfighter in
2020. However, the results of the 2005 QDR could emphasize new areas of
S&T and also affect the level of S&T investment.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the
last few years. Challenges remain to institutionalizing the transition
of new technology into existing programs of record and major weapons
systems and platforms. The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget request
proposes increases across a spectrum of technology transition programs.
What are your views on the success of the Department's technology
transition programs in spiraling emerging technologies into systems?
Answer. The Department of the Navy has been fairly successful in
spiraling emerging technologies into systems. Budget submittals
routinely include improvement changes for our ships, airplanes and
other systems. That said, it is still a time-consuming and difficult
process to upgrade many existing weapon systems. For that reason, the
Department of the Navy took a new approach with the Littoral Combat
Ship (LCS). The LCS is a multi-purpose ship based on a modular design
concept wherein the ship itself uses modular design/construction
approaches, and the weapon systems are being designed to be of a roll-
on/roll-off modular construction. This allows easier reconfiguration,
quicker and less expensive upgrades with new technology. With the rapid
pace of technological change and the military's reliance on
technological advantage, it's evident that DOD will need to improve
continuously its processes for technology insertion into systems.
Question. What challenges to transition do you see within the
Department?
Answer. Rapid transition of technologies to the warfighter has been
a continuing difficult issue for the Department of Defense. The
problems encountered in the past have dealt with the inherently long
budgeting cycles of DOD and the challenges in providing adequate
support when systems are fielded quickly. Some modest successes in
quick reaction programs to speed new technologies to warfighters have
been achieved, specifically to counter improvised explosive devices
(IEDs), provide personnel protection and meet other urgent needs.
However, this is an area that will require continued attention and
improvement and, if confirmed as Deputy Secretary, will receive my
personal attention.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to enhance the
effectiveness of technology transition efforts?
Answer. One of the challenges I will face, if confirmed, is to
provide flexibility for just-in-time application of funds in a highly
constrained and competitive funding process. Recent years have seen
many situations in which rapidly evolving threats create needs and/or
rapidly evolving technologies create opportunities that move faster
than our normal planning and budget processes were designed to
accommodate. Notably, we have had some significant successes in quick
reaction programs that speed new technologies to warfighters to counter
IEDs, provide personnel protection, improve communications and
intelligence capabilities, and meet other urgent needs. I am also
pleased to report that we have been successful across the spectrum of
transition programs, including those that resolve risks and qualify new
technologies for insertion into programs of record--programs such as
Small Business Innovative Research, Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstrations, Defense Acquisition Challenge Program and several other
DOD and military department technology transition initiatives.
If confirmed, I will work to continue to build the trust in the
Department's technology transition programs that will go hand in hand
with our requests for increased funding flexibility.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
Question. The Department does not appear to be on track to
eliminate its chemical weapons in accordance with the timelines
established by the Chemical Weapons Convention.
What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the U.S. remains
in compliance with its treaty obligations for chemical weapons
destruction?
Answer. My understanding is that if the Chemical Demilitarization
Program continues on its current path, the United States will not meet
the Convention's extended 100 percent destruction deadline of April 29,
2012. Accordingly, the Department requested that alternative approaches
be developed to evaluate whether the deadline can be met using a
different approach.
POST-CONFLICT AND STABILITY OPERATIONS
Question. The Secretary of Defense is currently considering a new
directive on post-conflict and stability operations.
What changes, if any, do you believe the conventional and Special
Operations Forces need to make to better plan for, and be better
trained and equipped for, post-conflict and stability operations?
Answer. With regard to my personal observations, the Department
should:
Continue to build on ongoing stability operations
initiatives within the U.S. Government and clarify roles and
responsibilities within DOD;
Incorporate stability operations into all phases of
military planning, training and exercises and into professional
military education;
Set up a management structure and reporting
requirements to ensure that stability operations capabilities
are developed in an integrated manner;
Create a comprehensive joint doctrine for stability
operations;
Increase involvement of other USG Departments and
agencies, international organizations, non-governmental
organizations and the private sector into DOD military
planning, training and exercises; and
Develop a concept for working with civilian-military
teams based on the Provisional Reconstruction Team model used
in Afghanistan.
Question. What changes, if any do you believe are needed to ensure
that U.S. forces can operate effectively in coordination with foreign
forces in such operations?
Answer. Based on my experience as Secretary of the Navy, we have
been reasonably successful in working interoperability with navies
throughout the world. We meet regularly with the Chiefs of Naval
Operations (CNOs) from other countries (for example, in 2003, 55 CNOs
at the Naval War College at Newport and the Southern Hemisphere CNOs in
San Diego) and regularly have staff-to-staff interfaces. Additionally,
the Navy has many joint exercises and operates with other naval
forces--in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, for
example--and in other key areas throughout the world. I believe that
the other U.S. military departments have similar regular contact with
their counterparts throughout the world. In my judgment, high levels of
interface, joint exercises and compatible equipment have been effective
in making sure that U.S. and foreign forces can operate together. It
is, therefore, important that DOD have broad flexibility in training
with and equipping foreign forces.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES
Question. Given the current and projected operational and personnel
tempo for Special Operations Forces, what changes, if any, do you think
are needed in the size of these forces?
Answer. The Quadrennial Defense review will consider Special
Operations Forces (SOF) capabilities to meet the four challenge areas--
traditional, irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive.
The appropriate mix of capabilities needed to meet all these
missions will be a primary focus of QDR 2005. Once able to determine
the right mix of capabilities across the total force, then DOD will be
positioned to determine what is the appropriate force planning
construct from which to size the force while keeping current
operational and future risk within a moderate and acceptable range.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe are needed to ensure
that the immediate demands for direct action in counter-terrorism
missions do not undermine our ability to conduct an appropriate number
and quality of special operations foreign training missions?
Answer. I do not have significant direct experience in this area
except for the relationship of the U.S. Marines with the SOF and the
interface of the U.S. Marines with other international Marine forces.
However, I would be pleased to work with Congress on this important
issue, if confirmed.
COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM
Question. Do you support the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
program?
Answer. Yes. CTR is an important program that addresses highly
dangerous WMD, related infrastructure and delivery systems at their
sources--primarily in the former Soviet states.
Question. Do you envision a need to expand the CTR program either
geographically or programmatically?
Answer. Section 1308 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004 provided authority for CTR to conduct activities
outside the Former Soviet Union (FSU) in special circumstances. CTR's
first use of this authority is to eliminate poorly guarded chemical
weapons in Albania. This new authority recognizes that the WMD threat
is not confined to one region, although we do not expect significant
expansion of CTR activities outside the FSU. The administration may
request a modification of section 1308 to make the authority more
flexible.
Question. If so, what goals do you believe would be achieved by the
expansion of the CTR program?
Answer. Wherever CTR activities occur, the goals should always be
to address the threat of WMD, related infrastructure or delivery
systems.
TASK FORCE ON NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES
Question. The Defense Science Board recently established a Task
Force on Nuclear Capabilities to examine options for the nuclear
weapons stockpile.
If confirmed, what role do you expect to play on these issues? Do
you expect to have any input to the DSB study?
Answer. The Defense Science Board is an advisory body to provide
independent advice to senior DOD leadership. The study to which you
refer was requested by the Secretary of Defense as a part of a broader
review of the status of the process of the transformation of U.S.
military capabilities. Upon receipt of their findings and
recommendations, however, the Department will take them under
consideration and determine a proper course of action after a detailed
assessment of the issue.
EXECUTIVE AGENT FOR SPACE
Question. Do you believe that the Under Secretary of the Air Force
should retain responsibility as Executive Agent for Space? Why or why
not?
Answer. I have no preconceived notion regarding the role of the
Under Secretary of the Air Force as Executive Agent for Space. I
understand that the former Under Secretary of the Air Force has
expressed important views on this. Those views will be considered.
DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES
Question. As the Secretary of the Navy, you have observed the
working relationship between the Navy General Counsel, the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps in providing legal counsel and services
within the Department.
What are your views about the responsibility of the Judge Advocates
General of the Services and the Staff Judge Advocate for the Commandant
to provide independent legal advice to the service chiefs, particularly
in the area of military justice and operational law?
What are your views about the responsibility of staff judge
advocates within the Services, the Joint Staff, and the combatant
commands, to provide independent legal advice to military commanders?
Answer. The Judge Advocates General of the military departments and
the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, like their civilian
counterparts, and their staffs provide invaluable service to the
Department of Defense. Senior leaders within the Department of Defense
are best served by lawyers at all levels who provide objective and
candid legal advice that faithfully reflects the law. I am aware that
Congress addressed the roles of uniformed lawyers in the Ronald W.
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.
Congress also mandated the relationships between the legal elements of
the military departments. The panel has been selected and is beginning
this important task. I assure you that, if confirmed, I will carefully
consider the panel's recommendations.
TRANSFORMATION
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld has established transformation of the
Armed Forces to meet 21st century threats as one of the Department's
highest priorities and has stated that only weapons systems that are
truly transformational should be acquired.
How would you assess the level of risk to each of the Services of
foregoing or curtailing current acquisition programs in favor of future
transformation?
Answer. For 229 years, a strength of the U.S. military has been its
ability to adapt and change. As the rate of change of technology
continues to accelerate, it will be even more important that the U.S.
military keep pace. Recognizing this need, the Department established
an integrated risk framework for decision making which was first
articulated in QDR 2001.
Question. Can we afford this risk considering the current level of
global threats?
Answer. Some enemies of the United States have also kept pace with
technological change and are quick to take advantage. The greater
institutional risk for DOD is over reliance on traditional platforms
and delaying the advent of new technologies and systems.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
Question. The fielding of initial elements of the Ground-Based
Midcourse Defense system has begun as part of the ballistic missile
defense test bed and for use in an emergency. In accordance with
section 234 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005, the system has not yet been subject to the
operational test and evaluation process applicable to other major
weapon systems.
What role do you believe independent operational test and
evaluation should play in ensuring that the Ground-Based Midcourse
Defense system will work in an operationally effective manner?
Answer. DOD is committed to conducting operationally realistic
testing of our missile defense program. Our test program has become
more robust and realistic over time. I expect that this trend will
continue.
I also understand that in November 2004 the Director of OT&E
(DOT&E) approved the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) Integrated Master
Test Program and that he will continue to work closely with MDA to
ensure an increasingly operationally realistic test program.
Question. What steps do you believe should be taken to ensure that
ground-based interceptors will work in an operationally effective
manner?
Answer. The ground-based interceptors are designed to be
operationally effective and the testing to date has demonstrated the
basic hit to kill functionality. The recent test failures indicated a
need for more component qualification testing and a more robust
approach to quality control. Steps have been taken by the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency to address these shortfalls. DOD expects a
return to a robust flight program will occur this year to demonstrate
the interceptor's effectiveness with operationally realistic tests
agreed upon by the DOT&E.
Question. The Ballistic Missile Defense System is being developed
and fielded by the Missile Defense Agency using Research, Development,
Test, and Engineering funds.
At what point do you believe that elements of the system should
transition to the military departments and procurement funds?
Answer. My personal experience as Secretary of the Navy is that
systems should transition to the military departments and utilize
procurement funds when the design is stable, tested and ready for
production. Until that time, systems should remain in RDT&E where
greater flexibility is available to make necessary and appropriate
changes to the design.
Question. Do you believe that the Department should be developing
scientific plans for this transition now?
Answer. Each of the individual missile defense program elements is
in a different stage of its development; consequently, some are much
more mature than others.
I support close collaboration between the Missile Defense Agency
and the military departments so the Department can understand the
costs, logistics and other implications of transitioning missile
defense capabilities to better prepare for transition.
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIAL BASE
Question. In a recent letter to several Senators regarding the
Navy's intent to change the acquisition strategy for the DD(X) program,
you minimized the value to the Navy of avoiding a sole source
relationship with a single shipyard for building major surface
combatants.
Was avoiding a sole source relationship considered in the Navy's
decision for adopting a new DD(X) strategy?
Answer. Competition is a key component of any strategy to control
costs. The effects on the future ability to hold competitions for
follow-on surface combatants were factored into the Navy's decision-
making process. However, it is not certain that the acquisition
strategy for the DD(X) class will force a sole-source environment for
all future surface combatant work. A given shipyard could compete on
other work, either commercial or military, and yards that have not
built surface combatants in the past may choose to enter that line of
work.
Question. What are your views on this issue?
Answer. The decision to review the DD(X) acquisition strategy was
necessitated due to the number of DD(X) destroyers to be procured
between fiscal years 2007 and 2011. This DD(X) procurement profile
represents a build rate of one ship per year versus the two to three
ships per year previously programmed. The Navy's assessment of the
impact of the decline in the number of DD(X) hulls in the Future Years
Defense Plan upon the surface combatant industrial base indicates that
the remaining workload is not sufficient to support two shipyards in a
cost-effective level of operation. Building DD(X) in two shipyards at
the lower build rate is significantly more costly because the overhead
burden is spread across a reduced business base.
The revised DD(X) acquisition strategy is intended to reduce ship
unit cost by concentrating the workload associated with the lower build
rate at a single shipyard. Navy analysis indicates that sufficient
production capacity exists in either surface combatant shipyard to
support a build rate of up to two DD(X) destroyers per year. The Navy
expects to save in excess of $1 billion over the FYDP by avoiding the
premium required to maintain a second shipyard building DD(X).
Question. Have the Navy and the Department of Defense already
arrived at a conclusion as to how many DD(X) vessels to build before
having conducted the QDR analysis?
Answer. The CNO has spoken of a range of total combat ships. In the
case of DD(X), the draft 30-year shipbuilding plan calls for 8 to 12
DD(X)s. Clearly, while the QDR will guide future shipbuilding rates,
the Navy's analysis does not predict procuring more than two per year.
LOW DENSITY/HIGH DEMAND FORCES
Question. If confirmed, how would you address the challenges of the
Army and Air Force in manning low density/high demand units and officer
and enlisted career specialties?
Answer. I have not focused previously on the specific challenges of
the Army and the Air Force in low density/high demand units. My
experience with the Navy and Marine Corps has shown that an effective
way to address the issue is to create incentives for people to pursue
understaffed specialties. With Navy end strength declining, we have
created opportunities for Sailors to transfer into other less populated
ratings. A typical indirect benefit of such rate transfers to the
Sailor is greater promotion potential. While this is proving to be an
effective short-term solution, changing our recruiting, training and
assignment processes will be key to ensuring we have the right numbers
and skill mix that we need for the future. This is an issue that
requires constant close monitoring and adjustment as necessary.
Related to this issue, the Navy has recently undertaken initiatives
to better support joint requirements to relieve stress on Army forces.
Specific examples include the training of Navy Masters-at-Arms to
replace soldiers in detainee operations and the upcoming deployment of
Navy helicopters for air ambulance and medium lift missions in Iraq.
Should I be confirmed, I will work with the leadership of the military
departments to develop specific actions to address this concern.
READINESS DEFICIENCIES
Question. In response to the committee's advance policy questions
in connection with your previous confirmation hearing, you indicated
that the Navy had made good progress in meeting readiness deficiencies.
What do you view as the major readiness challenges that need to be
addressed in each of the Services, and, if confirmed, how would you
approach these issues?
Answer. My experience as Secretary of the Navy is that readiness is
a direct function of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) dollars available.
Underfunding O&M adversely affects readiness. On the other hand,
overfunding O&M does not necessarily provide improvement. Therefore, a
balance needs to be struck in the O&M account. However, it is
critically important that O&M adequately fund training, spares, depot
maintenance, fuel, equipment and the like.
Question. Section 482 of title 10, United States Code, requires the
Department to submit a quarterly readiness report to Congress. The
Department is nearly a year behind in providing this information, and
has failed to provide the required reports for the last three quarters
of calendar year 2004.
If confirmed, would you place a priority on ensuring that the
Department timely submits the reports required by law under section
482, title 10, United States Code?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek timely submissions of the
quarterly readiness reports to Congress.
ARMY AND MARINE CORPS RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Question. The Army, Army Reserves, Army National Guard, and the
Marine Corps have experienced shortfalls in achieving recruiting goals.
Many concerns have been raised about the ability of the ground forces
to recruit effectively during wartime.
How would you evaluate the status of the Army, Army Reserve, Army
National Guard, and the Marine Corps in recruiting and retaining high
caliber personnel?
Answer. At this time, I am only qualified to discuss the U.S.
Marine Corps regarding recruiting and retention of high-caliber
personnel. The Marine Corps continues to meet its recruiting missions,
having shipped 13,738 new recruits against an accession mission of
13,477, 102 percent. The Marine Corps did miss the new contract mission
in January, February, and March. The Marine Corps is on track to meet
yearly recruiting goals, however, this recent experience is an
indicator of increased recruiting difficulties. On the other hand,
retention is higher than planned, and retention among deployed forces
is higher than among forces that are not deployed. In the aggregate,
the Marines do not have a recruiting/retention problem of high-caliber
personnel, but are taking steps to improve recruiting with particular
emphasis on improving communications with parents of potential
recruits. I realize the importance of looking at this problem in depth
for all the Services.
Question. What initiatives would you propose? If confirmed, to
further improve the attractiveness of active and Reserve component
service?
Answer. My sense is that we should present the U.S. military as a
way for young men and women to serve their country and to protect
freedom and liberty for future generations while also utilizing the
enhanced enlistment and re-enlistment incentives provided by Congress.
ARMY END STRENGTH
Question. The task of establishing the appropriate size of the
active-duty Army and budgeting for projected increases in end strength
have presented challenging issues for the Department and Congress.
These issues have been compounded by uncertainties associated with
recruiting for an All-Volunteer Force.
What recommendations do you have, if any, for changes in the size
of the Army's Active Force or in the manner in which planning and
budgeting for this force takes place.
Answer. Although I am not familiar with the specifics of Army end
strength, the Secretary of Defense has directed that an extensive
review of the total force size be undertaken as part of the fiscal year
2005 QDR.
Question. The Department of Defense has relied on supplemental
appropriations to fund increases in end strength and permanent changes
in force structure, known as ``modularity'' in the Army and ``Force
Structure Review Group'' for the Marine Corps.
Do you believe it is sound budgetary and management practice to
fund these costs through supplemental appropriations rather than
through the Department's annual budget submissions? Please explain.
Answer. The annual budget funds daily and predictable requirements
of the DOD while the supplemental funds less predictable requirements
like the cost of war and other contingencies. War funding is directly
related to the pace of operations and the situation on the ground. It
is not practical to fund a war this dynamic far in advance.
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 military installations have led to increasing backlogs of
facility maintenance needs, created substandard living and working
conditions.
Based on your private sector experience, do you believe the
Department of Defense is investing enough in its infrastructure?
Answer. During my tenure as Secretary of the Navy, I have seen
continuing, significant progress in solving longstanding housing and
other facilities concerns, both within the Department of the Navy and
across the Department of Defense, by embracing private sector practices
and capabilities. Housing is an excellent example. First pioneered by
the Department of the Navy, and with the strong support of Congress,
all the military departments have now moved aggressively to solve their
longstanding family housing needs through the use of private sector
capital using public/private ventures. The Department of the Navy has
secured almost $3 billion in private sector investment from $300
million of Navy investment in 15 housing privatization projects. The
Department of the Navy is now pursuing applying privatization benefits
to solve bachelor housing concerns. Moreover, in the area of facilities
management, DOD has implemented facilities sustainment and
recapitalization metrics based on private sector benchmarks.
APPLICABILITY OF BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. Last year the Army started using emergency authorities to
buy temporary buildings to station the first of the new so-called
``modular'' brigades. The Army provided a series of information papers
to this committee on July 28, 2004, stating that, with respect to these
10 new brigades, ``Permanent stationing for all units will be fully
addressed through the BRAC 2005 process.'' However, the Army has
subsequently qualified this language and removed the direct reference
to BRAC. Last September when DOD submitted its ``Strengthening U.S.
Global Defense Posture'' report to Congress, Under Secretary of Defense
Feith stated in the introduction to that report that ``the Defense
Department will incorporate its projected overseas posture changes into
the BRAC 2005 process.'' In testimony before the committee this year,
the Navy has taken the position that some decisions related to the
basing of aircraft carriers will be made as part of the base
realignment and closure (BRAC) process while others will not.
How does the Department of Defense intend to address these basing
issues? Will these basing decisions be subject to the review of the
base closure commission, or will they be presented to Congress using
the normal authorization and appropriation process?
Answer. The 2005 base realignment and closure process will permit
the Department to assess comprehensively its infrastructure assets and
to rationalize those assets with the Department's force structure and
mission needs. All military installations in the United States, its
territories, and possessions are being assessed within this process.
The Global Defense Posture review resulted in a number of decisions
that will reposition some U.S. military forces currently permanently
stationed abroad to domestic installations in the United States. In
those cases, the BRAC process has been informed by those decisions.
NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM
Question. Since March 2004, you have served as the Department's
senior official directing implementation of the National Security
Personnel System (NSPS).
What are your views of the challenges faced by the Department in
implementing the NSPS?
Answer. NSPS is a mission-driven, performance-based system to
motivate, recognize and reward excellence which will result in an
overall improvement to mission effectiveness and enhanced national
security. It is also a significant change, and change is always
stressful even when beneficial to employees and to the Nation.
Accordingly, the largest challenge to implementing NSPS is managing the
change processes. It will require training in both soft skills and in
training employees and all members of the management organization in
the implementation processes and procedures. It is vitally important
that personnel be appropriately trained to implement NSPS fairly across
DOD.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in the
Department's implementation of these far-reaching reforms?
Answer. I expect to remain fully engaged in the NSPS design and
implementation and continue as the Department's Senior Executive for
NSPS. The Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) and the Program
Executive Officer (PEO) will continue to report directly to me, at
least until publication of the Final NSPS Regulations and until the
first phase of NSPS is implemented. When direct leadership is
transitioned, I will continue in an active oversight role.
Question. Do you believe that the long-term research and
development mission of the defense laboratories and technical centers
and the unique recruiting and retention needs of those laboratories and
technical centers warrant a specialized personnel system tailored to
their unique mission?
Answer. Based on progress to date in defining NSPS, I believe that
the new NSPS system will be sufficiently flexible and adaptable to
apply eventually across DOD, including laboratories and technical
centers. The labor relations sections will apply across DOD after
publication of the Final Regulations, but the Human Resources (HR)
system will not apply for laboratories and technical centers until at
least 2008. The law requires that the NSPS system be certified as
superior to the existing laboratories and technical centers personnel
system, and my expectation is that that certification will be obtained
and that the conversion date for the HR system will occur in 2008.
UNIFIED MEDICAL COMMAND
Question. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz directed the Under Secretary
of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to develop a plan for a unified
medical command in the DOD.
What are your views on the advantages and disadvantages of a
unified command structure for military medical programs? and
If confirmed, how would you assess the impact of a new structure in
support of joint warfighting capabilities and the delivery of quality
health care to family members and retirees?
Answer. While there appear to be many operational and economic
benefits to a unified medical command in DOD, this is not an area that
I have personally examined. However, since it appears to offer
considerable benefit, it will receive my attention as the Deputy, if
confirmed.
SEXUAL ASSAULT
Question. The Department has made significant progress in
establishing policies relating to the prevention of sexual assault and
improved services for its victims. If confirmed, what policy would you
establish to ensure accountability of commanding officers and all
senior officials in the Department of Defense for performance of their
responsibilities with respect to the prevention and identification of
crimes of sexual assault?
Answer. DOD established a policy this winter that set high
standards. If confirmed, I will hold people accountable and responsible
for their actions to uphold these standards.
DETAINEE ABUSE
Question. Do you believe that the Constitution, laws, and treaty
obligations of the United States prohibit the torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons held in DOD
custody?
Answer. For me, it is unequivocal that persons held in DOD custody
will be treated humanely and certainly will not be tortured. Violations
to this policy cannot be tolerated. More importantly, this has been the
consistent policy of the President and the Secretary.
MILITARY TO CIVILIAN CONVERSION
Question. Under your leadership as Secretary, the Navy developed an
aggressive plan to eliminate thousands of medical billets from the
active and Reserve components.
What guidance did you give regarding the end state of Navy medicine
that caused these reductions?
Answer. The guidance was to ensure operational and other missions
that required military personnel would not be adversely affected by any
Navy medical personnel conversions. Guidance also stressed that access
to health care services should also not be affected.
Question. Did that guidance include a business case analysis to
assess the cost and feasibility of converting military medical and
dental positions to civilians?
Answer. Yes. Because the majority of Navy medical department
personnel are required for (and assigned to) support missions or
platforms that support operations (i.e., fleet hospitals, hospital
ships), the guidance provided included two significant decision points.
First, were medical personnel required for a valid operational mission?
If the answer was yes, those billets were not part of the military-
civilian conversion. If the answer was no, then a business case
analysis was performed to see if those billets could reasonably be
converted. If the business case analysis supported that the personnel
could reasonably be obtained by hiring from the civilian sector, then
the Navy moved to convert the billets from military to civilian. If the
business case analysis did not show benefit to the government, the
Department of the Navy did not move to convert.
Question. Were the needs of the Army and Air Force taken into
consideration before eliminating Navy medical assets?
Answer. Yes, the Navy consulted with the Army and Air Force about
military billets it converted.
Question. If confirmed, you would inherit plans for military to
civilian conversions across all the military departments. How would you
assess these plans, particularly in terms of actual cost savings for
the Department?
Answer. Pending other input, I would assess plans across the
Department the same way as they were assessed across the Department of
the Navy; namely, based on operational need and business case analysis.
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
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?
Answer. GPRA and similar legislative initiatives have had a
positive impact on the Department. As a businessman, I fully appreciate
the benefits that clear plans, goals, expectations, and results can
bring to an organization. For me, as Secretary of the Navy, the
issuance of annual goals has been a critical joint endeavor with the
Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Progress to these goals is measured monthly, and yearly results
published throughout the Department of the Navy. The tenets of GPRA
have been reinforced through the President's Management Agenda, which I
energetically support and will continue to do so if confirmed.
Question. Are you familiar with the strategic plan, annual
performance plans, annual accountability report, and financial
statements of the Department of Defense?
Answer. Yes. As Secretary of the Navy, I have been responsible for
direct input to the Annual Defense Report, which serves as the
Department's performance plan. The Department of the Navy works closely
with the staff of the Secretary of Defense on the performance
information in that plan and in the annual accountability report, and
also provides financial statements.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important priorities
and challenges facing DOD as it strives to achieve these management
goals?
Answer. Clearly, the Department's first priority must be to provide
the men and women of our Armed Forces the training, equipment, and
support necessary for them to do their jobs, while ensuring security
for their families. The foundation of this effort is an effective and
agile management system.
Question. What changes, if any, do you feel might be necessary in
these plans?
Answer. It is important for the Department to link strategy, goals
and individual objectives with a feedback system of metrics to measure
performance to goals. In this regard, the NSPS system will be most
helpful. NSPS' pay-for-performance will require definitive and
measurable goals for every person in DOD. Accordingly, when fully
implemented, the pay-for-performance system will link the Secretary of
Defense's goals to the individual performance of each employee and at
all locations. Since each employee's objectives need to be measurable
for pay-for-performance determination, a performance feedback system
will be inherent in the process.
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. The Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC)
was recently established as the management mechanism for the Department
to provide direction and oversight of architectures, investments,
security and measures of effectiveness to support business processes.
The deputy chairs this committee and, therefore, if confirmed, I will
be directly responsible for these plans and implementations. This
management structure will also ensure that DOD business systems comply
with applicable laws such as the Clinger-Cohen Act.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you envision you will play in
managing or providing oversight over these processes?
Answer. In addition to managing the Department's processes and
procedures, as the COO and as Chairman of the Defense Business Systems
Management Committee, I will continue full implementation of the
President's Management Agenda to fully support the administration's
goals of more effective and efficient government.
Question. GAO has consistently stated that cultural resistance to
change and the lack of sustained leadership are two key underlying
causes of DOD's inability to resolve its long-standing financial and
business management problems.
Do you believe the Department needs to have a single leader with
sufficient authority and span of control to bring together all of the
functional areas of the Department and be accountable for the success
of the Department's management reform efforts?
If so, how do you believe this function ought to be performed?
Answer. During my tenure as Secretary of the Navy, this topic has
been the subject of considerable discussion and debate within DOD and
with the Government Accountability Office. If confirmed, this question
will be examined in depth under my cognizance as Deputy. It would be
premature to speculate on the outcome of these efforts, except to state
that it is vitally important that the Department have a coherent
management process to set goals and objectives, measure performance and
respond rapidly to changing world events. If confirmed as Deputy
Secretary of DOD, I would continue to work directly with Congress, the
GAO, independent advisory boards, and the leadership team of DOD to
address this issue.
Question. The DOD workforce has undergone significant downsizing in
the past several years, and with the current 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. Agile military forces on the front lines need an agile
civilian workforce behind the lines. Congress was highly supportive of
DOD in passing the NSPS provisions in the 2003 NDAA. NSPS will improve
the effectiveness of the Department through a modern civilian personnel
system that will improve the way DOD hires and assigns, compensates and
rewards employees. This modern, flexible, and agile human resource
system will be responsive to the national security environment, while
preserving employee protections and benefits, as well as the core
values of the civil service. Pay for performance is expected to be an
important factor in hiring and retaining top performers.
Question. GAO has consistently taken the position that strategic
human capital management must be the centerpiece of any serious effort
to transform the workforce of a government agency. Last June, GAO
reported that ``DOD and [its] components do not have comprehensive
strategic workforce plans to guide their human capital efforts. `` In
particular, GAO found that DOD had consistently failed to analyze the
gaps between critical skills and competencies in the current workforce
and those that will be needed in the future.
Do you believe that strategic human capital management must be a
centerpiece of any successful effort to address the Department's
management problems?
Answer. Our human capital is the most valuable resource within the
Department of Defense. To recruit and retain top-caliber personnel, it
is essential that the department have a strategic human capital
management approach. DOD human capital strategic plan does identify
gaps in competencies and skills. It needs to ensure that these gaps in
competencies and skills are continuously updated to reflect new
missions and technologies of the Department. Personally, I view human
capital as vitally important to the Department and, if confirmed, will
ensure that DOD planning is comprehensive and timely.
Question. If confirmed, what role, if any do you expect to play in
ensuring that the Department addresses deficiencies in its human
capital planning?
Answer. If confirmed, my role as COO will include ensuring that the
Department's strategic planning and metrics are adequate to safeguard
against deficiencies and promote the effective use of human capital.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Question. Four years ago, DOD promised to establish a new business
enterprise architecture and transition plan to transform its business
operations. GAO has reported that DOD still does not have a
comprehensive architecture and transition plan and that the way that
DOD makes business systems investment decisions remain largely
unchanged.
Do you believe that a comprehensive business systems architecture
and transition plan is the key to reform in this area?
Answer. Yes. The Department needs a systems architecture, and is
building one that clearly delineates between the DOD level enterprise
systems and the component level systems. Just like any large
corporation that consists of multiple operating divisions, the best
business systems architecture for an organization of DOD's size is one
in which clear standards and report elements are defined so that the
subsidiary organizations can comply with those requirements. With this
architecture in place, the transition plan will guide migration from
legacy systems to a transformed end state.
Question. If so, what role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in
ensuring that the Department develops and implements such an
architecture and transition plan?
Answer. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense, I will be the
Chairman of the Defense Business Systems Management Committee and will
oversee business transformation efforts including the Business
Management Modernization Program (BMMP).
Question. Four years ago, senior DOD officials took the position
that the Department's financial problems had to be attacked at the
root, by developing and fielding new systems. Over the past 2 years,
however, the Department has turned in the direction of a new goal of
having auditable financial statements by as soon as fiscal year 2007,
even though the military services won't have new business management
systems in place until 2012 at the earliest. To this end, the
Department has proposed to increase its audit spending by more than a
billion dollars over the FYDP.
Do you believe that it is reasonable for the Department to try to
get auditable financial statements before it has effective business
systems in place, or is such an effort likely to result in large
expenditures on audits without producing sustainable results?
Answer. That is not a reasonable approach, and it is not the
approach the Department is taking. The Department understands the time
involved in delivering new systems, and also recognizes the
responsibility to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars. For this
reason, DOD is continuing to improve financial management practices to
achieve a sustainable audit capability.
ACQUISITION POLICY
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the
development and implementation of acquisition policy for the Department
of Defense?
Answer. I plan to work closely with USD (AT&L) to better align DOD
acquisition policies to the world environment that exists today. When
Goldwater-Nichols was enacted, the Nation was in the Cold War,
acquiring large quantities of defense materials with many new starts
and a large and diverse industrial base. DOD is now at low rates of
production with few new starts, a downsized industrial base and the
vital need to respond quickly to operational needs.
Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to
improve the management and efficiency of its spending on contract
support services?
Answer. DOD now spends more on services than on equipment. It is,
therefore, essential that the Department ensure that services are
acquired strategically and efficiently.
Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to
improve the management and efficiency of its major defense acquisition
programs?
Answer. A business practices/processes IPT has been established as
part of the QDR to examine the structure of the defense acquisition
programs, to improve acquisition performance and streamline the
acquisition of goals and services for the warfighter. I will strive to
ensure that other management initiatives are coordinated with the QDR.
Question. The Department has chosen to rely increasingly on so-
called ``incremental'' or ``phased'' acquisition approaches in its
defense acquisition programs.
What is your assessment of the benefits and drawbacks, if any of
incremental and phased acquisition strategies?
Answer. The use of an ``incremental'' or ``phased'' approach to
deliver advanced capabilities to the warfighter as expeditiously as
possible is appropriate for some programs. The principal benefit of
such an approach is speed of delivery of new technologies or
capabilities. This is an increasingly important factor as technologies
mature more rapidly than ever before, and we are engaged in a war with
an adaptable enemy who has shown an ability to exploit new
technologies. A challenge with such an approach is ensuring the
adequacy of processes to properly match desired capabilities with the
maturing of the new technologies and the availability of budget
resources to finance acquisitions. I do not, however, endorse
``incremental'' funding as a means to increase production. Great
caution needs to be applied to ``incremental'' funding to assure that
the out-year financial obligations that result can be funded within the
DOD top line.
Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to
ensure accountability for cost, schedule and performance when it
pursues incremental and phased acquisition strategies?
Answer. Accountability for costs, schedule and performance should
be applied the same for phased acquisitions as for any other
acquisition.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics has testified that ``any further reductions
[in the defense acquisition workforce] will adversely impact our
ability to successfully execute a growing workload'' and ``Now more
than ever, I believe we need to increase the size of the acquisition
workforce to handle the growing workload, especially as requirements
increase in the coming years.''
What are your views on this issue?
Answer. The acquisition process has become too complex, cumbersome
and slow. Larger organizations do not always provide more effective
oversight and accountability. The issue of how to better structure and
resource the acquisition functions of the Department of Defense to
support wartime operations is under review as part of the Quadrennial
Defense Review. This effort should provide the Secretary with
recommendations to make the acquisition processes more effective and
more attuned to the current acquisition environment.
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 John Warner
TRANSITION OF SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH
1. Senator Warner. Secretary England, the Small Business Innovative
Research (SBIR) program was established in 1982 to meet agency mission
needs through the use of unique expertise found in the Nation's small
business community. The Department of Defense (DOD) invests over $500
million each year in these programs, which have yielded many successful
results to improve current systems and platforms and to accelerate
development of new capabilities. The Department has a more limited
track record in timely transition of technology into major acquisition
programs and systems. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) noted
in a program assessment rating accompanying the fiscal year 2006 budget
request that the Department had taken no action over the last year to
implement a recommendation to ``seek to get highly successful awardees
to enter the mainstream of Defense contracting.'' Each year, small
businesses who have successfully completed Phase II of the SBIR
process, and who have technologies available to meet Department
requirements, visit Congress seeking assistance with transition funds.
Should the Department pursue a more aggressive approach to funding and
transitioning successful SBIR Phase II technologies to meet Department
needs?
Mr. England. My experience in the Department of the Navy with the
Small Business Innovative Research Program has been quite positive. The
SBIR program has been very good for the Department. It includes a large
business sector of the country not previously involved in support of
DOD. We have had numerous programs that have gone from SBIR initiatives
to being fully embedded in acquisition programs. These programs have
gone on to make a difference in the fleet. The Department of the Navy
has an aggressive program to move promising programs into mainstream
contracting. It has exploited the legal advantages that small business
has in transitioning to major companies. Having worked with small
businesses while in the private sector, I fully recognize the fragile
nature of this group as a whole. Funding flow and timing of contracts
make or break such companies. I believe DOD must have an aggressive
approach to transitioning successful SBIR initiatives. We have to work
hard both for the good of small business and for the benefit of the
Department of Defense. If confirmed, I will aggressively support
transition of successful SBIR Phase II projects that meet Department
needs.
2. Senator Warner. Secretary England, are there best practices
within the Services such as the Primes Initiative and the Technology
Assistance Program, that could be disseminated across the Department to
improve the transition process and time frame and to address internal
and external transition challenges?
Mr. England. From my Department of the Navy experience, we have
several initiatives in which we solicit new small business, help those
new to the process of working with the government, and make early
connections of SBIR performers to potential transition customers. These
customers include both government agencies and relevant potential prime
contractors. These are practices we share with other DOD and non-DOD
SBIR managers, and we learn to do better each year. Thus there are
numerous best practices including the Primes Initiatives and the
Technology Assistance Program that are shared within the Services and
Government as a whole.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
C-130J PROCUREMENT RECONSIDERATION
3. Senator Inhofe. Secretary England, in early March, Secretary
Teets, just prior to his retirement, testified before this committee.
At that time, 30 C-130Es were grounded and another 60 C-130s, both Es
and Hs, were being restricted due to cracks in the highly stressed
wingbox area. That is still the case today. Because of the heavy
employment of the C-130 and the need for additional tactical airlift
we, as Congress, approved the purchase of the C-130J. A Mobility
Capability Study was commissioned in order to determine exactly just
how short we were in strategic and tactical airlift resources. We are
awaiting the results of this study. I have expressed concern
repeatedly, as I did with Secretary Teets, about why the Department of
Defense and the U.S. Air Force decided to cancel the C-130J at this
time. First, there are extensive termination costs, some say as much as
$1.3 billion, associated with the cancellation. I cannot understand why
such a decision would be made without even an estimate of termination
costs. It should be one of the data points in such a decision. We never
seem to learn from the past. We did the same thing with the Army's
Crusader program--no analysis and huge termination costs. Second, the
Air Force's C-130J cancellation will have an additive impact on the
cost per unit of the Marine Corps KC-130J. Finally, we don't know
exactly what the final disposition or cost will be to repair the 90
grounded and restricted C-130 E and H models. As I have stated, I
believe we have been quite shortsighted in the cancellation of the C-
130J based on my earlier comments. I think the Air Force and the DOD is
being ``penny-wise and pound-foolish,'' with regard to this program. As
a result, both Secretary Teets and General Jumper stated that there
would be a review of this cancellation.
You may not be able to comment on the specifics of this matter
given that it is about the Air Force, at a time when you were focused
on the Navy. However, I would like you to comment on the way we reach
these decisions, and how you believe we can improve the process around
which DOD program cancellation decisions are made.
Mr. England. I believe all complex program decisions should be made
in consultation with relevant DOD stakeholders and utilize the best
available data--including relevant contract termination costs--to make
the decision. The C-130J decision is being reconsidered based on new
data. If confirmed, and as I become more knowledgeable of the details
of this issue, I would be happy then to discuss this specific issue
with you.
BUDGET AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS
4. Senator Inhofe. Secretary England, a few years ago, Secretary
Dov Zakheim, DOD Comptroller, addressed the Armed Services Committee.
He showed us a very complex chart, a ``spaghetti'' chart with lots of
lines and data showing this committee how we could save a percent of
DOD budget according to Secretary Rumsfeld if we successfully
modernized our DOD systems and reduce inefficiencies. I can tell you I
was very excited about this possibility. In his prepared statement
before the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee last week, Mr.
David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said that
the DOD has not been all that successful in addressing inefficiencies
and that ``the Secretary of Defense has estimated that improving
business operations could save 5 percent of DOD's annual budget.'' This
is a savings of about $22 billion a year based on the fiscal year 2004
budget. Personally, I am a little outraged that with all the business
systems and best practices that we have been translating from the
private sector, and with the expertise of executives and mid-level
managers that have been hired into the government, we have not been
able to realize these results. The realized savings could go a long way
to addressing the proposed reductions for much needed systems that
appear to be cut mainly due to budgetary whims since no studies and
data have been presented to this committee to show the justification
for these cuts based on future capability or military needs. Is anyone
working on fixing these business operations issues? What would you
propose we do in order to capture these unrealized savings?
Mr. England. There are many people at all levels of the Department
working to improve our business operations and, if confirmed, I expect
to play a major role in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of
our business systems--where there is significant potential for savings.
Systems modernization is only a part of what it takes to realize such
savings. In private industry, continuous business process improvements
result from holding leaders accountable for achieving clear,
quantifiable and measurable objectives. I would emphasize a similar
approach for the Department's critical business transformation
priorities including business systems transformation efforts.
TRANSFORMATION
5. Senator Inhofe. Secretary England, Secretary Rumsfeld has now
been in office for more than 4 years. When appointed to and confirmed
for the role as Secretary of Defense, he and his team took on the
transformation of the military as a critical goal for this
administration. During the assessment and formulation of the plan for
this transformation, the tragedy of September 11 struck our great
Nation and the global war on terrorism began. Since that time, our
military has been involved in a war unlike any we have seen before.
Operation Enduring Freedom, followed by Operation Iraqi Freedom, has
taken our military resources, stretched them and utilized our Active
Duty, Reserve, and National Guard components in ways that we would not
have anticipated prior to September 11. These two major campaigns have
gone very well, with the post-war phase in Iraq now yielding tremendous
results. I am sure you will agree that though attention on the
transformation initiative was momentarily diverted, given all that the
DOD has confronted over these last 4 years, it is now keenly refocused.
You have been a part of Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership team. As you
review all that our military has faced since September 11, do you
believe that we are on the right path for transformation?
Mr. England. As a Department we have set a strategic course for
transformation and have promulgated that vision in both our strategic
documents and by our actions. The Services and the CoComs have
incorporated our vision of transformation into acquisition programs and
operational plans. For the Department of the Navy, fiscal year 2006 is
the first year where all ship procurements will consist of vessels
designed since the end of the Cold War. The Army Future Combat System
(FCS) will incorporate networked communications and sensors into each
vehicle and every soldier's equipment. The Air Force is creating a
network of persistent long-range surveillance/reconnaissance Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles like Global Hawk. There are numerous joint programs
such as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and the Joint Unmanned Combat
Air Vehicles (J-UCAS). The CoComs are continuously exploiting options
to employ new, transformational capabilities.
6. Senator Inhofe. Secretary England, with such current programs
such as Missile Defense, the Army's Future Combat System, the Air
Force's F/A-22, and the Navy's need for a new carrier, what are the one
or two ``must-dos'' to keep this transformation initiative moving
forward?
Mr. England. The programmatic efforts to move the transformation
initiative forward such as those you note plus others such as Joint
Strike Fighter, MV-22, and U-UCAS are well underway. The actions most
necessary to keep the transformation initiative moving forward are
those associated with making sure the Department operates as
efficiently and effectively as possible. The three most important
initiatives to this means are the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure
processes, the deployment of the National Security Personnel System,
and execution and implementation of the Quadrennial Defense Review.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
RELEASE OF FUNDS
7. Senator Collins. Secretary England, during our discussion at
your nomination hearing this week, when asked if you were taking a
second look at the Navy's proposed DD(X) ``one shipyard'' acquisition
strategy, you responded by saying, ``Senator, look, obviously, we're
going to do whatever the law of the land is, so if this Congress takes
action, obviously we're going to do that.'' The enacted fiscal year
2005 defense appropriations bill specifically directs $84.4 million
funding ``only for design and advance procurement requirements
associated with construction of the second (DDX) ship at an alternative
second source shipyard.'' Why hasn't the Navy and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) released these funds, given the unambiguous
law and clear direction from Congress?
Mr. England. OSD has released the $84.4 million Advance Procurement
funds to the Navy but they are on hold pending conduct of Milestone B
and a decision on the shipbuilder portion of the acquisition strategy.
The DD(X) acquisition strategy requires a successful Milestone B review
prior to proceeding with ship detail design and construction. The Navy
is currently in discussions with OSD as to when to conduct the
Milestone Review to evaluate the shipbuilder portion of the strategy.
The Navy is also reviewing its acquisition strategy options in light of
congressional action and is developing a way to proceed.
USD (AT&L) has authorized actions to separate the systems
development and the software development contracts from the shipbuilder
detail design effort. Actions are being taken to implement this change
immediately and award those contracts using lead ship advance
procurement funds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICER
8. Senator Levin. Secretary England, for several years, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that DOD continues
to confront pervasive, decades-old management problems related to
business operations that waste billions of dollars annually. GAO
recently testified on key elements needed to successfully transform
DOD's business operations, including the need to create a full-time,
executive level II position for a Chief Management Official (CMO), who
would serve as the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management. This
position would be filled by an individual appointed by the President
and confirmed by the Senate, for a set term of 7 years with the
potential for reappointment. Senators Ensign, Akaka, and Voinovich
recently introduced legislation to create this CMO position. What is
your position on the proposed legislation for creating a CMO at DOD who
would serve as the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management?
Mr. England. My recommendation is that the Senate take no action on
this legislation until I have had sufficient time after confirmation to
review the overall structure of DOD and decide on an appropriate course
of action. If I am confirmed, the management of the Department will be
a high priority, and this topic has been discussed with Secretary
Rumsfeld. While I am open to a potential position of a Chief Management
Officer within DOD, that is not a foregone conclusion. Rather, I would
appreciate the opportunity to gain hands-on experience and then make a
recommendation based on a better understanding of the full spectrum of
DOD processes and operations.
9. Senator Levin. Secretary England, if Congress creates this
position, what term limits should be set? What is your position on a 7-
year term?
Mr. England. My suggestion is that the Congress not create this
position until Secretary Rumsfeld and I (if confirmed) have an
opportunity for further examination and determination of the best
management structure for DOD. If we conclude that a Chief Management
Officer is appropriate, then we will also make recommendations for a
specific term limit.
10. Senator Levin. Secretary England, if you do not support the
concept of a CMO, how will the Department address the significant
problems that have resulted in the addition of a number of DOD's key
business operations to GAO's High-Risk List of government programs and
activities at risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement and how
will DOD demonstrate results and progress in successfully transforming
its business operations to the committee?
Mr. England. If confirmed, my general approach will be to set
specific objectives with schedules and appropriate metrics that address
all business aspects of the Department. My initial judgment is that we
need to greatly simplify business processes within DOD and better align
authority and responsibility. That said, it may still be appropriate to
have a Chief Management Officer to assist the Deputy Secretary to
better accomplish this task. I can assure that I am very open on this
subject and will recommend whatever is most appropriate to achieve
maximum efficiency and effectiveness in the Department.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
KENNEDY AIR CRAFT CARRIER
11. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary England, on April 20, 2004 in
your speech before the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce and Northeast
Florida Navy League, it was reported by the Florida Times Union,
``England said JFK would return and remain at Mayport until it is
decommissioned in 2018.'' Then in December you called me to announce
that the Kennedy would be mothballed. Please explain this discrepancy.
Mr. England.
______
[The nomination reference of Gordon R. England follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 7, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Gordon R. England, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense,
vice Paul D. Wolfowitz, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Gordon R. England, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Hon. Gordon R. England
Gordon England was confirmed as the 73rd Secretary of the Navy on
26 September 2003 and sworn in on 1 October. He becomes only the second
person in history to serve twice as the leader of the Navy-Marine Corps
Team and the first to serve in back-to-back terms. Prior to his return
to the Navy Department he was the first Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security
was established on January 24, 2003, to integrate 22 different agencies
with a common mission to protect the American people.
Secretary England served as the 72nd Secretary of the Navy from May
24, 2001, until he joined the Department of Homeland Security in
January 2003. As Secretary of the Navy, Mr. England leads America's
Navy and Marine Corps and is responsible for an annual budget in excess
of $110 billion and more than 800,000 personnel.
Prior to joining the administration of President George W. Bush,
Mr. England served as executive vice president of General Dynamics
Corporation from 1997 until 2001. In that position he was responsible
for two major sectors of the corporation: Information Systems and
International. Previously, he served as executive vice president of the
Combat Systems Group, president of General Dynamics Fort Worth aircraft
company (later Lockheed), president of General Dynamics Land Systems
Company and as the principal of a mergers and acquisition consulting
company.
A native of Baltimore, Mr. England 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 and is a
member of various honorary societies: Beta Gamma Sigma (business),
Omicron Delta Kappa (leadership) and Eta Kappa Nu (engineering).
Mr. England has been actively involved in a variety of civic,
charitable and government organizations, including serving as a city
councilman; Vice Chair, Board of Goodwill, International; the USO's
Board of Governors; the Defense Science Board; the Board of Visitors at
Texas Christian University; and many others.
He has been recognized for numerous professional and service
contributions from multiple organizations such as Distinguished Alumnus
Award from the University of Maryland; the Department of Defense
Distinguished Public Service Award; the Silver Beaver Award from the
Boy Scouts of America; the Silver Knight of Management Award from the
National Management Association; the Henry M. Jackson Award and the
IEEE Centennial 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 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:
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
April 7, 2005.
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, MD.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Dorothy Marie Hennlein.
7. Names and ages of children:
Gordon England, Jr., 42; Margaret Kristen Rankin, 39; and Marisa
Claire Walpert, 32.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Graduate, Mount St. Joseph High School, Baltimore, Maryland, 1951-
1955, June 1955.
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 1956-1961, BSEE,
June 1961.
Graduate, Texas Christian University, 1968-1975 (night school),
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.
10/03-present Secretary of the Navy, Department of Defense,
Pentagon.
1/03-9/03 Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,
Nebraska Avenue Complex.
5/01-1/03 Secretary of the Navy, Department of Defense, Pentagon.
3/97-4/01 Executive Vice President, General Dynamics Corporation,
Headquarters, Falls Church, VA.
3/95-3/97 CEO, GRE Consultants, Inc., Fort Worth, 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.
Benbrook Texas City Council and mayor pro tem, 1982-1986, no party
affiliation.
Member of the Defense Science Board from 1991 to 1996.
Member of the Defense Science Board Acquisition Subpanel, 1997 to
1998.
Member of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization and
Security, 1998 to 1999.
National Research Council, Vice Chairman of Study on the Future of
U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure, 2000-2001.
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, Omicron Delta Kappa (leadership).
Member, Beta Gamma Sigma (business).
Member, Eta Kappa Nu (engineering).
Lifetime member, Navy League of the United States (Mr. and Mrs.
England).
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).
2000-$1,000.
Personal Contributions.
2005--Kay Granger Re-Election--$2,000.
2004--Armendariz Klein Campaign--$500.
2004--Kay Granger Campaign Fund--$2,000.
2004--Bush-Cheney 2004 (Primary) Inc.--$2,000. (G. England)
2004--Bush-Cheney 2004 (Primary) Inc.--$2,000. (D. England)
2003--Kay Granger Re-Election--$2,000.
2002--Good Government Fund (Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson
sponsor)--$5,000.
2002--Congressman Joe Barton Committee--$2,000.
2001--Kay Granger Re-Election Campaign Event, April 11, 2001--
$1,000.
2000--Johnson for Congress 2000--$1,000.
2000--Texas Freedom Fund--$1,000.
2000--Texas Freedom Fund--$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 (by Dorothy H. England)
2000--Kay Granger Campaign Fund--$1,000.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award.
Distinguished Alumnus Award for 2002, University of Maryland.
DOD Medal for Distinguished Public Service.
Department of the Air Force Exceptional Public Service Award.
Department of the Army Exceptional Public Service Award.
Honorary Doctor of Science, School of Engineering, Oakland
University.
Louis V. Koerber Patriotism Award.
Citizen of the Year, Goodwill Industries, Fort Worth.
Distinguished Alumnus of 2005, Texas Christian University.
Silver Knight of Management Award, National Management Association.
Silver Award, National Defense Industrial Association.
Selected to Aviation Heritage Hall of Fame, Fort Worth.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Centennial
awardee.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Boston Herald--U.S.S. Constitution, a reminder of our heroes, July
4, 2002.
Washington Times--Chief Executive Transformed--September 10, 2002.
Naval Institute Proceedings--One Team--One Flight--November/
December 2002.
Sea Power Magazine--Our Mission is Clear--December 2001.
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.
Please see attached copies of speeches.
[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 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.
Gordon R. England.
This 14th day of April 2005.
[The nomination of Gordon R. England was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on July 29, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. Mr. England
received a recess appointment as Deputy Secretary of Defense on
January 4, 2006. The nomination was confirmed by the Senate on
April 6, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to ADM Michael G. Mullen,
USN, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. Almost two decades 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
joint assignments as Commander, Striking Fleet Atlantic/U.S. Second
Fleet, and Commander, Joint Force Command Naples/U.S. Naval Forces
Europe.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes. I strongly support full implementation of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986.
These changes were the right approach and have resulted in a stronger,
more capable and responsive defense organization.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe that we have made great strides in implementing
these defense reforms and these reforms have enhanced our Nation's
warfighting capabilities. Examples include the changes I've seen in my
current assignment in Europe and the U.S. military's support of
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. In the European Theater,
it is clear many other nations have adopted similar reforms and are
moving in the right direction.
I also believe there is room for improvement. The future lies in
leading and supporting coalition forces and this will require further
integration of these reforms. We have made major progress in developing
joint perspectives. It is now time to examine joint educational
requirements, joint billet structure and joint service credit to ensure
we are best postured, from a statutory point of view, for the 21st
century. If confirmed, one of my goals will be to the make the Navy a
more joint force.
Finally, additional reforms are required, I believe, in the
acquisition process to ensure that new systems are in full compliance
with joint interoperability requirements, and in improving the
coordination and interaction between the uniformed requirements
personnel and the civilian acquisition professionals to deliver systems
which are ``born joint.'' Among the greatest risks facing us is the
spiraling cost of the procurement of modern military systems.
Additionally, implementation of the act's provisions giving ``sole
responsibility'' for acquisition to the Service Secretaries has
effectively cut the Service Chiefs out of the acquisition process. The
voice of the Service Chiefs in the process should be enhanced.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I believe the most important aspect of these defense
reforms is the emphasis and commitment to joint warfighting with
commensurate regard for each of the Service's core competencies. I
believe our Nation has been well-served by operations conducted under
the command of regional combatant commanders with joint forces from all
the Services. As noted above, this is critical for the success of
future operations and missions.
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 expressions of interest and
testimony from senior military officers recommending modifications to
Goldwater-Nichols.
Do you believe 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 particular legislative proposals
to amend Goldwater-Nichols. However, after 20 years, a comprehensive
review might be an idea worthy of consideration. If confirmed, I will
work closely with the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy if
I see the need to seek improvements.
Question. What do you understand the role of the Chief of Naval
Operations to be under the Goldwater-Nichols Act relative to the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other members of the Joint Chiefs, and the
combatant commanders?
Answer. I am comfortable with the Chief of Naval Operations' (CNO)
interaction with these principal leaders. If confirmed, I will work for
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy, who will be my
direct civilian superior. Along with the other Service Chiefs, I will
be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) tasked with the
responsibility for actively reviewing and evaluating military matters
and offering professional military advice on any issues relevant to our
national defense. Finally, Title X makes the CNO responsible for
organizing, training, and equipping forces in support of the combatant
commanders with whom I will endeavor to foster close working
relationships.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. Section 5033 of title 10, United States Code, discusses
the responsibilities and authority of the Chief of Naval Operations.
Section 151 of title 10, United States Code, discusses the composition
and functions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including the authority of
the Chief of Naval Operations, as a member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, to submit advice and opinions to the President, the National
Security Council, or the Secretary of Defense. Other sections of law
and traditional practice, also establish important relationships
outside the chain of command. Please describe your understanding of the
relationship of the Chief of Naval Operations to the following offices:
Secretary of Defense
Deputy Secretary of Defense
The Under Secretaries of Defense
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Secretary of the Navy
The Under Secretary of the Navy
The Assistant Secretaries of the Navy
The General Counsel of the Navy
The Judge Advocate General of the Navy
The Commandant of the Marine Corps
The Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force
The combatant commanders
Answer.
Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Defense is the principal assistant to the
President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense. As a
Service Chief and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of
Naval Operations is a military adviser to the Secretary of Defense,
particularly regarding matters of naval warfare, policy, and strategy.
Deputy Secretary of Defense
The Deputy Secretary of Defense, on occasion, serves as acting
Secretary in the absence of the Secretary. During these periods, my
relationship with the Deputy Secretary will essentially be the same as
with the Secretary. The Deputy Secretary is also responsible for the
day-to-day operation of the Department of Defense. If confirmed, I will
endeavor to regularly interact with him and provide him with the best
possible professional military advice and the same level of support as
I would the Secretary.
The Under Secretaries of Defense
Under current DOD Directives, Under Secretaries of Defense
coordinate and exchange information with DOD components, to include the
services, in the functional areas under their cognizance. If confirmed
as CNO, I intend to respond and reciprocate. If confirmed, I will use
this exchange of information as I communicate with the CJCS and provide
military advice to the Secretary of Defense.
The Assistant Secretaries of Defense
All assistant secretaries are subordinate to one of the Under
Secretaries of Defense with two exceptions. This means that any
relationship I would have with subordinate assistant secretaries would
be with and through the applicable Under Secretary of Defense. Since
the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C3I and Legislative Affairs
are principal deputies to the SECDEF, my relationships with them would
be conducted along the same lines as those with the various under
secretaries. Additionally, if confirmed as CNO, I intend to foster
collaborative working relationships with the civilian leadership in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and to consult with them on matters
within their respective areas of responsibility.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If confirmed, I look forward to working with and through the
Chairman in the execution of my newly assigned duties as the Chief of
Naval Operations member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. My statutory
responsibility as a Service Chief would be to provide properly
organized, trained, and equipped forces to the combatant commanders to
accomplish their military missions and to provide military advice to
the President and Secretary of Defense.
The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
When functioning as the acting Chairman, the Vice Chairman's
relationship with combatant commanders is exactly that of the chairman.
The 103rd Congress amended Title 10 to give the Vice Chairman the same
rights and obligations of other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
If confirmed, I would exchange views with the Vice Chairman on any
defense matter considered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Vice
Chairman also heads or plays a key role on many boards that affect
readiness and programs and, therefore, the preparedness of naval
forces. If confirmed, I will endeavor to establish a close relationship
with the Vice Chairman on these critical issues.
The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Assistant to the Chairman represents the Chairman in the
interagency process; while there is no command relationship between the
Assistant to the Chairman and a Service Chief, informal exchanges of
view are of mutual benefit. If confirmed, I would expect to participate
in such exchanges, especially regarding initiatives and support for the
global war on terror. In addition, if confirmed, I would be committed
to exploring methods of improving interagency cooperation, including
interagency participation on the staffs of combatant commanders.
The Director of the Joint Staff
The Director of the Joint Staff is generally the Joint Staff point
of contact for soliciting information from the combatant commanders as
the chairman develops a position on an important issue.
The Secretary of the Navy, the Under Secretary of the Navy, the
Assistant Secretaries of the Navy, the General Counsel of the
Navy, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and the Secretary
of the Navy
Statutorily, the CNO performs his duties under the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary of the Navy. Specifically, the
CNO is responsible for providing properly organized, trained, and
equipped forces to support the Combatant Commanders in the
accomplishment of their missions. In addition, the CNO assists the
Secretary of the Navy, through the OPNAV staff, in the development of
plans and recommendations for the operation of the Department of the
Navy. In my opinion, the interaction and coordination between these two
organizations and staffs has improved markedly during the last 4 years,
to the direct benefit of the readiness of our Navy. There is a much
more collaborative environment within the Department of the Navy, and
if confirmed, I intend to work closely with the Secretary of the Navy
to continue this positive progress.
The Under Secretary, the Assistant Secretaries and the General Counsel
These principals of the Secretary of the Navy, and their staffs,
work to implement the Secretary's vision for the Navy and Marine Corps
of tomorrow. If confirmed, I will work closely with each of them to
achieve the Secretary's goals.
The Judge Advocate General of the Navy
Under 10 USC Sec. 5148(d), the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the
Navy performs duties relating to any and all Department of Navy legal
matters assigned to him by SECNAV. The JAG provides and supervises the
provision of all legal advice and related services throughout the
Department of the Navy, except for the advice and services provided by
the General Counsel.
It is important that the CNO receive independent legal advice from
his senior uniformed judge advocates. He/she is a significant component
of the Department's legal service infrastructure and performs functions
that are essential to the proper operation of the Department as a
whole. I believe that no officer or employee of the DOD may interfere
with the ability of the JAG to give the CNO independent legal advice.
If confirmed, I will endeavor to establish a close working
relationship with the JAG and will seek his/her independent legal
guidance.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps
I believe there is a close historical, operational and joint
relationship between the Navy and the Marine Corps. If confirmed, my
relationship with the Commandant of the Marine Corps must necessarily
be exceptionally close. Many of our capabilities, programs, and
personnel issues are inextricably linked; our forces deploy together,
and both must be ``ready on arrival.'' If confirmed as CNO, I will work
to make the Navy-Marine Corps team stronger wherever possible
The Chiefs of Staff of the other Services
In my view, the only way for our Armed Forces to be truly effective
on behalf of this Nation is to work together, to recognize each other's
strengths and to complement each other's capabilities. We can--and
must--achieve synergy in warfare, training, and procurement to ensure
each Service contributes optimally to joint and combined operations. If
confirmed, I am absolutely committed to making the relationships with
my counterparts as mutually beneficial as possible and to enhance,
wherever possible, joint interoperability and other aspects of the
joint relationship in order to improve the warfighting capabilities of
the United States.
MAJOR CHALLENGES
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Chief of Naval Operations?
I think the major challenges confronting the next Chief of Naval
Operations are:
1) the need to maintain and sustain our Navy's current readiness,
to deliver for the President and this nation exactly the right combat
capability for exactly the right cost--today. Admiral Clark's
innovative organizational and financial reforms these last 5 years have
produced a Navy far more combat-ready than it has been since the end of
the Cold War. One need look no further than the Navy's extraordinary
contributions to Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom or our rapid
response in support of East Asian nations hit by the devastating
tsunami in December to see the truth in that statement. We are, as one
journalist recently so aptly put it, a ``force for good,'' but we
cannot rest on those laurels;
2) the need to build the Navy of the future--to create a Fleet that
is properly sized and balanced to meet head-on the uncertain and
dynamic security environment that awaits us over the next 20 to 30
years. I believe our Navy must be prepared to fight major conflicts
against aggressor states while simultaneously dealing with the
asymmetric warfare this global war on terror will continue to present.
We are ready now for the war we are fighting, but we are not yet
appropriately shaped for the types of threats we will most assuredly
face in the future, and
3) the need to likewise shape the Navy's manpower and personnel
system for the 21st century--to transform a Cold War-era assignment,
distribution and compensation system into one that is more reflective
of and, quite frankly, more responsive to the unique and incredible
talent of the men and women serving our Navy today. Our readiness--
current and future--is inextricably tied to the growth and development
of our people and to the quality of service we provide them and their
families. I believe that, though we are clearly winning the battle for
talent, the marketplace for that talent will grow increasingly
competitive in the future. Admiral Clark's emphasis this year on the
development of a Human Capital Strategy is well-placed and, in my view,
an imperative for the future.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to focus my efforts early and firmly
on these three challenges.
I will ensure we continue to put to sea a combat-ready Navy through
the tenets of the Fleet Response Plan, and that through this plan we
remain a rotational force for the Nation--forward deployed, fully
engaged and surge capable. I believe strongly in the notion of
``presence with a purpose'' and will work hard to provide the President
and the people of the United States a Navy that can--and will--be where
they need it to be, when they need it to be there. Likewise, if
confirmed, I plan to ensure our units are ready for combat operations
earlier in the training and maintenance cycles, and that they remain so
for a longer period of time, generating a higher return on our
country's investment. Thus, I intend to advance our Integrated
Readiness Capability Assessment (IRCA) process.
Having held joint command and served these last 6 months as a NATO
commander in Europe, I am well-versed in the importance of joint and
combined operations. I know the Navy brings to the fight unique
maritime and expeditionary warfighting capabilities, but I also realize
that such capabilities are only as good as the contribution it makes to
the overall strategic effort. If confirmed, I plan to work to improve
``jointness'' in the Navy--from a systems acquisition, operational
planning and execution, and manpower perspective. I am convinced this
is one, very significant way we can increase both the effectiveness and
the efficiency of our current operational readiness. If the war on
terror has taught us nothing else, it is that the future of national
and international security lies in mutual cooperation and
interoperability--not only with our sister services but also with
allies, coalition partners, and a host of corporate and nongovernmental
agencies.
As to the challenge posed by building our future Navy, I intend to
remain true to the vision articulated in Sea Power 21. Through that
vision--and its pillars of Sea Strike, Sea Shield, and Sea Basing--I
believe the Navy has laid the groundwork to truly transform itself for
the century to come. If confirmed, I will focus my efforts on
evaluating the composition and capabilities required to make that
transformation a reality and will work with the Secretary of Defense,
Congress, and industry to more effectively and efficiently deliver to
the Nation those precise capabilities, as well as the fleet that will
take them to sea.
In particular, I believe we must continue--through Sea Enterprise--
to reap the savings necessary to buy our future Navy and to balance our
investments with those of our sister services. Continued increased
productivity is vital as well. We must aggressively pursue the
acquisition of systems that are ``born joint,'' and we must be
courageous enough to further accelerate the testing and fielding of
these new systems. Technology is changing--and our enemies are
adapting--far too fast for us to remain hamstrung by Cold War era
procurement practices. In a similar vein, I am convinced the
shipbuilding challenge before us is significant and portends to stifle
the development of the very Navy we will need to win this war on terror
and protect the homeland. If confirmed, I look forward to working
closely with OSD, Congress, and industry leaders to develop a
shipbuilding plan that delivers the fleet our Nation needs to prevail
in war and live in peace.
Finally, as we build this future Navy, we must stay mindful of the
impact our decisions have on our people and their families. Recruiting
and retaining the very best talent and providing these brave men and
women meaningful, rewarding career opportunities remains critical to
the readiness and combat capability of our Navy. If confirmed, I will
aggressively pursue the development of a Human Capital Strategy that
maximizes the potential of all who serve, be they active, Reserve, or
civilian. We will continue to pursue the kinds of new technologies and
competitive personnel policies that will streamline both combat and
non-combat personnel positions, improve the two-way integration of
active and Reserve missions, and reduce the Navy's total manpower
structure.
We expect to be a better educated and trained, but smaller,
workforce in the future. Getting there will likely require changes in
the way we recruit, assess, train and manage the workforce. It will,
therefore, also require some flexible authorities and incentive tools
to shape both the career paths and our skills mix in ways that let us
compete for the right talent in a competitive marketplace.
MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the execution of the functions of the Chief of Naval Operations?
Answer. In my view, the most serious problems that the next Chief
of Naval Operation will face in terms of executing his duties are:
ensuring cost effective readiness while achieving increased
productivity; properly balancing current resources allocated to
maintain, train, and equip the Navy; obtaining the necessary resources
to build the future Navy; managing personnel through an outdated,
cumbersome manpower system; improving the speed, agility, and
flexibility of naval forces; and reconciling acquisition policies and
methodologies to meet our needs.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. Mindful of both the results of BRAC and the QDR, if
confirmed, I will move immediately to review in-place execution issues
in the fleet; craft a clear, concise vision and execution plan; develop
a plan to track real savings for future use; aggressively pursue the
development--and delivery--of a 21st century Human Capital Strategy;
maintain and strengthen organizational, financial, and operational
alignment across our Navy; work closely with OSD, Congress, and
industry leaders to develop a shipbuilding plan that delivers the fleet
our Nation needs; foster amongst our Navy's four-star admirals a broad
and productive guiding coalition; and deepen the relationship between
our Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
Question. Chapter 505 of title 10, United States Code, provides the
statutory framework for the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and
delineates the authority and duties of the Chief of Naval Operations,
Vice Chief of Naval Operations, the Deputy Chiefs of Naval Operations,
and Assistant Chiefs of Naval Operations.
Based on your extensive experience serving in the Office of the
Chief of Naval Operations, what recommendations for legislative changes
do you have, if any, to chapter 505?
Answer. I do not currently have any recommendations for legislative
changes for chapter 505. I believe the current authority is appropriate
and commensurate to the many designated duties required of the Chief of
Naval Operations. If confirmed and if I do have any recommended
changes, I will work closely with the Secretary of the Navy on such
initiatives.
QUALIFICATIONS
Question. Section 5033 of title 10, United States Code, requires
the Chief of Naval Operations to have had significant experience in
joint duty assignments, including at least one full tour of duty in a
joint duty assignment as a flag officer.
What background and experience do you have that you believe
qualifies you for this position?
Answer. I believe I am qualified to serve as Chief of Naval
Operations and have significant experience in the duties required. I
had the privilege of six command tours from which I gained a solid
operational foundation. I have served in two joint flag positions:
Commander Striking Fleet Atlantic and currently as Commander, Allied
Joint Force Command Naples, Italy. Further, I served in the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, completed four tours at Navy Headquarters, a
tour with the Bureau of Naval Personnel and one in naval training. I
have an MS in Operations Research and Analysis from our Naval Post
Graduate School, and I completed an Executive Business Course at
Harvard University. Finally, I believe my programmatic background and
experience will be beneficial in leading the Navy through the fiscal
challenges that lie ahead.
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Question. At her confirmation hearing in January, Secretary of
State Rice expressed the administration's strong support for the U.N.
Convention on the Law of Sea. She stated that she would work with the
Senate leadership to bring the Convention to a vote during this
Congress. You have been a strong advocate of the Convention and
testified in favor of its ratification before congressional committees
in 2003 and 2004.
Do you continue to support United States accession to the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?
Answer. Yes, I support United States' accession to the Law of the
Sea Convention, and I believe that joining the Convention will
strengthen our military's ability to conduct operations.
Question. In your opinion, is this Treaty in the national security
interest of the United States? If so, why?
Answer. Yes, I believe that accession to the Law of the Sea
Convention is in national security interest of our Nation. The basic
tenets of the Law of the Sea Convention are clear and the U.S. Navy
reaps many benefits from its provisions. From the right of unimpeded
transit passage through straits used for international navigation, to
reaffirming the sovereign immunity of our warships, providing a
framework for countering excessive claims of other states, and
preserving the right to conduct military activities in exclusive
economic zones, the Convention provides the stable and predictable
legal regime we need to conduct our operations today and in the future.
The ability of U.S. military forces to operate freely on, over and
above the vast military maneuver space of the oceans is critical to our
national security interests, the military in general, and the Navy in
particular. Your Navy's--and your military's--ability to operate freely
across the vast domain of the world's oceans in peace and in war make
possible the unfettered projection of American influence and power. The
military basis for support for the Law of the Sea Convention is broad
because it codifies fundamental benefits important to our operating
forces as they train and fight:
It codifies essential navigational freedoms through
key international straits and archipelagoes, in the exclusive
economic zone, and on the high seas;
It supports the operational maneuver space for combat
and other operations of our warships and aircraft; and
It enhances our own maritime interests in our
territorial sea, contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone.
These provisions and others are important, and it is preferable for
the United States to be a party to the Convention that codifies the
freedoms of navigation and overflight needed to support U.S. military
operations. Likewise, it is beneficial to have a seat at the table to
shape future developments of the Law of the Sea Convention. Amendments
made to the Convention in the 1990s satisfied many of the concerns that
opponents have expressed.
Since 1983, the U.S. Navy has conducted its activities in
accordance with President Reagan's Statement on United States Oceans
Policy, operating consistent with the Convention's provisions on
navigational freedoms. If the U.S. becomes a party to the Law of the
Sea Convention, we would continue to operate as we have since 1983, and
would be recognized for our leadership role in law of the sea matters.
Joining the Law of the Sea Convention will have no adverse effect on
the President's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) or on U.S.
intelligence gathering activities. Rather, joining the Convention is
another important step in prosecuting and ultimately prevailing in the
global war on terrorism.
TRANSFORMATION
Question. If confirmed, you would play an important role in the
process of transforming the Navy to meet new and emerging threats.
What are your goals regarding Navy transformation?
Answer. I fully support the Navy's ongoing transformation efforts.
If confirmed, Sea Power 21 will remain the Navy's vision for the
future, and I firmly believe we have made great strides through that
vision towards developing the capabilities we will need in coming
years. But, much work remains. I believe our Navy is not yet properly
shaped for the future, especially for operations in the littoral. We
must continue to refine and accelerate Sea Power 21, particularly Sea
Basing and FORCEnet capabilities. Both are vital to providing national
capabilities that enhance our warfighting potential--as a Navy and as
part of the joint force.
FLEET RESPONSE PLAN
Question. The Fleet Response Plan has been implemented to provide a
surge capability for ``presence with a purpose.'' There have been some
reports indicating sailors' dissatisfaction with the unpredictability
of the new deployment schedules.
What strengths and weaknesses have you perceived to date with the
implementation of the Fleet Response Plan?
Answer. The Fleet Response Plan is a new operational construct,
which retains and builds on our current force rotation concept, to
better leverage the Navy's force and provide the President more
responsive, flexible, and combat credible options.
I believe we have demonstrated the viability and value of FRP--the
ability to surge more Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups and
combat power than before, largely within the resources already planned
(OIF, Summer Pulse 2004, and tsunami). At the same time, we have a
better understanding of how we must continue to assess, refine and
improve the associated training and maintenance cycles needed to
support FRP in the long term.
There is a certain amount of unpredictability to the FRP, though
frankly I view this as a strength and a deterrent to those who have
long studied and contemplated taking advantage of our historical ``heel
to toe'' schedule of deployments. While unpredictability may initially
cause some angst in the fleet, my experience with Sailors and their
families throughout my career is if we remain honest and upfront with
them about what we are doing and why--they will readily accept the
mission and accomplish it with the same exceptional level of
professionalism and dedication they have demonstrated in the past.
Question. After a surge, do you feel there is sufficient
maintenance and repair capability in the public and private sector to
quickly reconstitute the force?
Answer. Yes, there is sufficient maintenance and repair capability
to reconstitute the force after a surge. This ability was amply
demonstrated during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), during which we
surged seven Carrier Battle Groups and 75 percent of our amphibious
force. In all, more than half the fleet deployed and was then
reconstituted using both public and private ship depot repair
facilities. A big part of our success was due to the superb support
from this committee and the rest of Congress--for which the Navy
remains extremely grateful.
Question. How does ``presence with a purpose'' differ from other
concepts such as ``virtual presence''?
Answer. Simply put, ``Presence with a purpose'' is about being
there for a reason. We can no longer afford to stay on station,
``boring holes in the water'' as sailors like to say, merely for
``presence'' sake. The Navy's response to the Asian tsunami is a
telling example. U.S. naval units involved in theater engagement
activities were diverted and quickly arrived on scene, providing vital
support in the early hours after the tsunami. This highlights both the
value of ``presence with a purpose'' and the responsiveness of naval
forces rotationally deploying overseas.
In addition to actively assisting the tsunami victims as no other
military or organization in the world could have in such a timely
manner, there was a significant down payment made on the prevention of
terrorism in that vital part of the world. You have to actually be
there to achieve that.
``Virtual presence'' on the other hand, is actual absence.
NAVY FORCE STRUCTURE
Question. Until recently, the Navy had a stated requirement for 375
ships, based on the Sea Power 21 vision. In a recent report by the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) concerning alternative funding
approaches for shipbuilding, CRS postulates ``the fundamental cause for
instability in the shipbuilding industrial base may be the absence of a
current, officially approved, consensus plan for the future size and
structure of the Navy.'' A Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is now
underway, based on a new National Defense Strategy that could affect
the Navy's force structure.
If confirmed, how do you intend to work within the QDR process to
gain consensus on the number and types of ships required in the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the full
capabilities of naval forces are judiciously considered and weighed
against other alternatives as the QDR seeks to provide the most
effective joint force to our Nation within a resource constrained
environment. My recommendations will be based on detailed analysis of
the capabilities required to defeat the future threat.
I believe that the value of--and the need for--naval forces will
increase as very significant numbers of troops currently based overseas
redeploy back to the United States without replacement, and our
adjustment continues to the reality of the reduction of our ability to
freely use the sovereign territory of other counties, even that of our
allies. I believe there is--and must be--a balance between the size of
the fleet and the combat capability of individual platforms.
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom proved the value of
the combat readiness in which this nation has invested and the
importance we must place on improving the fleet's ability to respond
with decisive, persistent combat power for major combat operations.
This is an enduring requirement for naval forces.
These operations demonstrated the importance of the latest
technology in surveillance, command and control, and persistent attack.
Sensors and precision weaponry are changing everything we know about
the balance between firepower and maneuver in a battlespace defined
increasingly by time and information rather than by distance and
geography. In this environment, time critical targets will increasingly
be the norm rather than the exception, and the speed of action will
demand that we deal more effectively with the doctrinal problems
associated with fratricide. Distributed and networked solutions must
become the norm.
Our operations over the last few years have also highlighted once
again that over-flight and basing overseas are not guaranteed.
Therefore, our supremacy of the maritime domain and our consequent
ability to quickly deliver an agile combat force is a priceless
advantage.
Question. The Navy is already 25 ships below the level that was
determined to be required in the last QDR. Most of these shortfalls are
in surface combatants, but there is also a shortage of submarines. If
the Navy decommissions an aircraft carrier, as it has announced it
intends to do, a shortfall will arise in that category as well.
With an ongoing QDR and Global Posture Review, and Base Realignment
and Closure process commencing, what are your views about the Navy
proceeding now with major force structure changes?
Answer. I believe that our first commitment must be to maintaining
the requisite combat readiness to fight and win the global war on
terror and to respond to major crises. The Fleet Response Plan has
enabled the Navy to deliver significantly more combat power faster,
thereby increasing the operational availability and utility of the
fleet even as the size of that fleet has decreased in terms of numbers.
So, while the Navy is currently below the levels determined in the
last QDR, we continue to meet our operational requirements through
innovative operational, maintenance, and manning policies. Resources
must, however, be found for the recapitalization of the Navy. We are
not yet properly shaped for the future. While I support the
decommissioning of the aircraft carrier now, I would not support any
additional major force reductions until I have an opportunity to assess
the results from the global posture review, BRAC, and the QDR.
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHODS FOR SHIPBUILDING
Question. Navy leaders have testified that alternative financing
methods must be found for shipbuilding.
What are your views and recommendations on the benefits and
feasibility of alternative financing methods, such as incremental
funding and advance appropriations?
Answer. I believe that alternative financing methods in conjunction
with a shipbuilding plan could be very helpful in reducing uncertainty
for our Nation's shipbuilders and could ultimately lead to more
affordable ships and a larger fleet.
I believe that funding lead ships of new classes that introduce
advanced technologies with research and development funds is both
appropriate and reasonable as well as consistent with the current
acquisition practices of most major, technologically advanced programs.
I also believe that it is in our country's best interest to reduce
the large perturbations in the new ship construction account caused by
the funding of capital ships under current funding policy and that the
Navy, industry and Congress should explore the full range of
mitigations available as well as other resources and resourcing
methods.
Question. What is your assessment of the long-term impact of such
alternative financing methods on the availability of funds for
shipbuilding?
Answer. Alternative financing methods have the potential to reduce
uncertainty and enhance the efficiency of our shipbuilders, lowering to
some extent the per-unit cost of new ships and thereby freeing
resources that could be apportioned for the construction of additional
ships. Alternative financing methods are, however, neither a panacea
nor a replacement for appropriate funding levels overall. What is
needed is a shipbuilding plan to which we are committed and for which
resources consistently support. All too often, the best-laid plans are
undone by affordability challenges and increased costs.
The ultimate requirement for shipbuilding, however, will be shaped
by the potential for emerging technologies, the amount of forward
basing, and innovative manning concepts such as Sea Swap. Additional
critical variables are operational availability and force posture,
survivability and war plan timelines.
ATTACK SUBMARINE FORCE LEVELS
Question. The most recent official statement of requirements for
attack submarine force levels was included in a study by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff in fiscal year 1999. That study indicated that the
minimum requirement for attack submarines is 55 and that in the future
the Navy would need to have between 68 and 72 submarines. Substantial
portions of these boats were deemed in the study to be necessary to
meet various intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
requirements. Despite this, there have been indications that the Navy
is considering significantly reducing the force structure of attack
submarines to fewer than 40 boats.
What are the considerations that might lead the Navy to conclude
that a number of attack submarines substantially smaller than 55 would
be sufficient to meet the requirements of the combatant commanders and
other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance needs?
Answer. In considering whether the minimum attack submarine force-
level requirement of 55 should be reduced, it is important for studies
and analyses to evaluate the range of options and potential performance
versus the risk associated with those options and the trade off between
competing platform investments. We have a responsibility to balance all
of our warfighting investments to deliver the full range of naval
capabilities. Over the past 4 years, we have made tough decisions to
reduce the total number of surface combatants and tactical aircraft
based on this kind of analysis. Submarines are, and will continue to
be, part of the calculus in determining how best to deliver the
capabilities the Nation requires of its Navy. The major considerations
in establishing submarine force levels begins with establishing the
capabilities required to, first, meet wartime requirements and, second,
fulfill additional requirements, such as intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance.
Although no definitive submarine force structure has been
determined, the 2001 QDR set 55 submarines as the baseline.
I believe that a thorough analysis of the required number of
submarines should, at a minimum, consider the potential duration of
future conflicts and subsequent threat draw down rates; the value of
precursor actions and distributed sensors; possible changes in threat
numbers and capabilities; changes in the environment or theater of
operations; changes in strategy and tactics; inherent differences in
capabilities of platforms; forward basing and optional crew rotation
versus supportable infrastructure; political climate; and the
vulnerability of forward basing to weather, threats and other
variables. It is also a question of affordability of these units, which
must be considered in any evaluation. An improved availability of the
submarines we currently have will be important for our future force
structure as well.
NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET
Question. What is your assessment of the status of the Navy Marine
Corps Intranet program and the ability of that program to meet the
Navy's information technology needs?
Answer. The Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) is essential to
increasing our organizational efficiency, controlling overall
information technology costs and maintaining the high level of
information assurance and security we need for the 360,000 users we
currently have transitioned.
Implementation of NMCI has revealed just how vulnerable our
networks were, the fragility of our system architecture, and the extent
of unnecessary legacy systems Navy owned.
If confirmed, I will remain committed to NMCI and to bringing the
entire department onto a single, secure, enterprise-wide intranet. NMCI
is meeting our information technology needs, particularly in the realm
of information assurance and security, and in the near term we will
continue the rapid ``cutover'' of NMCI seats to the NMCI network.
MILITARY TO CIVILIAN CONVERSIONS
Question. The Services have been engaged in a multiyear effort to
eliminate thousands of military billets and replace them with civilian
or contractor personnel. The Navy has been unique in targeting health
profession billets for military-to-civilian conversions.
If confirmed, how would you use military-to-civilian conversions to
shape the future force of the Navy?
Answer. The Navy is conducting a careful and measured review of
military billets to determine what billets require the unique skills of
a uniformed sailor and which ones could best be performed as
effectively, and at lower cost, by a civilian or by private industry.
In conducting this review, we are using several tools, including
``zero-based reviews'' of individual officer communities and enlisted
ratings; functional reviews of service delivery for various
infrastructure requirements; and a review of the model for providing
total force health care requirements. We will phase in the results of
these analyses to ensure that sailors continue to have viable and
rewarding career paths and that we continue to support the fleet with
an appropriate mix of civilian and uniformed professionals.
If confirmed, I will continue to support these efforts.
Question. If confirmed, what metrics would you establish to measure
the effectiveness of this transformational tool, and how would you
determine if and when DOD civilians and private contractors could
perform work in a more efficient or cost effective manner?
Answer. Effectiveness of the Navy's military-to-civilian conversion
efforts will be measured by the degree to which they meet the following
criteria: maintaining--or improving--fleet readiness; overall cost
savings; and the continued growth and development of our sailors.
The identification of those billets most appropriate for conversion
will stem principally from our ``zero-based reviews'' of individual
officer communities and enlisted ratings, functional reviews of service
delivery for various infrastructure requirements, and a review of the
model for providing total force health care requirements.
Question. How would you measure the impact of such conversions on
readiness?
Answer. Warfighting capability and readiness will be assessed using
those metrics and methods of assessment already in place, which are
applied across the fleet by the operational commander.
Question. If confirmed, how would you assess the quality and
availability of civilian physicians, dentists and nurses, and their
willingness to serve in the Federal civilian workforce?
Answer. The Navy's Surgeon General provides oversight for the
Navy's medical services, including civilians, and I would, if
confirmed, charge the Surgeon General with assessing both the quality
of care provided by civilian physicians, dentists and nurses serving
Navy Service members as well as their willingness to serve in the
Federal civilian workforce. It is my understanding that the Quadrennial
Defense Review is addressing the delivery of military medical care and
those results will play a significant role in determining the final
structure and delivery mechanisms for military and Navy medicine.
PREVENTION AND RESPONSE TO SEXUAL ASSAULTS
Question. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Personnel conducted a hearing on policies and programs
of the Department of Defense for preventing and responding to incidents
of sexual assault in the Armed Forces at which you testified and
endorsed a ``zero tolerance'' standard. In late April 2004, the DOD
Task Force on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault issued its report and
recommendations, noting ``If the Department of Defense is to provide a
responsive system to address sexual assault, it must be a top-down
program with emphasis placed at the highest levels within the
Department down to the lowest levels of command leadership. It must
develop performance metrics and establish an evaluative framework for
regular review and quality improvement.''
In response to the report and recommendations of the DOD Task Force
report, what actions has the Navy taken to prevent and respond to
sexual assaults?
Answer. As the then Vice Chief of Naval Operations, I testified
before the hearing in February 2004. As I stated then, and re-emphasize
now, sexual assault is not tolerated in our Navy. Prevention is our
first priority, but, when incidents occur, we have a sound process in
place to provide specialized assistance to the victim quickly, conduct
a full and fair investigation, and hold offenders accountable. We must
rigidly adhere to and improve this process.
The senior leadership of the Navy has personally communicated to
each commanding officer our expectations regarding Sexual Assault
Victim Intervention (SAVI) responsibilities and reporting compliance.
Annual training on sexual assault awareness and prevention is required.
Training is also included throughout the Navy's student curricula,
including RTC Great Lakes, the Naval Academy, NAS Pensacola,
prospective Commanding Officers and Executive Officers courses, Surface
Warfare Officer classes, and at the Senior Enlisted Academy.
Additionally, we are starting to conduct an internal monthly review of
sexual assault data to identify trends and propose corrective action
where required.
If confirmed, I will continue to personally support these efforts
and look for ways to improve our training and prevention programs, our
reporting and data collection processes and our response methodologies
in order to address this issue. I will adequately resource these
programs.
Question. What additional resources and organizational changes, if
any, has the Navy devoted to its Sexual Assault Victim Intervention
(SAVI) program?
Answer. We are continually evaluating resource requirements and,
accordingly, have allocated additional funding for fiscal year 2005 to
further enhance program services and to offset increasing costs. In
addition, the Navy is working to improve its reporting and data
collection processes.
Question. If confirmed, what actions do you plan to take to ensure
that senior leaders of the Navy have day-to-day visibility into the
incidence of sexual assaults and the effectiveness of policies aimed at
ensuring zero tolerance?
Answer. In general, I believe we have effective policies in place
in the areas of awareness, prevention education, and victim advocacy.
To improve our ability to execute those policies, we have focused--and
will continue to focus--commanding officer attention on the issue, we
have committed the additional funding noted above, and we are working
to develop better performance metrics in our data collection and trend
analysis.
If confirmed I will personally and stridently support these efforts
and will communicate early and often the need for all leaders in the
Navy--at all levels of the chain of command--to remain vigilant to the
conditions and behavior that precipitate sexual assault and to the
special needs of victims.
QUALITY OF LIFE
Question. In October 2002, the Center for Naval Analyses conducted
a study to measure the retention benefits of several of the Navy's
Quality of Life programs, and to compare these benefits with the costs
of providing the programs. The study's results indicated that most
Quality of Life programs have a positive impact on satisfaction with
the Navy. Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs, family housing and
child development centers all had a positive impact on retention of
enlisted personnel.
What is your view of the importance of quality of life programs in
the Navy, and the impact of such programs on recruitment, retention and
readiness?
Answer. Quality of life programs are crucial to maintaining a
healthy working environment for Navy's Service members, their families,
and our civilian professionals. They are particularly important in
offsetting the rigors of a rotationally deploying force that operates
overseas regularly. Quality of Life programs increase our
attractiveness to potential recruits and subsequently ease recruiting
challenges, enhance retention and increase our operational readiness.
I believe that quality of life programs provide a significant
return on investment and that these are some of the most valued
benefits of naval service. We provide--as we should--the gold standard
of medical care, family support (particularly during deployments),
Fleet and Family Support Centers, recreational facilities and services,
childcare and personal development and education programs to help
Sailors achieve their own goals. The result is a fleet of professional,
motivated men and women ready in all respects to fight on their
nation's behalf.
Question. What are your recommendations on how best to ensure the
financial sustainability of such programs in the future?
Answer. I believe mechanisms currently in place adequately ensure
the financial sustainability of these important programs. I will pay
attention to these programs, if confirmed.
DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES
Question. As Vice Chief of Naval Operations, you observed the
working relationship between the General Counsel of the Navy and the
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, as well as the working relationship
of these individuals and their staffs with the Chairman's legal
advisor, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and the
legal advisors of the other Services.
What are your views about the responsibility of the Judge Advocate
General of the Navy to provide independent legal advice to the Chief of
Naval Operations, particularly in the area of military justice and
operational law?
Answer. I believe it is critical that the CNO receive independent
legal advice from his senior uniformed judge advocates. Pursuant to 10
USC Sec. 5148(d), the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Navy performs
duties relating to any and all DoN legal matters assigned to him by
SECNAV. Pursuant to U.S. Navy Regulations, 1990, Article 0331, the Navy
JAG commands the Office of the Judge Advocate General and is the Chief
of the Judge Advocate General's Corps.
The JAG provides and supervises the provision of all legal advice
and related services throughout the Department of the Navy, except for
the advice and services provided by the General Counsel. In accordance
with the Manual for Courts-Martial, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) is
the principal legal advisor of a command in the Navy.
The JAG is, in essence, the SJA to the CNO and is tasked to advise
and assist the CNO in formatting and implementing policies and
initiatives pertaining to the provision of legal service within the
Navy. Additionally, the JAG effects liaison with the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, other DOD components, other governmental agencies and
agencies outside the Government on legal service matters affecting the
Navy.
It is critical that the CNO receive independent legal advice from
the JAG as he/she is a significant component of the Department's legal
service infrastructure and performs functions that are essential to the
proper operation of the Department as a whole. No officer or employee
of the DOD may interfere with the ability of the JAG to give the CNO
independent legal advice. I am comfortable with the existing working
relationships and interactions.
Question. What are your views about the responsibility of staff
judge advocates throughout the Navy to provide independent legal advice
to military commanders in the fleet and throughout the naval
establishment?
Answer. Uniformed staff judge advocates are essential to the proper
functioning of both operational and shore based units of the Navy and
Marine Corps. In the critical area of military justice, commanders and
commanding officers are required by statute (10 U.S.C. Sec. 806) to
communicate with their staff judge advocates with the purpose of
receiving instruction and guidance in this field. In addition, officers
rely on their staff judge advocates for advice on all types of legal
matters, extending beyond their statutory responsibilities.
A staff judge advocate has a major responsibility to promote the
interests of a command by providing relevant, timely, and independent
advice to its military commander, whether at shore or in the fleet. 10
U.S.C. Sec. 5148(2)(2) reinforces the critical need for independent
advice from a staff judge advocate, by prohibiting all interference
with a judge advocate's ability to give independent legal advice to
commanders, as applied to any employee of DOD. Navy and Marine Corps
commanders depend extensively on their staff judge advocates to provide
independent advice, which combines legal acumen and understanding of
military requirements and operations.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
Question. The Navy will play an important role in defending the
Nation against the threat of long-range ballistic missile attack and in
defending allies, friends and deployed forces against theater ballistic
missile threats.
Do you view ballistic missile defense as a core Navy mission?
Answer. Yes, missile defense is a core Navy mission. If confirmed,
I will ensure that the Navy continues to work with the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) to develop and field this important capability aboard
naval vessels. I also believe that the Navy's ability to provide
ballistic missile defense will be increasingly important to joint
warfighting and, based on successes to date, that the MDA's investment
in naval missile defense systems is delivering important operational
joint and national capabilities. In short, I believe there is great
value in this capability for our Nation, and will be more so in the
future.
Question. What plans does the Navy have for testing the Aegis
Ballistic Missile Defense System?
Answer. The Missile Defense Agency is currently charged with
testing of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (ABMD) for the
Defense Department. Under this construct, the Navy will continue
testing of the Aegis-SM-3 missile defense capability under the current
agreement with MDA, providing full-time commitment of an Aegis equipped
Cruiser to the Testing and Evaluation (T&E) role.
Additionally, the Navy plans to modify other Aegis equipped ships
to conduct MDA missions when required, has entered into an
international partnership to increase the capability of the SM-3
missile and has invested in science and technology to develop defenses
against more advanced ballistic missiles.
Question. Are you satisfied with the current rate of production for
the SM-3?
Answer. I believe that the current rate of production is the
minimum prudent rate and that overall operational risk could be reduced
and testing accelerated if additional resources were available. It is
MDA, however, that funds and procures missile defense systems and they
must balance their risks and requirements within their constraints.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Question. The defense science and technology program is recovering
after years of declining budgets. However, the budget request for
defense S&T still falls short of the Secretary of Defense's goal of
dedicating 3 percent of the total defense budget to science and
technology. In particular, the Navy science and technology program,
especially the investment in long-term, innovative work which has been
so successful in confronting emerging threats, has declined
significantly over the last 3 years.
If confirmed, how do you plan to address the shortfalls in the Navy
science and technology program to meet the Secretary's goal?
Answer. Three percent of the budget remains our goal as we balance
competing investment priorities from year to year. The fiscal year 2006
Navy S&T budget is $1.8 billion and maintains a broad base of science
and technology to provide new capabilities to the warfighter and
technological innovation in support of the National Military Strategy.
Though short of the goal, I believe this sum provides a sufficient
level of investment in this very important program for this year.
Question. What is your view of the role and value of science and
technology programs in meeting the Navy's transformation roadmap goals?
Answer. The Navy's ongoing efforts to integrate advanced technology
with new operational concepts and organizational constructs result in a
real transformation of military capability through our Future Naval
Capabilities program. In that vein, the maturing technology we're
seeing today and beginning to incorporate into platforms, weapons,
sensors, and process improvements are the result of long-term
investments in Science and Technology and an important element of the
Navy's transformation.
TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGES
Question. In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, the Chief of Naval Operations discussed challenges related
to the national security environment. He noted that the Department of
Defense must establish an ``unblinking eye'' above and throughout the
battlespace. He maintained that speed and agility are the attributes
that will define operational success.
What do you see as the most challenging technological needs or
capability gaps facing the Navy in achieving speed, agility, and the
referenced ``unblinking eye''?
Answer. The ongoing global war on terror has highlighted the
technological challenges of sustaining maritime domain awareness across
a variety of theaters with an ``unblinking eye''. Technologically, this
means pursuing the ``needle in the haystack'' to ensure security and
continued domination in the maritime environment, as well as responding
rapidly when detection occurs.
Speed and agility are critical to our operational success and are
achieved through a combination of investments in modern platforms and
through the increased operational availability of our existing forces.
The Fleet Response Plan has achieved significant improvements on the
Navy's ability to respond to the Nation's most pressing needs, and
greatly increased our force posture achieved with our current force
structure.
Investments in ACS, CG(X), DD(X), FORCEnet, Integrated Propulsion
Systems, Littoral Combat Ship, JSF, MMA, SSGN, SSN-774, stealth, and
unmanned systems will also ensure mission agility in response to a
broad range of threats. These investments will help our Navy adjust its
warfighting capabilities in order to support small-scale contingencies,
such as peacekeeping and stability operations in addition to
traditional warfighting requirements. Diversification of capabilities
will assist in mitigating risk against irregular, catastrophic, and
disruptive challenges we face today and for the foreseeable future. We
must also pay attention to technological investments for additional
high-leverage forces, e.g., SOF, EOD, SeaBees, medical, and maritime
security forces.
Question. If confirmed, how will you work with the Navy's research
enterprise to ensure adequate investments in areas that will provide
the technical breakthroughs of the future?
Answer. The Navy must continue to pursue a comparative advantage
versus competitive advantage against our opposing forces. Rather than
engage in a platform vs. platform, force-on-force conflict, we must
exploit our technological advantages to develop sensors and systems to
enhance our warfighting capability within the constraints of our
current force structure. If confirmed, I will continue the current
commitment to a strong science and technology program and will work
with the Navy's research enterprise to explore development of a variety
of weapons systems and propulsion systems as well as a range of sensors
and surveillance capabilities to leverage our Country's and our Navy's
technological superiority as an asymmetric advantage. Also, I believe
we should explore, support, and sustain the developments produced by
small, innovative companies.
NAVAL RESERVE FORCE STRUCTURE
Question. As a result of the Navy's ``zero based review,''
significant changes in the size and structure of the Naval Reserve are
taking place.
What role and mission do you expect the Naval Reserve to perform
now and in the future?
Answer. The zero-based review of the Naval Reserve structure
between the Chief of Naval Reserve and the Commander of Fleet Forces
Command will allow us to re-baseline the Reserve Force with one
overarching objective in mind: a Reserve Force fully integrated with
the Active Force.
The roles and missions of the Reserve Force will continue to
respond to the changing threat landscape. This includes Reserve Force
contribution to the global war on terror, including increased emphasis
on civil affairs.
Question. How would you access the progress being made in
transforming the Naval Reserve into a fully integrated and capable
force?
Answer. We have made great strides in Active Reserve Integration
(ARI). We continue to pursue the creation of fleet response units
(FRUs) which go hand-in-glove with the Fleet Response Plan to provide
the Nation more operational availability of our combined, naval forces.
An illustration of our progress is our multiple efforts to have
Reserve Sailors report to ships, not to buildings. Reserve centers are
being replaced by operational organizations that help facilitate the
vital contribution of the naval force across a broad spectrum of
required capabilities.
Question. What is your view of the optimal size of the Naval
Reserve in the future?
Answer. The optimal size of the Naval Reserve is really a function
of capacity management to determine what capabilities and skill sets we
want to own in the Active Force. We must ensure that the right
capabilities reside in the proper component; and that each component
can work in ways that are fully complementary. While we are driving
down the number of Reserve personnel, their capability and skills
remain vital to the success of the Navy's strategic vision for building
the Total Navy Force.
NAVY END STRENGTH
Question. The Navy's proposed budget for fiscal year 2006 includes
reductions of 13,200 personnel in the Active-Duty ranks and 10,300 in
the Naval Reserve. Admiral Clark has indicated that one of his goals is
to reduce the Navy's Active-Duty Force to 350,000 sailors from the
current authorized level of 373,800.
Do you agree with these reductions?
Answer. Yes, I agree with the reductions as a goal and will conduct
my own review, if confirmed. Some of these proposed reductions are
predicated on technology insertion, which suggests an overall phased
approach as the technology is fielded. Organizational alignment,
including initiatives like Optimal Manning, and billet reviews will
also yield legitimate opportunities for reducing our total workforce
and should be implemented if appropriate.
Question. What is the justification for these reductions in Active-
Duty and Naval Reserve Forces?
Answer. The Navy's overall strategy is still evolving and
considerable effort is being devoted to ensuring that the changes we
make are the right ones. The combat power of our forces is not directly
tied to the number of sailors, but rather their skills and the
capabilities of the equipment they operate.
Additionally, there are still remnants of Cold War practices that
are personnel-intensive and can be replaced by new organizations--such
as Navy Installations Command--to potentially reduce our personnel
requirements and continue to seek out and gather efficiencies ashore.
There remains work to do in this area. Finally, by focusing on the
military skills of our sailors, we are finding that some functions can
best be filled by the Reserve component, converted to government
civilian or outsourced to great benefits: increased efficiency, higher
quality of life, contractual service targets and lower cost.
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 Chief of Naval Operations?
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 James M. Inhofe
CHINA/TAIWAN
1. Senator Inhofe. Admiral Mullen, with regard to our military, I
am very concerned with the actions of China during the past decade or
so. In the 1990s China was caught stealing U.S. nuclear secrets. The W-
88 warhead was the crown jewel of our nuclear program that allowed up
to 10 nuclear missiles to be attached to the same warhead. In 1995, we
discovered that China had stolen this technology. China gained the
capability of accurately reaching the continental U.S. with nuclear
missiles and the ability to target between 13 and 18 U.S. cities. China
transferred prohibited weapons technology to North Korea, Iran, Iraq,
and other countries. China continues to threaten to absorb Taiwan and
they continue to intimidate our treaty allies in South Korea and Japan.
Recently China placed into law the proclamation that force would be
used to prevent Taiwan from becoming independent. China has continued
to expand and solidify her influence. She has long had ambitions to
increase her military presence over the surrounding region. Her
``string of pearls'' strategy included a listening post in Pakistan,
billions of dollars of military aid to Burma, military training and
equipment into Thailand and Bangladesh, etc. On my last trip to Africa
I saw Chinese influence everywhere I looked. A recent Pentagon report
quoted in the Washington Times, outlines, ``China . . . is not looking
only to build a blue-water navy to control sea lanes, but also to
develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to deter the potential
disruption of its energy supplies from potential threats, including the
U.S. Navy, especially in the case of a conflict with Taiwan.'' The
weapons China is investing in include long-range cruise missiles,
submarines, long-range target acquisition systems, specifically
cutting-edge satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles. I could go on and
on. My question to you is this, how do you view China as you prepare to
lead the United States Navy?
Admiral Mullen. [Deleted.]
2. Senator Inhofe. Admiral Mullen, what do we need to concern
ourselves with and what do we need to do about the emergence of China
as a very strong regional and world player?
Admiral Mullen. [Deleted.]
CHINA IN AFRICA
3. Senator Inhofe. Admiral Mullen, I have traveled several times to
Africa as part of a congressional delegation. I was shocked to see the
amount of Chinese influence there. In Benin I saw a conference center
being constructed, and in Congo I saw a large sports stadium, both
donated by the Chinese. China has been expanding its influence
throughout Africa with projects like this. One saying I heard was,
``The U.S. tells you what you need, but China gives you what you
want.'' I think the fact that these countries have large oil and
mineral deposits paints the real picture. The Gulf of Guinea, bordered
by nations with these natural resources is a particular focus for
Chinese influence. In your previous role as Commander, U.S. Naval
Forces Europe, I believe you had responsibility for this geographical
area. What challenges do you foresee as we address U.S. national
security concerns, given the influence of China, with its extensive
need for oil, in this part of the world?
Admiral Mullen. [Deleted.]
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
P-3C ORION AIRCRAFT
4. Senator Collins. Admiral Mullen, five P-3C Orions from Squadron
8 at the Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Maine, recently participated
in the tsunami relief efforts. I remain very proud of their
participation. These invaluable aircraft and dedicated squadrons have
also proven invaluable during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Given that the P-3 continues to demonstrate its
effectiveness across mission areas for the Navy from drug interdiction
to search and rescue to antisubmarine and maritime surveillance, P-3s
are clearly valuable and necessary sea and land surveillance platforms.
Would you agree that the P-3 aircraft and its capabilities are critical
operational concepts for current and future missions?
Admiral Mullen. The Navy has relied on the tremendous capabilities
of the P-3 since the aircraft's Fleet introduction in 1962. Today, P-3s
are making vital contributions in support of Operations Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The introduction of the Anti-Surface (ASuW)
Improvement Program (AIP) version of the P-3 in the 1990s has allowed
the Navy to leverage the P-3's tremendous maritime surveillance
capabilities in new roles, including overland and littoral
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions.
As Commander, Naval Forces Europe, I am very aware of the utility
of these aircraft, not only for ISR missions in the theater, but also
for the benefit of having them available as yet another tool for
theater engagement with fledgling democracies in Africa and the Black
Sea areas. Also, in my role as a NATO Commander, P-3 aircraft proved
themselves invaluable in support of various NATO operations throughout
the theater, including Kosovo. Indeed, P-3 aircraft in Kosovo have
supported U.S. participation in NATO operations by providing
surveillance related to force protection, route security, and civil
unrest. Further, just as P-3s have been detached to Africa and the
Black Sea region as a tool for bilateral engagement, so may there be
future opportunities to engage with developing partners throughout the
Balkans.
While the P-3 will be in the fleet for many years, the aircraft are
nearing the end of their originally projected service life. The
criticality of the P-3's continuing contributions is reflected in the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget request that includes an investment
of over a billion dollars in P-3 sustainment and modernization
programs. These programs are needed to sustain the P-3 until it can be
replaced by the P-8A Multimission Maritime Aircraft over the period
from 2013 to 2019. Moreover, the P-3s long-term importance is
highlighted by inclusion of P-3 programs totaling over $38 million in
the Chief of Naval Operations' fiscal year 2006 Unfunded Priority List.
AIR RECONNAISSANCE
5. Senator Collins. Admiral Mullen, as the threats of the future
evolve and change, do you believe that it is crucial that there be a
permanent naval air reconnaissance presence at all ``four corners'' of
our Nation?
Admiral Mullen. Awareness of activities in the maritime domain is a
critical component to ensuring the security of our homeland and naval
air reconnaissance provides an important contribution to that effort.
To improve our understanding of maritime activities, Navy and Coast
Guard have been working in partnership to develop a concept called
Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA). While we currently have some level of
MDA through our operational forces and legacy systems, MDA's full
potential will be realized by improving our ability to collect, fuse;
analyze, and disseminate actionable information and intelligence to
operational commanders. Accomplishing this involves collaboration among
U.S. Joint Forces, U.S. Government Agencies, international coalition
partners and forces; commercial entities, and especially the
intelligence community.
Comprehensive MDA requires input from a wide variety of sensors and
sources to support a defense in depth. These sensors and sources, some
existing and others yet to be developed, will form the basis for
detection, identification and tracking as required. The components will
include active and passive sensors, along with cooperative and space
based capabilities. The Navy's contribution to MDA includes
intelligence and information collection by widely dispersed, networked
naval forces and the analysis, integration, and dissemination of that
data via intelligence activities such as the National Maritime
Intelligence Center (NMIC), which hosts the Office of Naval
Intelligence (ONI).
The maintenance of a permanent Naval air reconnaissance presence at
all ``four corners'' of the Nation, like all military base
requirements, was reviewed during the Department of Defense (DOD) Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The DOD's complete analysis was
made available to the BRAC Commission on 13 May 2005. DOD has
recommended consolidating east coast P-3 assets at a single site (NAS
Jacksonville, FL) in order to optimize Naval Aviation infrastructure
resources. As part of the realignment, NAS Brunswick is recommended for
major realignment into a Naval Air Facility, with it's P-3s and C-130
squadrons relocating to NAS Jacksonville. The realignment will save the
Navy significant resources each year, resulting in greater investment
in the warfighting needs of the future.
______
[The nomination reference of ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 2, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment as Chief of Naval
Operations, United States Navy and appointment to the grade indicated
while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under
title 10, U.S.C., sections 601 and 5033:
To be Admiral
ADM Michael G. Mullen, 0000.
______
[The biographical sketch of ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Transcript of Naval Service for ADM Michael Glenn Mullen, USN
04 Oct. 1946.............................. Born in Los Angeles,
California
05 June 1968.............................. Ensign
05 June 1969.............................. Lieutenant (junior grade)
01 July 1971.............................. Lieutenant
01 Oct. 1977.............................. Lieutenant Commander
01 June 1983.............................. Commander
01 Sep. 1989.............................. Captain
01 Apr. 1996.............................. Rear Admiral (lower half)
05 Mar. 1998.............................. Designated Rear Admiral
while serving in billets
commensurate with that
grade
01 Oct. 1998.............................. Rear Admiral
21 Sep. 2000.............................. Designated Vice Admiral
while serving in billets
commensurate with that
grade
01 Nov. 2000.............................. Vice Admiral
28 Aug. 2003.............................. Admiral, Service continuous
to date
Assignments and duties:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet Training Center, San Diego, CA (DUINS).... June 1968 Aug. 1968
Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare School, San Diego, Aug. 1968 Sep. 1968
CA (DUINS).....................................
U.S.S. Collett (DD 730) (ASW Officer)........... Sep. 1968 June 1970
Naval Destroyer School, Newport, RI (DUINS)..... June 1970 Feb. 1971
Nuclear Weapons Training Group, Atlantic, Feb. 1971 Feb. 1971
Norfolk, VA (DUINS)............................
U.S.S. Blandy (DD 943) (Weapons/Operations Feb. 1971 Nov. 1972
Officer).......................................
Fleet Training Center, Norfolk, VA (DUINS)...... Nov. 1972 Jan. 1973
Staff, Commander Service Force, U.S. Atlantic Jan. 1973 Jan. 1973
Fleet (DUINS)..................................
CO, U.S.S. Noxubee (AOG 56)..................... Jan. 1973 July 1975
U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD (Company July 1975 May 1978
Officer/Executive Assistant to Commandant).....
Ship Material Readiness Group, Idaho Falls, ID May 1978 Oct. 1978
(DUINS)........................................
U.S.S. Fox (CG 33) (Engineering Officer)........ Oct. 1978 Apr. 1981
Surface Warfare Officers School Command, Apr. 1981 July 1981
Newport, RI (DUINS)............................
XO, U.S.S. Sterett (CG 31)...................... July 1981 Jan. 1983
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA (DUINS). Jan. 1983 Mar. 1985
Surface Warfare Officers School Command, Apr. 1985 May 1985
Newport, RI (DUINS)............................
CO, U.S.S. Goldsborough (DDG 20)................ June 1985 Oct. 1987
Naval War College, Newport, RI (DUINS).......... Oct. 1987 Dec. 1987
Surface Warfare Officers School Command, Dec. 1987 Sep. 1989
Newport, RI (Director Surface Warfare Division
Officer Course)................................
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, Sep. 1989 Aug. 1991
DC (Military Staff Assistant to Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation)...............
Harvard University Advanced Management Program.. Aug. 1991 Nov. 1991
Surface Warfare Officers School Command, Nov. 1991 Nov. 1991
Newport, RI (DUINS)............................
Tactical Training Group Atlantic (DUINS)........ Nov. 1991 Dec. 1991
COMNAVSURFLANT (DUINS).......................... Dec. 1991 Jan. 1992
AEGIS Training Center Dahlgren, VA (DUINS)...... Feb. 1992 Apr. 1992
CO, U.S.S. Yorktown (CG 48)..................... Apr. 1992 Jan. 1994
Bureau of Naval Personnel (Director, Surface Feb. 1994 Aug. 1995
Officer Distribution Division) (PERS-41).......
Office of CNO (Director, Surface Warfare Plans/ Aug. 1995 May 1996
Programs/Requirements Division, N863)..........
Office of CNO (Deputy Director, Surface Warfare May 1996 July 1996
Division, N86B)................................
Tactical Training Group Atlantic (DUINS)........ July 1996 Aug. 1996
Commander, Cruiser Destroyer Group TWO.......... Aug. 1996 May 1998
Office of CNO (Director, Surface Warfare May 1998 Oct. 2000
Division) (N86)................................
Commander, SECOND Fleet/Commander, Striking Oct. 2000 Aug. 2001
Fleet Atlantic.................................
Office of CNO (Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Aug. 2001 Aug. 2003
for Resources, Requirements, and Assessments)
(N8)...........................................
Vice Chief of Naval Operations.................. Aug. 2003 Oct. 2004
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe/Commander, Oct. 2004 To Date
Joint Forces, Naples...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medals and awards:
Distinguished Service Medal with one Gold Star
Defense Superior Service Medal
Legion of Merit with three Gold Stars
Meritorious Service Medal
Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal
Navy ``E'' Ribbon with Wreath
Navy Expeditionary Medal
National Defense Service Medal with two Bronze Stars
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
Vietnam Service Medal
Humanitarian Service Medal
Sea Service Deployment Ribbon
Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation
Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Unit Citation
Special qualifications:
BS (Naval Science) U.S. Naval Academy, 1968
MS (Operations Research) Naval Postgraduate School, 1985
Language Qualifications: Italian (Knowledge)
Personal data:
Wife: Deborah Morgan of Sherman Oaks, California
Children: John Stewart Mullen (Son), Born: 30 April 1979; and
Michael Edward Mullen (Son), Born: 29 December 1980.
Summary of joint duty assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment Dates Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Sep. 1989-Aug. 1991..... CAPT
Washington, DC (Military Staff
Assistant for U.S. Navy Programs to
the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation).
Commander, SECOND Fleet/Commander, Oct. 2000-Aug. 2001..... VADM
Striking FleetAtlantic.
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe/ Oct. 2004-To Date....... ADM
Commander, Joint Forces, Naples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
[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 Michael G.
Mullen, 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.)
Michael G. Mullen.
2. Position to which nominated:
Chief of Naval Operations.
3. Date of nomination:
2 March 2005.
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 4, 1946; Hollywood, California.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Deborah Morgan Mullen.
7. Names and ages of children:
John Stewart Mullen, 25; and Michael Edward Mullen, 24.
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.
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 currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
None.
11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognition's 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
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Michael G. Mullen.
This 2nd day of March 2005.
[The nomination of ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN, was reported
to the Senate by Chairman Warner on April 28, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on April 28, 2005.]
NOMINATIONS OF KENNETH J. KRIEG TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS; AND LT. GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN,
USAF, TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John
Warner (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Inhofe,
Roberts, Collins, Talent, Chambliss, Levin, and E. Benjamin
Nelson.
Other Senators present: Senator Sununu.
Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Charles W. Alsup,
professional staff member; William C. Greenwalt, professional
staff member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff member;
David M. Morriss, counsel; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel;
and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Gabriella Eisen, research assistant;
Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Creighton
Greene, professional staff member; and Peter K. Levine,
minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Alison E. Brill and Catherine E.
Sendak.
Committee members assistants present: Cord Sterling,
assistant to Senator Warner; Christopher J. Paul, assistant to
Senator McCain; Mackenzie M. Eaglen, assistant to Senator
Collins; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss;
Russell J. Thomasson, assistant to Senator Cornyn; Bob Taylor,
assistant to Senator Thune; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to
Senator Lieberman; William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill
Nelson; and Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good morning, everyone, the committee
meets this morning for two very important nominations made by
the President of the United States, Kenneth Krieg, who has been
nominated for the position of Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) and Lt. Gen.
Michael Hayden, United States Air Force, nominated for
appointment to the grade of General, and to be the Principal
Deputy Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
Now, we're going to depart from the normal routine to
recognize the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee for the purposes of an introduction. Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
KANSAS
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your courtesy, and it is my privilege and honor to join Senator
Collins to introduce to the committee and to all present, and
to endorse, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden to receive his fourth star.
As a matter of fact, I think he does a five star effort in
regards to the Intelligence Community, and so to you, Sir, I
thank you and to Senator Levin, and I'm looking forward to the
comments by Senator Collins as well.
Last week at the Intelligence Committee when we had the
hearing on the General's nomination to be the first Principal
Deputy Director of National Intelligence, I said that General
Hayden is an excellent choice. I've crossed that out--I put
outstanding--and he is a distinguished public servant who has
really dedicated over 35 years of outstanding service to our
country. I must say that in my years on the Intelligence
Committee and Armed Services Committee, when I've had the
privilege of being briefed by General Hayden, I never met a
better briefer who is more credible and to the point, and to do
that with the House and Senate, and earn the respect of
everybody in the room, regardless of their opinion on an issue,
I think, takes great skill.
He's held a number of intelligence positions in the
Department of Defense (DOD) and served on the staff of the
National Security Council. I believe his most recent experience
as the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) best
prepares him for the challenges he will face as the Principal
Deputy of DNI. With Ambassador Negroponte obviously having a
great deal of credibility in the international community, and
being a consumer and user of intelligence, we have as his
Deputy somebody who knows the Intelligence Community forwards
and backwards, and it will be a great team.
As Director of NSA since before the initiation of the
global war on terror and operations in regards to Iraq and
Enduring Freedom, the General understands the challenges of
providing immediate intelligence support to the warfighter,
while also ensuring that timely and accurate information, also
of primary importance, reaches the principal consumers of
intelligence, i.e., the policymakers, no less than the
President of the United States.
Just yesterday, I spoke with the senior commander, a three-
star marine who just came back from Iraq, and we were talking
about General Hayden, and General, your ears shouldn't have
burned, because this marine said that your personal efforts to
ensure that our marines and soldiers on the ground receive the
intelligence they need for the ongoing experience was a true
credit. He says, ``He's the man who presses the button and
makes things happen.'' As such, I don't think you can get a
finer nominee to be the Deputy.
It is this kind of experienced leadership that will be so
critical in ensuring the success of the Director of National
Intelligence. I look forward to working with General Hayden in
his new position, I urge my colleagues to approve his fourth
star quickly. He is most deserving, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for allowing me to speak.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. My understanding is
you now go to the Senate floor to present the nomination of Mr.
Negroponte.
Senator Roberts. That is correct, sir.
Chairman Warner. Senator Collins, my understanding is you
wish to join the Senator from Kansas. Do you wish to speak at
this juncture? Or at the time we bring up the General?
Senator Collins. I will wait.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. Our colleague,
Senator Sununu, may we have the benefit of your wisdom here
this morning? We welcome you, dear friend.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a
pleasure to be here, and a pleasure to introduce a good friend,
Ken Krieg, to be Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics. I will be happy to share an
introduction, and I appreciate your setting the bar very high
in describing anything I have to say as wise.
Ken has already distinguished himself as an outstanding
public servant, but equally important in his current role, he's
already shown himself to be a very capable assistant to the
Secretary of Defense in a number of critical areas, most
recently handling program analysis and evaluation. He's also
brought to his work in the public sector, experience in the
private sector. I think this is the kind of experience in
today's Department of Defense that's really invaluable--being
able to bring a perspective of budgets and strategy, resource
allocation in the kind of work that he's been doing for the
Secretary of Defense, looking at where we make investments, how
do we allocate resources--and as this committee knows far
better than I, resources have to be deployed as efficiently and
effectively as possible, given all of the challenges that are
being faced by our men and women in the armed services.
Prior to serving, since July 2001, in the Defense
Department, Ken had worked for 11 years at International Paper.
He was the vice president and general manager of a very large
office, Consumer Paper Products Division, and had to deal with
all the challenges faced within a large corporation that are
analogous, not identical, but analogous to the challenges we
see in today's Department of Defense. Whether it's
communications and employee motivation, information technology,
the budgeting and analysis I spoke about earlier, or allocating
resources to meet a clear set of strategies. Those are the
things that Ken has wrestled with in the private sector, and
the kind of experience and background that he's able to bring
to his current post in the Department of Defense.
But even prior to his recent work, he previously served
within the White House, the National Security Council, and the
Department of Defense in previous administrations. So he is
able to draw on both the good and the bad--successes and
failures that he's seen in previous administrations working in
these national security positions--to the work that he is doing
today. I think he has already served with great distinction in
his current position, and as Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, he'll be able to bring
a very broad range of experiences--and, I think, a reputation
for concise, clear, evenhanded analysis--to a critical role. I
know that he will do a great job, and it's a pleasure to
introduce him, to be with him here today, and to strongly
recommend his nomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. We thank you very much, Senator. That is a
strong endorsement, and it becomes a part of our record, and I
see the presence of the family of Mr. Krieg in the room today.
I think it an appropriate time now for you to introduce them
before I begin to opine a little bit here.
Mr. Krieg. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased to be joined today by my family.
Chairman Warner. I cannot see Meredith. Meredith, do you
want a better chair? It seems to me you're blocked by your
father's broad shoulders, and if everybody moved one seat to
the right, you could get a better view.
Mr. Krieg. See, I hope you're more successful than me with
her, because I tried that line, and she said, ``No, I want to
sit where I'm sitting,'' so let's see if you're more successful
than I was.
Chairman Warner. I'll knock the gavel.
Mr. Krieg. The chairman has ordered everyone move one seat
to the right. [Laughter.]
Senator Levin. The ultimate test of the power of the
chairman. [Laughter.]
Mr. Krieg. I have with me my daughter, Meredith, who is 10;
my son Allen, who is 12; my wife, Anne, who is patient; and my
in-laws, Anne Hurt and Al Hurt, from Roanoke, Virginia, so we
have your State covered as well.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. Well, I welcome you
here this morning, and the position to which Mr. Krieg has been
nominated is one of the most important in the Department of
Defense.
It was established by Congress to implement a
recommendation of the 1986 Packard Commission to place a senior
official in charge of managing and overseeing the Department of
Defense acquisition process.
If I might interject a personal note, I was privileged to
serve in the Department under David Packard, and I never in my
entire lifetime met a more knowledgeable or imposing individual
in the field to which you aspire to lead in this new position.
We ought to call it ``The Packard Seat'' or something, maybe
we'll think about that, like they do at universities, you hold
a chair. We should think about that.
This is not an easy job. Every sailor, soldier, airman, and
marine depends upon the Under Secretary to ensure that their
equipment is the best it can be, and every American taxpayer
depends upon the Under Secretary to ensure that this equipment
is purchased in the most cost-efficient manner. We are
troubled, many of us, however, that over 20 years after the
creation of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics in the Goldwater-Nichols reforms,
many of the same acquisition problems identified by David
Packard still emerge today. This is an issue of great concern
to the committee, and we hope that you will do your best to see
that the situation conforms, and is administered consistent
with the guidelines laid down by the Packard Commission Report.
So we welcome you and your wife, your family. It's very
important that the family come, because there's a record made
of this proceeding, and in the years to come it will fade a
little bit. I still have the one when I appeared before the
Senate, so long ago that it is hard to read the print now, but
I assure you, your children will value and treasure that
record, and the fact that you were here, and your names appear
in that record as family members.
The role of the family is so important, with regard to
those individuals who serve in our Government, but most
particularly in the Department of Defense, because you have to
give up a great deal of time with your spouse, or as the case
may be, with your father, while he performs his very important
functions for our Nation.
You currently serve at the Department of Defense as special
assistant to the Secretary of Defense and Director for Program
Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E), joining the Department in July
2001 to serve as Executive Secretary of the Senior Executive
Council, which is responsible for initiatives to improve the
management and organization of the Department. Prior to joining
the Department, you gained the private sector experience, which
was detailed by our distinguished colleague, and I shall not
repeat that.
Mr. Krieg, you bring a wealth of experience to the job, and
you have my support. At this point in time, I'd like first to
go to Senator Levin before I go into the standard questions.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me join you in welcoming Ken Krieg and his family to
the committee. Mr. Krieg, we thank you in advance for your
continuing service to our Nation, and I join the chairman in
thanking your family whose support is so critical to your
success. There are going to be many times, kids, when your dad
is not going to be able to do all of things that he wants to do
with you, and it is our fault. Don't blame him. The chairman
and I are the ones to blame. You come and complain to us when
that happens. You particularly should complain to the chairman.
[Laughter.]
But we thank you all, seriously, for being here, for
supporting your husband, and your dad, and your son-in-law.
Ken Krieg has served in the Department of Defense for the
last 4 years, most recently as the Director for Program
Analysis and Evaluation, the office that is responsible for
providing and focusing on independent advice to the Secretary
on Defense acquisitions, programs, and resource allocation
issues.
As Secretary of PA&E, Mr. Krieg has shown the independence,
the judgment, and the willingness to stand up for what is
right. That should serve him very well in his new position. Mr.
Krieg, there are some difficulties which have surfaced in the
organization whose leadership you're going to assume. Far too
many of our major weapons acquisitions have been plagued by
cost increases, late deliveries to the warfighter, and
performance shortfalls. On top of that, the Department has now
acknowledged that its acquisition strategy for several major
programs, including the Air Force tanker lease program, the Air
Force C-130J program, and the Army Future Combat System
program, were flawed.
At a recent hearing of one of our subcommittees, the acting
Secretary of the Air Force acknowledged that his Department
went too far in downsizing its acquisition organization. It had
removed critical balances from the acquisition process while
doing that. These problems are not unique to the Air Force. The
time is long come for a top-to-bottom review of the
Department's acquisition organization, its acquisition
workforce, and its acquisition processes. I think you are well-
trained by your experience, and well-positioned by your
character, which you have shown to be one of integrity and
independence to take on that responsibility. So I look forward
to working with you. I know all the members of the committee
will be working closely as you attack all these challenges.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
The committee has asked for Mr. Krieg to answer a series of
advance policy questions, and he has responded to those
questions, and without objection, those questions will be made
a part of this record.
I also have a series of questions on behalf of the
committee, and indeed the entire Senate, which we ask each
nominee who appears before our committee, so if you will
respond.
Have you adhered to the applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
Mr. Krieg. Yes, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties, or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Krieg. No, I have not.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record in congressional hearings?
Mr. Krieg. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you fully cooperate in providing
witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Krieg. Yes, I will.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
possible reprisal from you or anyone else within your
supervision for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. Krieg. Yes, they will.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed to appear and
testify upon request before any duly constituted committee of
the Senate?
Mr. Krieg. Yes.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views
when asked before the committee to do so, even if those views
differ from the administration in power and your immediate
supervisor?
Mr. Krieg. I will always offer you my best professional
judgment.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communications in a
timely manner when requested by duly constituted committee of
Congress, or to consult with the committee regarding the basis
for any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
Mr. Krieg. Yes, sir, I'll do my best.
Chairman Warner. Now, if you have some opening remarks, the
committee would very much like to hear them.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. KRIEG, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS
Mr. Krieg. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank all of the members of the committee for being here today.
I especially want to thank Senator Sununu for his kind
introduction, and I want to thank you all very much for your
kind welcome to my family. Family is very important to me, and
it means a lot for you to offer that warm welcome to them.
Chairman Warner. I wonder if you might also acknowledge
that, based on some modest experience that I had, all those
decisions made in the Department after 8 o'clock are usually
reversed the following morning, which would enable you to get
home at a proper time. Can you take cognizance of that
admonition?
Mr. Krieg. I will, sir.
Chairman Warner. We understand
Mr. Krieg. I will report to you on a regular basis when I'm
later than that. How's that? Or at least my wife will.
I'm both honored and humbled by the confidence expressed by
the President and the Secretary of Defense in their nomination,
and recommendations of me, respectively.
I look forward to your questions today, and if confirmed,
look forward to working with this committee in the months and
years ahead on the wide range of challenging issues that we
have before us.
The late Don Atwood, former Deputy Secretary of Defense and
one of my mentors advised me as I worked for him to, ``Go out
and learn in a real economy while you're still young enough for
them to take a chance on you. You can always come back later,''
he said. His advice led me to International Paper, and a decade
of experience in a tough, consolidating, low-margin, high
capital, global industry. I hope he would be proud today.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, the Under Secretary serves both
the people of this Nation, who invest their hard-earned
resources in the Department of Defense, and the men and women
of our armed services, both today and in the future, who invest
their lives in our freedom. That is, indeed, a humbling charge.
I've had the good fortune to watch the position of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics from a number of vantage points over the years. On
the staff of the Packard Commission, I witnessed the debates,
and know quite well this committee's key leadership in that
position's creation. In Don Atwood's office, I saw the
challenging inception of the role. As the Executive Secretary
of the Senior Executive Council, I worked closely with Mr.
Aldridge and the Service Secretaries on business process
changes, many of which are just now coming to fruition. Most
recently, as Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, I
served as an advisor to the Under Secretary, and a member of
the Defense Acquisition Board, Defense Logistics Board, and in
other similar settings.
No one is ever fully prepared for these roles, but I am
committed: to a leadership role in guiding change management;
to objectivity and integrity in our decisions; to fact-based
management, good governance and a trusting relationship with
Congress; to aligning authority with responsibility and
assigning accountability for success, and to building business
processes that have both strong oversight and agile
performance.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again, for the opportunity to
appear before you today, I hope that you'll find my experience
and my commitment will prepare me for this role. If confirmed,
I look forward to working with Congress, and especially with
this committee, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you
might have.
Chairman Warner. We thank you very much. We will proceed to
our usual 6-minute round of questions.
Mr. Krieg, regrettably, this committee has witnessed in the
past several years, some extraordinary problems in the
acquisition field: the length of time that it requires a
weapons system to be fully researched, tested and then put into
production and delivery; the ever-increasing costs; the
problems associated with the industrial infrastructure; and
what level must be kept in place in order to get adequate
competition, and the best possible product.
Now, those are problems that, through the years, have
always been there, but each Secretary of Defense seems to
experience his own unique problems. Many of us on this
committee go back and think about the past as a guide to avoid
problems in the future, the situation at the Department of the
Air Force, a very proud organization, is--I don't know, in my
some 30 plus years involved in this business, I've never seen
anything that would equal that--as to how one individual was
able to circumvent the whole process. You have got to represent
to this committee, in order to get confirmation, that you will
endeavor to do everything you can to work with the Secretary of
Defense, and hopefully, the newly-nominated Deputy Secretary,
to work to eliminate the problems that were experienced by the
Department of the Air Force, so that that Department can, once
again, regain its rightful place alongside its sister
Departments of the Army and the Navy.
Likewise, the battlefield acquisition requirements for the
Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, including the up-armoring, the
inadequacy of body armor. Now this all isn't directly in your
domain, but you have with your responsibilities a lot of
authority. This committee has gone through endless hours of
testimony regarding the sequencing of contracts with the
industrial base to get the needed body armor and the up-
armoring of vehicles.
Lastly, the improvised explosive devices (IED) that the
insurgents have successfully used. The systems are very
rudimentary in design, but extraordinarily difficult,
technologically, to defeat. We continue to get in this
committee messages from industry, ``Well, we've got a product
that nobody will hear us out. We think we can solve the
problem.'' There's an IED task force, and this committee gets a
regular briefing from that task force.
Now, I'm not trying to criticize the task force, but the
challenges before you are enormous, and I hope that you can
represent that you will do everything you can to bring the
wisdom that you've shown in the past to bear on these current
problems, and help the Department resolve them.
Mr. Krieg. Sir, you have my absolute commitment to do that,
and to recognize that handling these kinds of changes, and
meeting these kinds of challenges, require both leadership and
the commitment of a team of people. So, if confirmed, I look
forward to working with this committee, to understand your
views, and to incorporate you clearly in what we need to do. I
look forward to trying to build a team of people within the
Department of Defense, with the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary
and others, to handle the wide range of challenges we have in
front of us.
Chairman Warner. The Secretary has often said, and I think
he's correct in his observation, having previously served as
Secretary of Defense, that today's threat environment lacks the
clarity that it had years ago. In the Cold War, we knew
precisely what was facing us. We knew what was required to
deter an outbreak, and fortunately it was deterred.
Today, terrorism often has no situs, no state sponsorship.
It's just a few individuals using innovative ideas with the
crudest forms of weaponry. The proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction is such a challenge today. I think you have to put
your bureaucracy in place, but incentivize them to use their
own initiatives and their own ideas and think out of the box.
My recollection of the earlier PA&E folks, and you and I
discussed this in my office yesterday, they were constantly
giving a fit to the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy, and the
Service Secretaries because they were always thinking about
ideas that we never, in our chains of command and daily
briefings and so forth, just either didn't have the time to
address, or never thought of.
But today's problems just can't be solved by the standard
bureaucracy going up and down and checking off boxes and things
of that nature. Even though an individual may get in a little
hot water from time to time, I'd rather that you supervise them
and encourage them and they'll survive, if they've been
prepared and honest in their thinking and thought processes. A
little thinking out of the box there, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Krieg. Yes, sir. If you think about the world in which
we live----
Chairman Warner. I think about it every day.
Mr. Krieg.--the rule sets of the competition are changing
dramatically. We need the agility to deal with changing
circumstances, the ability to anticipate the next set of
challenges. We often find ourselves in a period of change,
chasing the last challenge, and not anticipating the next.
Then lastly, we must be willing to innovate. In a period of
innovation, one has to be willing to make mistakes in
innovation, but make mistakes with a very clear understanding
of why you're innovating, and innovating in the right places.
So all of those will be challenges for us, and to look ahead,
because the fundamental rule sets of the competition in the
world in which we're participating are changing in front of us.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, sir.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At a committee
hearing last fall, a senior Air Force acquisition official,
General Martin, testified that in the 1990s, not only did we go
through a very serious restructuring of our forces and
drawdown, but we also went through a major acquisition reform
that took away much of the oversight and took many of the
checks and balances out. He added that the pendulum may have
gone too far.
We've been told as a result of some organizational changes
in the 1990s that the Air Force has almost completely lost its
system engineering capability, and the other military services
may have similar problems.
Moreover, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported earlier this year that roughly a quarter of the
contracts that they reviewed were subject to inadequate
oversight after award. When you're confirmed, will you work
with us to re-examine the acquisition organization and the
acquisition processes of the Department of Defense to ensure
that we have the structures and the processes that we need to
deliver high-quality systems to the warfighter in a timely and
a cost-effective basis?
Mr. Krieg. Sir, you have my commitment that I'll be glad to
work with the committee.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Last week the current Under
Secretary, Mike Wynne, testified before our Readiness and
Management Support Subcommittee about the reductions in the
defense acquisition workforce. This is what he told us, ``The
numbers are startling. The defense acquisition workforce has
been downsized by roughly half since 1990, while the contract
dollars have roughly doubled during the same period.'' He went
on, ``We need to continue to renew and restore the defense
acquisition workforce. We need to ensure we have the right
people in the jobs to perform the functions required to support
our warfighters, and now more than ever,'' he said, ``I believe
we need to increase the size of the acquisition workforce to
handle the growing workload, especially as retirements increase
in the coming years.'' I'm wondering whether you share Under
Secretary Wynne's concerns about the acquisition workforce.
Mr. Krieg. First of all, Senator, I share the concern in
general about the Department of Defense workforce. As one looks
at the average age of the population that we have in our
workforce--and thinking through how one makes the change of
generations--this is really one of the biggest challenges we
have as managers.
With regard to specifics of the acquisition workforce, they
need to have special knowledges and special capabilities, so it
makes the challenge all the more difficult. You have my
commitment that this will be one area that I will spend a lot
of time on. I personally believe that people drive processes.
Success is about people, and getting the people right is
absolutely critical as we go forward.
Senator Levin. Do you have a concern, also, about the
downsizing of the acquisition workforce?
Mr. Krieg. I have not spent a lot of time up to now,
thinking about that. It is clearly one of the issues we have to
look at. Pendulums tend to swing, and they often swing in
directions that may go a little farther than we should, but I
look forward to, if confirmed, working with the committee to
understand that issue, and work on it.
Senator Levin. Thank you. A recent series of hearings by
the Airland Subcommittee highlighted continuing problems that
result from so-called ``commercial item strategies,'' which
have been pursued by the Department of Defense over the last
decade. Now, under this approach, the Department has attempted
to acquire major weapons systems under streamlined procedures
intended for the purchase of commercial items. In the case of
the proposed Air Force tanker lease, the result was a
heightened risk of fraud and abuse, which would have
significantly increased cost to the taxpayer. The committee
disagreed with that lease proposal. You were very helpful, and
very independent along the way relative to that lease, and your
work is noted. The Department has recently agreed to
restructure two other major defense acquisition programs, the
Air Force's C-130J aircraft program, and the Army's Future
Combat Systems program to avoid similar risk. We struggle long
and hard to increase the use of commercial products. It was a
reform on which this committee took the lead in pressing, and
it has been misused. My question is will you work with us to
ensure that the commercial items strategies are used to
purchase true commercial items, and not to avoid requirements
which are designed to protect the taxpayers in the purchase of
major weapons systems?
Mr. Krieg. Yes, sir, I would be glad to.
Senator Levin. According to the GAO, the General Services
Administration (GSA) has seen alone, just in its own purchases,
a 10-fold increase in interagency contract sales since 1992,
which pushed its total sales up to $32 billion in fiscal year
2004. Now, what happens is that all too often when one agency
uses a contract which is entered into by another agency to
obtain services or products, it appears that neither agency
takes responsibility for making sure that the rules are
followed and good management sense is applied. As a result, the
Department of Defense Inspector General, the GSA Inspector
General, and others have identified a long series of problems
with these so-called ``interagency'' contracts, including lack
of acquisition planning, inadequate competition, excessive use
of time and materials, improper use of expired funds,
inappropriate expenditures, and a failure to monitor contractor
performance.
In just one recent case, Department of Defense officials in
Iraq obtained the services of contract interrogators by sending
money to a Department of Interior contracting center in
Arizona, which then placed an order with the company, through a
contract which has been awarded through the General Services
Administration. Both the Army General Counsel and the
Department of Interior Inspector General have determined that
the interrogators' services were totally outside of the scope
of the GSA contract, which was supposed to be limited to
purchases of information technology. So, you have a GSA
contract whose purpose is the purchase of information
technology, which is used by the Department of Defense to hire
civilian interrogators for detainees. Now the result is what we
have seen, I'm afraid, the lack of accountability and lack of
oversight. I'm afraid that we have also, in relying so heavily
on other agencies to do much of the contracting for the
Department of Defense, failed to build the capabilities that
need to be built inside of the Department of Defense
acquisition system.
My question: will you work with us to avoid the improper
use of interagency contracts and to ensure that appropriate
mechanisms are in place to protect the interest of the
Department and the taxpayer in those cases where it is
necessary or appropriate to use such contracts?
Mr. Krieg. Yes, Senator. Certainly, if confirmed, I would
be glad to work with this committee on these issues.
Senator Levin. Thank you, my time is up, thank you very
much.
Chairman Warner. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I won't be able to be here for the second panel, but I want
to assure General Hayden that the comments, that were very
general comments that were made by Senator Roberts reflect my
feelings, and I look forward to working with you, General.
First of all, Mr. Krieg, I appreciate your giving me the
time that you did in my office. We've had a chance to go over a
lot of the concerns I had. I think the chairman brought up
something in his line of questioning that I'm very much
concerned about, and that is the acquisition timeline, the
length of time it takes for a new weapons system. I told you a
story about when Dick Cunningham and I used to sit next to each
other on the House Armed Services Committee. We watched
technology change so quickly, Mr. Chairman, that by the time
you had a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit established in
the cockpit it was already obsolete. Well, we changed that, we
were able to change that, but it's not quite as easy with whole
weapons systems.
You responded to Senator Warner that you were committed to
doing that, so do you have any specific thoughts now about how
you're going to do that?
Mr. Krieg. Yes sir. I think first of all, you hit on one of
the biggest challenges--if it takes 25 years to develop a
weapons system in an era in which information processing
capability is cycling every 18 months, obviously we will be
challenged to get the right systems at the right time. So, I
think one of the key areas is to make sure that we get--the
words have been used multiple ways: the statement of demand; or
the requirement; or what it is we want to be able to do--a
clear understanding of both what the demand statement is, what
the requirement is, how long it will take, and how much it will
cost. There is always a trade off among those three things. I
think that one of the key areas is to work on what it is we're
going to build, not just how we build it. Obviously, working on
streamlining processes, while maintaining oversight, is going
to be one of the key areas and challenges we build into the
acquisition process. But, if confirmed, I look forward to
working with the committee on those issues.
Senator Inhofe. I know it's a difficult thing, but I agree
that it needs to be looked at, and Senator Levin covered the
Michael Wynne statement. I would like to leave one quote from
him that Senator Levin did not use, and that is, ``I believe
we're at the point where any further reductions beyond the
levels of this workforce consistent with the President's 2006
budget request will adversely affect our ability to
successfully execute a growing workload.'' I agree with that.
Believe me, as a conservative, I'm the last one in the world to
oppose any reduction of anything in the government, but in this
case--back during the 1990s during the Clinton administration
when they talked about reductions--I became convinced, and I
became somewhat outspoken at that time, that we were going to
have to pay for this in one way or another whether it's using
lead systems integrators, or whether it's using other methods
that are going to end up being more expensive. I just wanted to
tell you that I agree with the question and with the concern.
I personally feel, as I told you in my office, when you
look at the problems we have, the only solution is going to be
increased spending on our military in general. As I mentioned
to you, even the Secretary did say that during his first
confirmation hearing, 4\1/2\ years ago. So, that's a concern,
that's our problem up here, not your problem.
But, I would like to have you address one last thing here,
and that is, in the State of Oklahoma, small businesses are
complaining that they're being cut out of contracting because
of bundling of contracts to larger vendors. DOD complains the
cuts in acquisition personnel are forcing these measures, and
frankly, I think that's true, but there is a concern about
small businesses being able to participate. I would like to
have your commitment to try and help us in resolving this, but
not at the expense of the overall bottom line, and what we're
able to acquire.
Do you have any ideas on how we could do this? I've talked
to other members at this table up here who say that in their
States they're receiving the same complaints, and I believe
there should be a system set up as there was before, to assist
some of the smaller businesses to participate.
Mr. Krieg. Senator, I don't come with a pre-conceived set
of ideas about what to do. I do recognize that across our
industrial base, whether it is the large contractors or the
small innovators who have trouble figuring out how to work with
us, that as the rule sets of our competition change, and what
we want to do changes, we have to figure out how to work in
different ways with our industrial base. I think that is, along
with the workforce, one of the greater challenges I would face
if confirmed.
Senator Inhofe. As I've mentioned to you before, and we've
mentioned to a lot of people, the one thing that nobody at this
table likes is surprises. I was very much distressed when,
while we were actually in our authorization meeting a few years
ago, to have the Crusader system cancelled, and no one even
knew that it was going to happen. I would like to have a
commitment from you that if you see something coming up where
there is a change of need or a change of technology that
requires an abrupt change in what we have been planning and we
have been authorizing, that you would be very forthright and
come to us so that we aren't suffering from some of the same
surprises as we have in the past.
Mr. Krieg. Senator, I'll do my best, if confirmed, I know
that one of the things that people like least is surprise, and
so I will do my best, if confirmed, to communicate with you all
as changes are made.
Senator Inhofe. That's fair enough. I look forward to
working with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Krieg. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
We now have Senator Ben Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Krieg,
obviously you're facing a daunting challenge. You've heard how
difficult it is, and obviously, you've moved forward and said
you want to take on that challenge. You mentioned agility. I
suspect that you want to combine agility and accountability to
avoid obsolescence, as well as to do things in a managed,
orderly fashion.
Having dealt with a bureaucracy in the past when I was
governor, I concluded that the bureaucracy is full of what you
call ``we be's''--we be here when you come; we be here when you
go--and I hope that as you work through a reduced workforce,
you will bring people on board who will not have that attitude,
because it's that attitude that delays unnecessarily, obstructs
unnecessarily, and very often doesn't facilitate the process to
move forward, and that helps create obsolescence.
It also creates a situation where people are risk averse.
You're in a position where you don't dare be risk averse. On
the other hand, you can't take too many risks. As you said,
what you want to do is know what the risk is that you're going
to take and quantify it.
I'm concerned about all the discussion about a reduced
workforce within your agency, and I suspect it will be one of
the first things that you do, as you've indicated, to evaluate
whether you have enough people, and whether they're in the
right positions. That's going to be a very critical thing.
Numbers, as opposed to quantity and quality challenges.
Also, I understand that it may be an opportunity for you,
because over half of your workforce there is nearing an age of
retirement, not that we're happy to see people leave,
necessarily, but it does create an opportunity as you're
looking to the future to be able to bring on board other people
without unnecessarily disrupting the agency. I emphasize
``unnecessarily.'' Obviously you're going to have to
necessarily do some things that will be a bit disruptive or you
will not be the manager that we would like to have you be, and
the one you want to be.
In addition to the other responsibilities, you're going to
be chairing the Nuclear Weapons Council, and so my question
really is, have you thought very much about the development of
new nuclear weapons, such as the robust nuclear earth
penetrator? Well, the study is underway, and I know you can't
say a lot of things until confirmed, but have you taken a look
at that, or do you have any thoughts?
Mr. Krieg. Senator, that's one where I have not taken a lot
of time to think about it in the job of PA&E. We've looked at
the overall state of health of the strategic forces and are
trying to think through what the next era looks like, but in
regard to that specific program, or specific idea, I haven't
spent any time at all, sir.
Senator Ben Nelson. I suspect that that will be one of the
things that you'll have to do as the study progresses and as
technology increases. Ultimately, it appears that something
will come across your desk where you'll have to work on it.
I know General Hayden is going to be dealing with some
questions about Intelligence Command (INTCOM), but I'm not
going to be able to do that. I suspect that we'll have a chance
to talk about that at a later date.
Another concern that many of us have had, dealing with the
missile defense system, is the challenge between operational
testing and realistic, developmental testing. Do you have any
thoughts you'd like to share on that as you look forward to
your new position? I know that you've dealt with it in some of
the advanced questions, I just wondered if you had any other
thoughts.
Mr. Krieg. I think the real challenge in a program, in all
programs, is to get realistic testing in a timely fashion to
make sure that the system works as anticipated. I've not spent
a lot of time in the details of that particular testing
program, but I do believe that the operational testing
community is working very closely with the developmental
testing community to try to figure out how to get both needs
satisfied as that system develops. Clearly, I believe that
systems need to have solid operational testing so that we can
have an understanding of their capacity and that we know what
they can do.
Senator Ben Nelson. My colleagues have heard me say it
before, so I'm reluctant to say it again, but I've raised the
question, if we got a scarecrow, and part of this is to make
sure that, not as an offensive system, but as a defensive
system, that it will ward off people who might otherwise try to
do us in from afar, that has to work. So, please make sure that
if this is a scarecrow, that it scares crows.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and good luck, and we
appreciate very much your service and your family's support.
It's necessary.
Mr. Krieg. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Governor Nelson, we always learn from you.
Senator Ben Nelson. You're very kind. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. We got two good little stories to work on
here.
We'll now have our distinguished colleague, Ms. Collins.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is hard to
follow someone who has introduced us to scarecrows, ``we
be's,'' and other esoteric military concepts.
Mr. Krieg, first of all, let me congratulate you on your
nomination. This is an extraordinarily important position, and
we very much appreciate your willingness to step up to the
plate and serve your country in this manner.
I want to explore with you today the role of competition in
the industrial base. A healthy, competitive industrial base is
critical to supplying our men and women in uniform with the
very best products, weapons systems, and services, and
Secretary Rumsfeld said recently in an exchange with me,
``There's no doubt that competition is healthy and creates an
environment that produces the best product at the best price,
and it's a good thing.''
But, what we've seen in recent years is a shrinking of the
industrial base on which the Pentagon relies. That's very
troubling to me. In some cases it's come about as a result of
mergers and acquisitions. In other cases it's a result of
unsustainably low rates of production.
This has become an issue in ship-building, where the Navy
has proposed a radical change in its acquisition strategy for
the DD(X) destroyer program. Instead of pursuing a strategy
that would have ensured two shipyards participating, the Navy
is proposing a ``winner-take-all,'' one shipyard strategy.
Yesterday, the current occupant of the position that you are
going to assume, Under Secretary Wynne, issued a memorandum
that essentially told the Navy, ``Not so fast. There are a lot
of questions that need to be answered,'' and he refused to give
a green light to the Navy going forward with the one shipyard
strategy for the DD(X) program.
Have you looked at this issue, and do you agree with Under
Secretary Wynne that we need additional information, or the
Pentagon needs additional information before a decision can be
made on whether this strategy is the right one?
Mr. Krieg. Senator, I have not looked at this specific
issue, but recognize the concerns you've laid out, the valid
concerns you've laid out, and simply state that, if confirmed,
I obviously, will have to look at this issue. I share your
concerns about the overall industrial base. We're highly
dependent upon their success and performance for our success,
and it's an interesting relationship between supplier and
consumer. So, if confirmed, I will obviously look into this
specific issue, because it's right in front of us. On the
broader set of issues you laid out, I think it's one of the
greater challenges we have in front of us.
Senator Collins. I think it is also. If we become dependent
on just one supplier, inevitably it's going to drive up cost,
reduce innovation, and jeopardize the ability of the Department
of Defense to secure the best products, services, and weapons
systems at the lowest possible price. So, I urge you to take a
very close look at that, not only where I, obviously, have a
very great interest, the DD(X) program, but generally speaking,
because from the analysis that I have done, we're seeing a
shrinking of the defense industrial base in a way that should
be very troubling to us. I would note that in 2001, the
Pentagon and the Justice Department blocked an acquisition by
General Dynamics of Newport News, because General Dynamics
already owned the other submarine construction entity, and at
that time, the Department said that they explicitly looked at
the impact on competition, the impact on the warfighter, and
the conclusion was that we really had to maintain competition.
I think that is a critical principle, even though the
decision was adverse to my constituents, I believe it was the
right decision to maintain a competitive base for the
construction of nuclear submarines. That's why it's been
particularly strange to see the Navy do a complete flip-flop in
this area, and embrace a totally different philosophy when it
comes to this next generation destroyer. But, it is an
important issue, and I urge you to look at it, and to look at
the broader issue of how can we ensure a healthy, competitive
industrial base. Once the skilled workforce is gone, it is gone
forever. When Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipyard came before
the Seapower Subcommittee last week, they talked about the
expense and number of years involved in training mechanics,
engineers, and designers. This isn't something that you take
someone right off the street and expect them to perform well,
so I do ask you to take a close look at those issues, and I can
assure you, you will be hearing from me frequently on them. I
look forward to working with you.
Mr. Krieg. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I will just reflect on
Senator Collins' basic theme, and I hope you will come up with
some innovative programs of your own, about how you're going to
reach out to this industrial base, and engage them, and listen
to them. They are, of course, a necessity under our system of
economics, driven by the bottom line and profit, but it is so
important that that be done. Look at the research and
development (R&D) which today, I'm told, is not much of a
profit center, and see if you can move that more towards being
a profit center, such that the industrial base will begin to
risk some of its own assets with the understanding that Uncle
Sam will put some of its assets at risk.
Thank you, Senator Chambliss, for your patience.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Krieg, welcome to the committee this morning, and I
want to thank you for coming by yesterday and letting us have a
chance to visit once again, particularly with regard to the C-
130J, as well as the F/A-22 program, which are critically
important programs for the Air Force. I am pleased the DOD is
recognizing, relative to the decision to terminate the C-130J
program back in December, that you didn't have all the facts,
specifically the facts related to termination costs, and more
importantly, the facts regarding the current performance of
that aircraft. I'm glad DOD is looking to come back with an
amended budget, although, even though it's been promised, I'm
still waiting to see that budget. I understand that's not your
job to do that, but we look forward to getting that from the
right folks.
Relative to the F/A-22 program, I appreciated your comments
in my office yesterday regarding the superb job the program
manager has done over the last few years in turning that
program around. As we discussed last summer, the program
executive officer (PEO) for the F/A-22, General Lewis,
committed to this committee that he would deliver 11 of those
aircraft between August 2004 and January 2005, when in fact the
contractor actually delivered 13 aircraft during that time
frame.
General Lewis also committed to deliver 12 aircraft between
February 2005 and July 2005, and the contractor is currently on
track to deliver 13 of those aircraft during that time frame.
Every production metric available indicates that this program
is on the right track. Am I correct in the statements regarding
that, Mr. Krieg?
Mr. Krieg. As best I understand them, Senator, the program
has come a tremendous way from where it was 18 months ago.
Senator Chambliss. Now just last week, Defense Acquisition
Board Chairman Mike Wynne approved the F/A-22 for a full rate
production, based on system design, readiness for full rate
production, and successful disposition and progress on
addressing suitability deficiencies identified during Initial
Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) testing. Let me
interject, relative to IOT&E testing that Mr. Wynne commented
in his decision memorandum that the F/A-22 performed
significantly better than the F-15C in comparison tests, and
exceeded the relevant criteria for this phase of testing.
Again, yesterday, Mr. Krieg, you commented that you
supported Mr. Wynne's decision relative to full rate
production, and I want to make sure that's correct for the
record.
Mr. Krieg. Yes, Senator, we had a very good discussion in
the Defense Acquisition Board on that.
Senator Chambliss. You concur with the decision of that
Board?
Mr. Krieg. I was comfortable, given the facts presented,
with what Secretary Wynne came up with.
Senator Chambliss. Now, Mr. Krieg, even with the superb
progress this program has made, the excellent performance
during IOT&E and the recent full rate production decision by
Mr. Wynne, this committee may consider, once again, for the
third year in a row, reductions in funding for this program
based upon, of all things, the schedule. Now, Mr. Krieg, the 25
aircraft that are funded with fiscal year 2006 funds would
deliver in 2008, and based on the fact that the contractor is
currently producing approximately 25 aircraft per year, how
likely is it, in your opinion, that the contractor will be able
to produce 25 aircraft 3 years from now, in 2008.
Mr. Krieg. Sir, Senator, I don't have any specific
knowledge of the contractor's capability to produce or the
specific schedule, I have not looked at the program in that
great a detail.
Senator Chambliss. But you know and understand that----
Mr. Krieg. If we have 25 today, they should be able to make
25 in the next 3 years.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you.
Mr. Krieg, do you agree that reducing the number of
aircraft funded in fiscal year 2006 will do nothing to help the
schedule or help the program, but will only ensure that the
warfighters at Langley Air Force Base receive one less aircraft
in 2008?
Mr. Krieg. I'm not sure I can add anything to your
question, except to say that I hear your question, and as your
question is framed, that would be the answer.
Senator Chambliss. Reducing the funding for the program,
really does nothing to help the program, is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Krieg. The amount of funding the Nation provides to any
of these given programs, given choices that people make,
individual programs either gain or suffer, based upon those
decisions.
Senator Chambliss. Based upon funding for those programs.
Mr. Krieg. Right, yes sir.
Senator Chambliss. Now, Mr. Krieg, do you agree that
reducing aircraft at this point in this program, or for that
matter any other program, will only serve to inject
instability, and would increase the per plane cost of the
airplanes that we ultimately might buy?
Mr. Krieg. I understand your question, I guess I'd have to
look at the specifics of the layout to determine how much it
would effect cost, given the nature of the program. I'll be
glad to take all of these, for the record, to understand them,
Senator. You're probably more in tune to the details of this
one than I am, so if you'd like me to go back and look at them
in particular, I'd be glad to do that. I don't, off the top of
my head, have a specific answer to most of these questions. But
we'd be glad to look into it for you.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Department reduced funding for the F/A-22 program in the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget (PB06), in order to address other
essential priorities. This decision, like any difficult compromise
undertaken in response to budgetary pressures, will have adverse
consequences. Due to economies of scale, reducing program funding
creates production inefficiencies and affects the ability to get better
pricing from suppliers, resulting in upward cost pressure. However, the
Department has established the F/A-22 program as a ``buy-to-budget''
program. This creates incentives for the Air Force to work with the
contractor to improve efficiencies, with a goal of producing the
maximum number of aircraft possible within the budget.
PB06 reduced the planned F/A-22 buy from 26 to 25 aircraft in
fiscal year 2006. This includes one replacement test aircraft to be
produced with Research, Development, Test & Evaluation funds. The
change has a small impact on procurement efficiency and progress on the
learning curve. The ultimate impact, as you pointed out, is that the
Air Force likely will receive at least one fewer aircraft within the
Department's overall buy-to-budget plan. The reduction in quantity will
not eliminate delays in deliveries, because the quantity planned in
fiscal year 2006 (25) is an increase from the 24 aircraft being
procured in fiscal year 2005. Still, the contractor is making progress
in reducing those delays. Lockheed Martin and its suppliers developed
production facilities and processes to support production of 32
aircraft per year, so I am confident that they will be capable of
building the 25 aircraft planned, provided that sufficient funding is
available within the Department's buy-to-budget plan.
The changes made to the F/A-22 procurement plan in PB06 were
structured to minimize the impact on procurement efficiency. However,
as you noted, changes in procurement efficiency and progress on the
learning curve will tend to increase unit flyaway cost. This is the
case for most weapon systems, unless the design or manufacturing
facility is insensitive to quantity (for example, if the production
line is mature, if the facility produces two or more items with a large
number of common components, or if the facility produces software or
other items without using a traditional production line).
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Krieg, you are here for review of
whether or not you should be in charge of the acquisition of
all weapons systems for the Department of Defense. Is it a fair
statement that irrespective of what the weapons system is, if
we reduce the buy, or stretch out the buy on any weapons
systems, that the per copy cost of that weapons system is going
to increase?
Mr. Krieg. In general, the cost per unit at any given point
is related to the efficiency of the capital employed in
delivering it. So, as your general statement, the answer would
be yes, but in the specifics of how much, and how much the
capacity can deal with the change, would be where I'd have to
look at the specifics of the question. In general, you get your
maximum efficiency and maximum productivity when you fully
employ the capital to produce what the capital is laid out to
manufacture. So, the answer to your general question would be
yes.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Chambliss, if you wish to take
additional time, that's a very important sequence of questions,
and certainly it's been the record of the Department that when
programs have been stretched or curtailed, the unit costs have
gone up. I don't know of any instance when they've ever gone
down.
Senator Chambliss. I mean, that's a fundamental question
that somebody who is going to be heading up the department of
acquisition for the Pentagon, I would hope would understand. I
think you answered it that that is true from a general
standpoint. I understand you can't talk about the specifics of
this program, or whether it's ships or tanks, but if we start--
if we continue--to curtail programs, we continue to move money
around in programs, it's a given fact, Mr. Krieg, that the per
copy cost is going to continue to rise, and you're going to be
faced with a very critical decision. You and I talked a little
bit about this yesterday, and I want to use the tactical
aircraft issue as the classic example because this is my 11th
year, and we've seen this train wreck coming between how many
tactical aircraft we want to buy and how many tactical aircraft
we can afford. Now, we are fast approaching that crossroads, we
may even be there, and you're the guy that's going to be
sitting in that position of really making that fundamental
decision about what direction we're going in. You're going to
have the same problem with ships. I don't think we're buying
enough ships today, I think we're depleting our Navy of some
assets that I think, one of these days, we're going to regret.
Now, on the other side of the coin, we're trying to take
the money that we have and utilize it in the best way, and
you're the guy that, in effect, is going to be signing the
checks on which direction we go in, so I think this is a
fundamental aspect of your job that we need to think seriously
about, because you're going to be the guy making that decision.
I think you answered my question very adequately, but Mr.
Chairman, we all know that we've been arguing over this for a
number of years, and we've been trying to legislatively make
decisions within the budget numbers, and trying to make sure
that we provide our men and women with all of the assets they
need, but I think the next 2 or 3 years are going to be the
real critical point that we reach relative to acquisition of
weapons systems, and we have to make a decision whether we're
going to increase the top line to give them more money, and
whether we're going to stay within that top line, and make your
job even tougher. It is a fundamental thing that I think
anybody stepping into the acquisition position is just going to
have to deal with immediately, so I think he answered my
question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
In consultation with Senator Levin, the Chair makes the
following observation, and then the following decision. Seeing
your young daughter back there, she sent a signal to me that
this hearing on your nomination should come to an end. It was a
very perceptible and loud yawn, and therefore, we'll ask that
you provide answers to the record to a series of questions that
we might otherwise have asked in a second round.
We'll let your daughter know, also, that we're very much
indebted to her for that signal. [Laughter.]
But before we close, Mr. Krieg, I think the committee
should acknowledge the work that's been done by the current
occupant of this position. Although he's been appointed, as
opposed to confirmed, Mike Wynne has withstood a lot of tough
storms, and we wish him well in the course of his next
challenges in life.
So at this point, if there's no further discussion of the
membership, we'll excuse you, and we'll invite the
distinguished General to take his seat.
Senator Levin. I would like to join you, Mr. Chairman, in
thanking Mr. Wynne also for his service. If somebody could pass
that along.
Mr. Krieg. I will be glad to do that. [Recess.]
Chairman Warner. The committee will now resume its panel II
with the distinguished Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden. We welcome
you before the committee as the President's nominee to
appointment to the grade of general, and the first Principal
Deputy Director of National Intelligence. We welcome you and
your lovely wife, and we would ask now if you would introduce
your family.
General Hayden. Thank you, Senator. I'm joined here today
by my wife, Jeanine, a counselor by training, but she has spent
most of her energies supporting me and being a partner in my
work for the past 37 years. Most recently at NSA she's taken on
personal responsibility of supporting agency families,
particularly with the additional stresses after the 2001
attacks. We have our daughter, Margaret, here too, who is an
officer in the Air Force Reserve, and I can't avoid commenting,
Senator, a resident of Herndon, Virginia. Her two brothers, our
sons, could not be with us here today.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. At this time we would now like
very much to receive the comments of our distinguished
colleague, the Senator from Maine.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate having the opportunity to join the distinguished
Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts, in
introducing Lt. General Michael Hayden to the committee.
I worked very closely with General Hayden last year in the
writing of the Intelligence Reform Bill, and I became so
impressed with him during that time. I remain very grateful for
his contributions to that effort, and the advice and insight
that he candidly shared with me.
I recommended General Hayden to the White House for this
appointment, because I know him to be one of the Nation's
foremost experts on intelligence matters. His 36 years in the
United States Air Force, and most recently, his leadership as
Director of the National Security Agency have prepared him very
well for this position. In fact, I believe the President could
not have made a finer appointment.
During his outstanding career in the military, General
Hayden has been deeply involved in intelligence issues, both as
a consumer and as a producer of intelligence, and from a
variety of perspectives. As the Chief of Intelligence for the
51st Tactical Fighter Wing in South Korea, and subsequently as
Deputy Chief of Staff for the United Nations Command, and U.S.
Forces Korea, he was a consumer of intelligence for warfighting
purposes.
As the Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control at the
National Security Council, he was a consumer of intelligence to
support policymakers. As the air attache of the U.S. Embassy in
Bulgaria, he was a consumer of intelligence for diplomatic
activities. It's very unusual to have an individual who has
seen the need for intelligence from so many different
perspectives.
Finally, he has been a producer of intelligence, both at
the tactical level, as Commander of the Air Intelligence
Agency, and most recently at the national level as Director of
NSA. As a result of this wide range of experience, he
understands the needs of intelligence consumers, and also the
challenges and opportunities for collecting, analyzing, and
disseminating intelligence to meet those needs. He has been a
truly outstanding leader of the NSA during a time of
unprecedented change in both the communications technology
available to our adversaries, and the nature of the threat to
our national security, he has demonstrated strong and decisive
leadership skills, he developed a bold vision for transforming
the NSA to enable it to perform effectively even though the
volume, velocity, and variety of communications have increased
exponentially.
General Hayden recognized that the NSA could no longer just
gather mountains of data and then sort through them later, but
rather needed to hunt for the right data, amid the torrents of
available information in order to satisfy its intelligence
consumers quickly and efficiently. He then set out with
determination and remarkable leadership to turn that vision
into reality. By directing the NSA, General Hayden has been at
the forefront of our Nation's war on terrorism as our
Intelligence Community has mobilized to protect and defend our
homeland. Indeed, his work in transforming the NSA to confront
21st century threats, made clear to him the need for our
Nation's Intelligence Community to operate as, to use the
President's term, ``a single, unified enterprise.''
I believe the General's unique experience as both a
consumer and producer of intelligence, his leadership skills,
and his vision for integrating the Intelligence Community, will
serve him and our Nation well as the first Principal Deputy
Director of National Intelligence.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to recognize General Hayden's wife
for all that she has done. I don't know whether the committee
is aware that she formed a family action board, after the
September 11 attacks on our Nation, to support the families of
NSA's employees as their loved ones worked day and night to
protect all of us. I think her actions complement the General's
dedication in serving our country. This is truly a remarkable
family--dedicated patriots--and I think we're very fortunate,
and could not do better than to have General Hayden in this
very important position.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you General Hayden.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Collins.
In the unlikely event that I ever appear before the Senate
for confirmation, I would like very much for you to introduce
me. [Laughter.]
General, our distinguished colleague, Mr. Chambliss, is
about to say a few words here which I'm happy to receive.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
apologize for having to go to another matter for which I'm
late. I had the chance, as did you and Senator Levin, to cross-
examine General Hayden last week before the Senate Intelligence
Committee, but I just couldn't have him here without echoing
the sentiments of Senator Collins.
General Hayden is one of those unusual professionals within
our military who has stood just head and shoulders above many
other folks relative to the positions to which he's been
assigned. All of our men and women in uniform do a terrific
job, but I'll have to say that General Hayden, and having had a
chance to work very closely with him over the last several
years, particularly following September 11, he's one of the
folks who stepped up and said, ``Listen, we've got problems in
my agency,'' and I never had to call him to ask him what he was
doing relative to correcting the deficiencies. He would come to
us as members of the House Intelligence Committee to say,
``This is what we're doing,'' and that's a special individual
that does that.
The President's made an excellent choice in General Mike
Hayden to be the Deputy Director for the DNI, and I just
applaud it and look forward to continuing to work with him.
We're going to miss him at NSA, but we'll have an even closer
working relationship at the DNI. General Hayden, thank you, and
thank your family, too, for the sacrifices they all make
relative to making America a better place, and a safer place,
in which to live. Thank you.
General Hayden. Thank you, Senator, that's very kind. Thank
you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Hayden, let me first congratulate and thank you for
your past service, for your future service, for your family's
service and support of you, making your success possible, and
most importantly, for your willingness to serve in a very
important new capacity. I would like also to express through
you, our deep appreciation for the service and the sacrifices
of the men and women of the National Security Agency. Their
support of our combat forces, and for the senior leadership
which they also support, and their recent activities are
critical and essential. You've led this with some real
astuteness and some real initiative, and I greatly appreciate
that.
Your service as Director of the National Security Agency
for the past 6 years has been notable. You've led the agency at
a time of major transformation in the way that the NSA has had
to think about how it does its job, how NSA supports its
traditional customers while responding to the needs of an ever-
growing list of new customers. The experience as Director of
the NSA at that time of major transition will equip you well to
help lead the Intelligence Community, as we implement the
intelligence reforms that we adopted last year.
Congress worked long and hard on that legislation last
fall. Now it's the turn of the administration and the executive
branch to turn that legislative guidance into a practice that
functions well and smoothly. So, we thank you for your
willingness to undertake that effort. You are a wonderful
choice for this position, and I look forward to working with
you.
General Hayden. Thank you, Senator, thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin. I will
ask that my statement be incorporated in the record, as if
delivered in full.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
We will now move to our second nominee, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden,
USAF. We welcome you before the committee as the President's nominee
for appointment to the grade of General, and the first Principal Deputy
Director of National Intelligence. We welcome you and your wife of 37
years, Jeanine, and your daughter, Margaret.
General Hayden currently serves as the Director of the National
Security Agency at Fort Meade, Maryland, where he has served since
March 1999. I believe he is the longest serving director in the history
of the National Security Agency. The mission of the National Security
Agency has changed dramatically in the past decade, as information and
communications technology have proliferated. We are fortunate to have
had the continuity of General Hayden's leadership during this period of
rapid change.
General Hayden has a distinguished 36 year record of service,
having bridged the gap between intelligence officer and operator. He
has served as an attache abroad, on the National Security Council, as
the J-2 of U.S. European Command, as the Commander of the Air
Intelligence Agency, and as the Deputy Chief of Staff of the U.N.
Command and U.S. Forces in Korea, before serving as the head of one of
the most complex elements of our Intelligence Community.
The position for which general Hayden has been nominated represents
an important milestone in the efforts of the President and Congress to
improve the organization and performance of the Intelligence Community.
We simply must have the best possible intelligence available to our
national leaders in order for them to protect our homeland, and to make
decisions on the diplomatic and military actions that may be required
to protect our national security interests. Similarly, we must ensure
that our Armed Forces have the best possible intelligence available to
them to ensure the success of their missions, in defense of our Nation.
In this time of great demand on our Armed Forces as they are
conducting the all-out global war on terrorism, we must not allow
intelligence support to our warfighters to diminish. We all recall that
tragic chapter of history, in 1991, when General Norman Schwarzkopf
came before this committee and told us that national intelligence
support was simply not adequate during the first Persian Gulf War
(Operation Desert Storm).
General Hayden, we seek from you your assurance that, working with
Ambassador Negroponte, intelligence support to the warfighter will
remain one of your top priorities.
Chairman Warner. I would want to mention one chapter in the
history of this committee which is indelibly emblazoned in my
mind.
In this time of great demand of our Armed Forces, while
they are conducting an all-out global war on terrorism, we must
not allow intelligence support to our warfighters to diminish.
We all recall the tragic chapter of history in 1991 when
General Norman Schwarzkopf came before this committee and
advised us that the national intelligence support was simply
not adequate during the first Persian Gulf War. You probably
remember that. Intelligence is, without a doubt, the greatest
force multiplier available, and I'm certain you're aware of
that. As you go into these, as we say in the old Navy,
``uncharted waters,'' we wish you well. I noted from Senator
Collins' introduction, and then went back and re-read your
distinguished biography--and I'll put this in the record--
``General Hayden entered active duty in 1969 after earning a
Bachelor's Degree in History in 1967, and a Master's Degree in
Modern American History in 1969, both from Duquesne
University.'' Sir, you are about to make history. You were
prepared for it at an early time. Thank you.
At this time, I would like to propound the questions that
we ask of all nominees on behalf of not only the committee, but
the entire Senate, and indeed Congress as a whole.
You answered the advance policy questions, and without
objection they'll be placed in the record.
As to the specific questions, have you adhered to the
applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of
interest?
General Hayden. Yes, Sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties, or undertaken
any actions, which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
General Hayden. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record in congressional hearings?
General Hayden. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
General Hayden. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisals for their testimony or briefings?
General Hayden. Absolutely.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request by any duly constituted committee of the
Senate?
General Hayden. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views
when asked before the committee of the United States Senate?
General Hayden. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Even if those views differ from your
immediate supervisors or the administration in which you are
privileged to serve?
General Hayden. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communications in a
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee of
Congress, or to consult with the committee regarding the basis
for any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
General Hayden. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
At this point in time the committee would like to receive
such opening remarks as you might have.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, USAF, TO THE GRADE OF
GENERAL AND TO BE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE
General Hayden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll try to be
very brief.
First of all, it's a privilege to be here today, to be
nominated by the President. I would like to just share an
anecdote I shared with the Senate Intelligence Committee to
give you some sense of the appreciation I have for this job.
The day after the President announced Ambassador Negroponte
and me for these positions, I received an email from a friend
of mine, a boyhood friend, with whom I was inseparable until
about the 6th grade when he moved away. I lived on the lower
north side of Pittsburgh in this section called ``The Ward,''
kind of tucked between some hills in the flood plain of the
Allegheny River where the two ballparks are now. My friend
wrote to me in the email: ``The Ward, the street parties, the
picnics, Clark candy bars, and Teaberry gum thrown out the 5th
floor windows of factories in our neighborhood to kids cheering
on the streets and the damp train trestle on the way to and
from school are the things that you are made of. You'll never
get too far from them. It's those things that you will be
protecting.''
So, Senators, with all due respect----
Chairman Warner. That is a very moving bit of prose.
General Hayden. It really was, and I don't think the
committee can put any more pressure on me than Jimmie Heffley
already has, frankly.
Sir, Ambassador Negroponte last week in his testimony made
quite clear the importance of American intelligence. You
already know full well the challenges being faced by us as a
community, so we're at a pretty interesting place--never more
challenged, and never more important to the safety of the
Republic. We're surrounded by what seems to be a variety of
dilemmas. We want more cohesion, a better sense of direction
throughout the community. In fact, the Commission on the
Intelligence Capabilities of the United States regarding
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD Commission) claimed that we
were a community in name only, but at the same time, we don't
want so much centralization that it leads to group think or
herd mentality when it comes to analysis.
All of us want us to aggressively be more effective in
connecting the dots, even when there may not be many dots and
some of them may be hidden in the noise, but I don't think
anyone wants us to base our analysis on past context alone, or
mere inertia, or isolated data points. We all know the enemy
may be inside the gates, and job one is to defend our homeland.
We're also required to defend the privacy rights of our
citizens.
We want to strengthen our community. The law gives the DNI
real power, certainly more power than we ever gave the Director
of Central Intelligence (DCI), but we are here to preserve the
chain of command as well, something I know that is of
particular interest to this committee. I could go on, but you
get the picture. This is going to be very hard work.
When I testified last summer before the House Intelligence
Committee, I said our community, the Intelligence Community,
had been governed by the principle of consensus for almost a
half a century, and that wasn't bad. Consensus gets you a lot
of things, like buy-in and balancing competing needs, priority,
and stability. As an airman, I know the value of stability.
It's an absolute virtue in a lot of aircraft. When I talk about
this to larger audiences, I usually ask them what they think
the opposite of stability is. The immediate answer is
``instability,'' and I correct them and say, ``That is not
true.'' In the design of an aircraft, the opposite of stability
is maneuverability, and that is a virtue, too.
The legislation you approved last December made it clear to
me that you want the Intelligence Community to have more
maneuverability. It's hard to make sharp turns by consensus;
consensus is rarely bold, and it's frequently wrong.
So, last summer when the President announced that he
supported the DNI, and last fall when you enacted legislation,
it was clear to me that we were dampening the principle of
consensus as a way to govern our community, far more in favor
of clear lines of authority and responsibility. I told the
House of Representatives Committee last August that if we went
down this path, we needed to take care of a couple of things.
One was, if we were going to dismantle the DCI and the informal
authority he had, because he also headed up the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), we would have to aggressively codify
the authorities we wanted the DNI to have.
Second, I said the DNI would need robust authorities over
those big three agencies around town, where a lot of American
firepower when it comes to intelligence, really resides--
National Security Agency (NSA)/National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (NGA), National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and the
Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) at the CIA.
Third, Mr. Chairman, and I know this part is particularly
close to the heart of this committee, this new structure would
have to accommodate the needs of America's combat forces, needs
that, frankly, every day seem to redefine themselves in terms
of standards for relevance and timeliness.
Mr. Chairman, DOD is the largest consumer of intelligence
in the U.S. Government. In fact, I think it's the largest
consumer of intelligence in the world. As a military officer
I'm fully aware that in a doctrinal sense, we have opted for
precision over the principle of mass. Put another way, we've
decided we can create the effects we used to create by mass, by
now relying on precision. We will defeat our enemies not
because we can mass overwhelming fires on them, but because we
can apply very discrete fires in very discrete ways. But
precision weapons are never more precise than the intelligence
that enables them. We need intelligence that is worthy of the
precise weaponry that we have, and are creating.
This shouldn't be surprising. I personally believe that the
way a nation makes war is as indicative of its culture as the
way it writes poetry or creates music. We are an information-
based society. America's military is an information-based
combat force, hence the absolute criticality of precise,
timely, and relevant intelligence for our combat forces.
I believe that the legislation signed by the President does
nothing to hamper this, and in fact, actually gives us the
opportunity to improve the overall performance of U.S.
intelligence for all consumers, including the Department of
Defense.
I've learned in my 6 years at NSA just how talented a work
force we have. The work force at NSA is a microcosm of the
larger Intelligence Community. I've often said the real power
of the NSA goes down the elevators each night. It's hard for me
to talk about NSA operational successes in an open forum like
this, but let me just say that one operational commander
visited me very recently, and he began his conversation with me
with the admonition, ``Mike, don't change a thing.''
Last month, I received a note from the Commander of the 1st
Marine Expeditionary Force, whom I know you've just talked to,
thanking NSA for the kind of support we've provided his
marines, and I received a similar note from the Chief of Staff
of the Army. That's the kind of support that Ambassador
Negroponte and I have to ensure continues to occur across the
entire American Intelligence Community.
We have to exercise the power that you and the President
have given us without creating a new layer of bureaucracy. We
have to be authoritative. We have to be right, and the DNI must
ensure that we have the kind of information dominance that
protects America, its people, its values, and its friends.
I know this committee will stay very involved and very
interested in our work. I look forward to working with this
committee in the weeks, months, and years ahead, and Mr.
Chairman, I now look forward to your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, General, I must say, I was very
impressed with your opening statement. It was very carefully
prepared, extremely well-delivered, and those who listened and
followed it have to have a heartfelt understanding of how
sincere you are about taking on this new post.
General Hayden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. At this time, our distinguished colleague,
the chairman of the Government Affairs Committee is going to go
to the floor in the context of the pending nomination of
Ambassador Negroponte so, Senator Levin with your concurrence,
I will yield my time of questions to her.
Senator Collins. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for
accommodating my schedule.
General Hayden, the new intelligence law gives the Director
of National Intelligence substantial authority to set policies
governing the Intelligence Community's personnel, and the
purpose of giving the DNI that authority was for the new
Director to institute policies that would foster an
organizational culture of jointness across the Intelligence
Community. Ideally, we want individuals to look at themselves
as working for the Intelligence Community, not for the various
entities within that Community. The Intelligence Reform Act
cites the personnel provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols
Reorganization Act of 1986 as a model that successfully
fostered that jointness across the Defense Department.
Could you please give us your thoughts as to how the DNI
should use the legislation's personnel authority in order to
create a culture of jointness across the Intelligence
Community?
General Hayden. Yes, Senator, and I know a lot of folks
have talked about a Goldwater-Nichols-like Act for
intelligence, but frankly, there's a lot of Goldwater-Nichols
that would be very hard to transfer. The Intelligence Community
is not organized the way DOD is, but title IV of Goldwater-
Nichols, which is the personnel title, is the one I think is
wholly transferable, from its experience with DOD, to the
Intelligence Community. I can tell you, as a military officer,
one of the most powerful sanctions of legislation I've seen in
my military career was that one sentence in Goldwater-Nichols
that says, ``The promotion rates of officers on the joint staff
shall be equal to or greater than the promotion rates of
officers on the military headquarter staffs.'' Took 3 to 5
years, but it made all the difference.
I've thought about this, and what I would advise the
Ambassador, if we are confirmed, is to set personnel policies--
and not to overreach here. He doesn't have to reach way down
into every aspect of how personnel are governed within the
Intelligence Community, but to wisely select those factors that
he needs to take control of to set the standards for, to
develop an ethos of cooperation. To develop within the
Intelligence Community an ethos of collaboration. I would
strongly urge to Ambassador Negroponte that that's where he set
his sights, on those tools, those personnel levers, whatever
they might be, but if they configure to an ethos of
collaboration, those are the ones he should claim immediately,
and set the standard for.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Another important authority
granted by the new law confers the Director of National
Intelligence control over the Intelligence Community's budget
for the National Intelligence program. This authority includes
determining the intelligence budget up front, presenting the
recommendations to the President, executing the intelligence
funding as appropriated by Congress, and transferring funds in
order to meet emerging threats. The legislation also makes very
clear that the DNI, in executing the budget authority, has a
direct relationship with intelligence agencies, including the
NSA, the NGA, and the NRO, in determining the budget. Some of
us have been somewhat concerned by a memo that the Secretary of
Defense put out that could be interpreted as requiring the DNI
to go through the Under Secretary for Intelligence, rather than
having a direct relationship, as the law envisions, with those
three agencies. They are housed in the Pentagon, provide
important intelligence to our troops, but also are national in
their approach and serve all of the Intelligence Community.
Would you tell me how you interpret that relationship, and do
you believe, as the law intends, that the DNI should have a
direct relationship with the heads of those intelligence
agencies.
General Hayden. Yes, ma'am. I'm familiar with the memo you
refer to, and I should point out that almost all the prose in
that memo was actually very supportive of the objectives of the
legislation and the DNI.
Senator Collins. Almost.
General Hayden. But the one sentence has drawn a lot of
attention.
As Ambassador Negroponte said in his testimony in front of
the Intelligence Committee, he cannot conceive of his
performing his job without direct communication with those very
large agencies that are housed inside the Department of
Defense. They comprise about 80 to 85 percent of what I call
his ``combat power,'' and the legislation is very clear that
his guidance, in terms of fiscal guidance, to those
organizations, goes to them directly, and that those agencies'
response to that fiscal guidance comes back to him directly,
and so I'm convinced that he fully intends to follow that
outline as the law lays out.
I should add, too, that you have made the DNI's fiscal
authorities more robust than the DCI's were. The DCI used to
prepare and present the budget. You put that very powerful verb
``determine'' in there as well, and you suggest, and I think
this is very important, you've given the DNI a lot more
authority in the back end of the fiscal process, in terms of
the allocation of funds, kind of financial officer sorts of
functions.
But even in the previous world when we had a DCI, and his
budgetary authorities were limited, that minor communication
between the DCI and the agencies was also direct, so, in that
sense, you've given the DNI more authority. Your direct
communications chain is simply a continuation of the world as
we had it when we had a DCI.
Senator Collins. Thank you, General, I wish you well in
your new position, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator, and also for the work
of your committee, together with our distinguished colleague,
who shepherded this statute through. Now as you look at this
individual, you say to yourself, ``Good luck.''
Senator Collins. You noticed I avoided that phrase, and
wished him well, instead.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me join you in
thanking Senator Collins for the leadership that she and
Senator Lieberman so forcefully put forward. This legislation
could not have happened without their leadership. I think it's
on the right track. It's going to work out well. There are a
lot of questions that have to be answered, but I think the
spirit of the legislation was right. It was done with great
care and detail. So General, I think you're given a mandate
here which you can really run with and make significant
improvements in the intelligence operations.
One of the issues which has troubled me is the intelligence
that was received before Iraq and just how flawed it was.
Without re-hashing all of that, I guess one of the questions
that I would want to ask you actually supplements the question
which the chair asked. He asked whether you'd give us your
unvarnished, professional opinion on matters. Your answer was
`yes.' It's also important that you give your unvarnished
independent, objective analyses to the policymakers, the
executive branch. So my question is, are you willing to speak
truth to power?
General Hayden. Of course, Senator, and in that regard,
I've kind of got a two sentence rule book. Number one is, I
would obviously always speak the truth, and number two, those
people who need to know, will know what my version of the truth
is.
Senator Levin. Some of the people who need to know the
information that you have available to you are in the
legislative branch. Frankly, many of us have been frustrated by
the lack of responsiveness on the part of parts of the
Intelligence Community and other Federal agencies to Congress
in the request for documents, and the declassification of
documents. The chairman asked you the question whether you
would provide documents in a timely manner to Congress. Your
answer was that you would do so. All too often in the past,
that has not been the case. We've had problems getting
documents on subjects ranging from intelligence assessments on
Iraq to detainee abuse. In one instance, the Armed Services
Committee waited for more than a year to get questions for the
record answered from the former DCI. In other instances, the
CIA promised to provide declassified or classified documents,
and then failed to do so for a year. This is just totally
unacceptable. It's a very frustrating process to extract
documents from agencies who are not cooperative. You probably
could have guessed that it's the case, but let me assure that
it's a very frustrating process. It is time-consuming. It leads
to holds on nominations. It leads to embarrassing questions at
hearings. It is not healthy. I was pleased to get an answer
from the current DCI, Porter Goss, to a letter that I wrote
him, and a question that I asked him at a confirmation hearing
when he said he would look into these delays. Here's what he
wrote to me on April 6, when he was delivering some materials
which we had been waiting for, for a long, long time. He said,
``There is no excuse for such delays. I have conveyed to my
staff that this is not how the Agency will treat requests.'' So
he is making a significant statement when he writes that. I
hope you would adopt that philosophy with the folks that you
will be supervising--that there are no excuses for delays to
requests from Congress. As part of our oversight process, it is
essential we receive documents. I would hope you would adopt
the same philosophy which was set forth in that letter to me
from Porter Goss.
General Hayden. I know from time to time there may be
limits placed on me as part of the executive branch, but let me
assure you, I will do my utmost to cooperate with the
committee. I take that obligation seriously, and frankly,
Senator, I think my track record at NSA bears me out on that.
Senator Levin. Yours was not one of the agencies I was
referring to when I made reference to the agencies which have
frustrated the legitimate oversight questions from members and
from the committee itself. We thank you for that commitment.
One of the documents that we've been waiting for, and this
is a document that the Chairman and I have requested of the
Department of Defense in this case, is a document that you may
be familiar with. There was a memorandum dated March 14, 2003,
which was prepared by the Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
John Yoo, titled ``Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful
Combatants Held Outside of the United States.'' This is a memo
which Admiral Church referred to in his report on interrogation
techniques and operations. I'm wondering whether you are
familiar with that memo?
General Hayden. Senator, as I've discussed informally with
your staff, I have no recollection of the document and
certainly have not seen them, and frankly, as the Director of
NSA, I wouldn't expect to see a document of that type because
it dealt with activities that are outside the scope of NSA
authority.
Senator Levin. I am not surprised by that fact either. We
would ask you on your confirmation to take a look at the
records of the new agency, and the agencies that they control,
see if that document is in the possession of those agencies,
and if so, tell us whether you will provide this committee with
that document.
General Hayden. Yes, sir, Senator, and I know that
Ambassador Negroponte has promised to look into this matter as
well, if confirmed, and I of course will strongly support him
in that effort.
Senator Levin. Thank you. The Bolton nomination has raised
a question about protecting U.S. identities--these are U.S.
people, who are either participants in a conversation,
communication, which is intercepted and included in a signal
intelligence (SIGINT) product, where the identity of that
person is blocked, or sometimes as said, is minimized, and is
referred to generally as ``A U.S. person.'' There are also many
cases where that person is not a participant in the
conversation, but is referred to in a conversation, and the
identity of that person is also protected as well.
At the Intelligence Committee hearing with you last week,
you said that there's a formal written and documented process
for U.S. Government officials to request the identity of a U.S.
person referred to in a SIGINT process, is that correct?
General Hayden. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Senator Levin. Now, I take it there are a large number of
requests which come in for the identity of a U.S. person who
has been minimized. Can you tell us whether the majority of
those requests, indeed the vast majority of those requests, are
made in the case where the person identified is not the
participant in the conversation, but rather is someone who is
referred to in the conversation?
General Hayden. Thank you very much for that question,
Senator. First of all, to frame the issue for me as Director of
NSA, the issue here is the protection of American privacy, and
everything then evolves out of that fundamental principle--how
do we protect U.S. privacy? In the course of accomplishing our
mission, it's almost inevitable that we would learn information
about Americans, to or from, in terms of communications. The
same rules apply, though, in protecting privacy, whether it's
to, from, or about an American. You're correct. In the vast
majority of the cases, the information is about an American
being referred to in communications between individuals that I
think the committee would be most enthusiastic that we were
conducting our operations against.
Senator Levin. That's a very helpful clarification. My time
is up, but can I just end this line of questioning? Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think the press has already
indicated that there were apparently 10 requests from Mr.
Bolton.
General Hayden. Yes, sir, I've seen that number.
Senator Levin. Do you know whether or not the majority of
his requests were for persons referred to in the conversation,
or for a participant in the conversation?
General Hayden. Yes, sir, I would like to respond to that
for the record in a classified way, it's a classified matter.
[The information referred to follows:]
[Deleted.]
Senator Levin. That's fine. The other questions that
relate, not just to him, but to anybody. The person who makes
this written application for the information states
specifically what that purpose is that they want that
information for, is that correct?
General Hayden. Yes, sir, Senator, but in all cases, the
purpose comes down to the fundamental principle, I need to know
the identity of that individual to understand or appreciate the
intelligence value of the report.
Senator Levin. Is that printed there as a purpose, or does
that have to be filled in by the applicant?
General Hayden. Senator, I'm not exactly sure what the form
looks like, but I can tell you that's the only criteria on
which we would release the U.S. person's information.
Senator Levin. All right. But you don't know how that
purpose is stated in these thousands of applications.
General Hayden. I'd have to check, sir.
Senator Levin. Or in Mr. Bolton's applications.
General Hayden. Correct, sir.
Senator Levin. Okay, and then, once the information is
obtained, you do not know the use to which that information is
put, I gather, is that correct?
General Hayden. No. We would report the information to an
authorized consumer in every dimension, in terms of both
security clearance and need to know, just like we would report
any other information.
Senator Levin. But then, you don't know what that person
does with that information?
General Hayden. No. The presumption, obviously, is that the
individual uses that then to appreciate the original report.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Let's sit back and relax for a minute. I
want to indulge in something which will give me a lot of
personal pleasure.
You majored in History. I majored in Physics and
Mathematics, and I came up short on history, so I've tried the
balance of my life to study a lot of history. I read, really
two categories of books, books on art to relax in the late
hours of the night before I try to catch a wink of sleep, and
books on history to constantly learn, because I think history
is a rear view mirror of life.
So, I'm currently reading a fascinating book by Ford
Donovan of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). I had a very
short but, nevertheless, auspicious and privileged tour of
service at the end of World War II, in the Navy, and I grew up
with that generation. I had the occasion once to meet Donovan,
and what an impressive man he was. I got to know David Bruce
very well, who was one of his basic partners and lieutenants in
this. Anyway, this book details the following of how OSS was
set up. I'm going to present this so you can just sit back and
listen.
It was Roosevelt; it was his idea to set this up. The
appointment of Colonel Donovan, he was just a Colonel then, as
Director of the forerunner of the Office of OSS, was formally
announced by Executive order on July 11, 1941. His duties were
defined in Roosevelt's own words, ``To collect and analyze all
information and data which may bear upon national security, to
collate such information and data and make the same available
to the President and to such departments and officials of the
government as the President may determine, and to carry out,
when requested by the President, such supplementary activities
as may facilitate the securing of information important for
national security, not now available to the government.'' Not
unlike your charge, wouldn't you say?
Now, wait for what happened. The directive was purposely
obscure in its wording, and I think those of us who
participated, and my dear friend and colleague here, Senator
Levin and I worked with our colleagues on the other side,
sometimes not all with full harmony. We finally cranked out
that statute, but, I repeat, ``the directive was purposely
obscure in its wording due to the secret and potentially
offensive nature of the agency's functions, and the other
intelligence organizations, jealous of their prerogatives, took
advantage of the vague phraseology to set loose a flock of
rumors that Donovan, one, was to be the Heinrich Himmler of an
American Gestapo--this is 1941 in this great country of ours--
the Goebbels of a controlled press, a super spy over Hoover's
G-Men and the Army and Navy, the head of a grand strategy board
that would dictate even to the General's staff. The
bureaucratic war was on. It was a war all too familiar to
Washington, the dog-eat-dog struggle among government
departments to preserve their own area of power.'' I'll
autograph it for you.
General Hayden. Thank you, Senator, and I thank you for the
words of encouragement. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. I hope that you will not encounter the
same problems. It really goes on in greater detail, which you
wouldn't believe, about what Hoover did to assure that this
department would not have any power. It's a fascinating
chapter.
You made reference to Goldwater-Nichols, and Senator Levin
and I were very privileged in our years here on the committee
to work with those two fine gentlemen, and a staff member named
Jim Locher. I have a recollection of the phrase that you put in
there, and it drew on the vast experience of those two men and
their service to the country in uniform. I just hope that in
the future when we re-visit, and the Senator and I have thought
about it, trying to re-visit Goldwater-Nichols, that we can
draw on the same quantum of wisdom, and perhaps yours, to even
make that concept, or those concepts, plural, even stronger.
Senator Levin asked some very pointed questions, as he
always does, and it prompted my first question. I would have to
say, again, from a personal basis, one of the most difficult
episodes of the history of this committee in the 27 years we've
been here, were the revelations of the Abu Ghraib prison
problem, and how that affected the professional military of the
United States of America, and most particularly the
intelligence sections to which you've dedicated so much of your
career.
The statute, I don't think, is specific, but I would
presume that the office of the DNI would have some role in
establishing a level of parallelism, or checks and balances of
the several agencies which have the specific statutory
responsibility for interrogating prisoners, and that you
would--in a supervisory way--overlook what they're doing. Now,
whether they'll all be identical, I'm not about to predict, but
I would like the record to reflect that Ambassador Negroponte
and yourself will become active in that area, in the hope that
we do not see another chapter, ever, in our history as we
witnessed in that prison abuse problem.
General Hayden. Senator, what I will say now is going to be
obviously preliminary, because the Ambassador and I are still
getting organized and so on, and obviously, it is prior to
confirmation. A thought I've had and informally shared with the
Ambassador is, right now as the Director of NSA, I am--in
addition to running that Agency--the National SIGINT manager,
which doesn't suggest that I control where Rivet Joints or EP-
3s are going to fly in the Pacific Command's area of
responsibility (AOR) or anything like that, but that I am
broadly responsible for the legal or technical realities under
which any of those missions are conducted.
It occurs to me that that's a principle that we might be
able to transfer to other intelligence disciplines, Human
Intelligence (HUMINT) and imagery. In terms of HUMINT, the
interrogation of prisoners would then fall under that broad
rubric, so I think the Ambassador would certainly understand
your concern, and want to work to set the broad standards
within which different elements of the community would operate.
There's a balance here. I don't think you want him to be
working a lever that controls the actions of an E-3 in a combat
situation, but he can create the structure within which that E-
3 understands the standards to which he will be held. I think
that would be a legitimate responsibility of the DNI.
Chairman Warner. But the interrogation process of prisoners
is an essential part of intelligence gathering, and many of us,
and many Americans, have learned more about that process than
ever before as a consequence of this tragic situation. In order
not to ever let that happen again, and I'm not even suggesting
that you be the supervisory authority of the incarceration of
these individuals down to how they're handled, the techniques
to be employed by the several agencies and departments of the
government, should have, I think, a review authority. I would
hope that your new department would have a certain amount of
that review authority. There may be others, the Department of
Justice (DOJ), individual cabinet officers, I'm not suggesting
you're going to take the whole thing over, but I think the
American public would like to know that your new department
would have a role in examining the practices to ensure that
this type of situation would never happen again.
General Hayden. Yes sir, I think the Ambassador is on
record as saying that, while, clearly, the broad legal review
would come from the DOJ, that it would be his responsibility to
ensure that those standards are implemented throughout the
community, but that if anyone does cross the line, appropriate
action would be taken.
Chairman Warner. The other tragic chapter that we have had
here, and this committee was very much involved, is the
intelligence failures associated with the weapons of mass
destruction. We are not here today to begin to go back over how
that happened, but I am sure that you and Ambassador Negroponte
will exercise the supervisory authority that you have to
carefully provide that everything possible be done so that will
never re-occur.
I have found in my years of experience that the
intelligence officers are a very dedicated group of people,
whether they're in uniform or civilian. I have a high regard
for the Agency. It's not that the Agency is in my State, but I
have known, personally, so many individuals who have served in
the CIA through the years, their families, and they take the
risks, those civilians, often commensurate with the men and
women in uniform.
Consequently, as a career military officer, you clearly
understand what is required to achieve the professional skills
and leadership competence necessary to accomplish the missions
and advance professionally within the respective military
services. The Intelligence Reform Act gives the DNI significant
authority in the assignment, the transfer, extension, and
training of military personnel. How will you ensure the
military personnel are managed in such a way that enables them
to contribute to the national intelligence effort, and to
maintain the ability to advance professionally within their
respective services? Now that, in some ways, is parallel to
your observation about the language in Goldwater-Nichols.
General Hayden. When you look at the broad community, my
sense is the area, the field, in which the DNI is going to have
to go first, and through major plowing, is with regard to the
civilian workforce, because a lot of the things, Senator, that
you and I take for granted for our G.I. workforce--that initial
training, that professional military education, that leadership
training--already happens. That said, there are some things, I
think, the DNI needs to focus on for the military workforce.
Here's an area of absolutely total coincidence of interest
between the DNI and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, and Secretary Cambone has actually talked about
this quite forcefully.
We need to ensure, number one, that that military force is
well-trained. I think we do pretty well at that. I'm not as
convinced that broad military personnel policies responding to
the needs of the Department as a whole pay enough attention to
the personnel policies of the intelligence folks within that
broad system, specifically, tour lengths. How long do you let a
kid work a particular problem in NSA, a particular work
station, because only over time do you build up that kind of
expertise? There's an area, I think, we might want to work on
with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
One final issue I would add, and I know Steve is very
forceful about this--how do we reward folks? How does the
Department of Defense, how does the military structure reward,
for example, excellence in language? Secretary Chu is taking
that one on now. Secretary Wolfowitz, before he left, signed a
directive that I think is quite bold in terms of setting up a
structure where language is afforded the kind of respect it
should have within the Department, in terms of investment and
reward for effort. Those are some areas, I think we could strap
on quite quickly.
Chairman Warner. I listen with great interest with respect
to your observations about Secretary Cambone. I have gotten to
know him quite well in the context of the working relationships
that the two of us have professionally, and I have a high
personal regard for him. By coincidence, Senator Levin and I
met earlier this morning with Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary
Cambone on matters directly related to some of the functions
that you are going to be taking up. Let's just go right to this
question--Rumsfeld and Cambone have initiated efforts to
improve the intelligence capabilities of the Department of
Defense, and, particularly with regard to support for combatant
commanders, they're working on a charter now. Drafts of that
charter were provided, and I think there's some staff over here
that are beginning to form up for you and Ambassador
Negroponte, and I think they have a copy of it. Ambassador
Negroponte, when I spoke with him, said he knew that that draft
charter was there, but he had not had the opportunity to go
over it. Maybe you have or haven't. It's to be done, and I
think it's important to the re-modeling of the defense
intelligence initiative within the Department of Defense to be
worked out in conjunction with yourself and Ambassador
Negroponte and such others that may have a voice. I think
they've expressed to us a willingness to take into
consideration your views, because you've already indicated the
Department of Defense is probably the largest user, if you
quantify this thing. It is essential that the Department of
Defense work in harmony with the DNI. We can't write that into
law. We can't go into all those details, and that's why I think
there's a certain--I'll use the word in this book--vagueness
associated with the statute, and from that has to come the
dynamics of the personalities who are directly involved. I
happen to have a great deal of respect for Secretary Rumsfeld.
We sort of grew up in the same manner in our political systems.
When I was Secretary of the Navy, he was in the White House, so
that's 30 some-odd years ago. So we've known each other these
years, and I detect in him a strong willingness to really try
and make this system work. So, I wish him well.
Do you have any concerns that you'd like to share with the
committee now, or would you just like to await your further
evaluation for that?
General Hayden. Well, Senator, I'll share a few thoughts.
You mentioned the remodeling of defense intelligence that
Secretary Cambone has underway. I just jotted down three or
four ideas that came to mind immediately inside that: the
intelligence campaign plans that he's commissioned to be
written to support our major war plans; the creation of joint
operation intelligence centers, which is a recognition that
intelligence is an inherently operational function; the move in
unified campaign planning to give General Cartwright and U.S.
Strategic Command, a quite powerful role when it comes to
global intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. Frankly,
Senator, as far as I'm concerned, all of those are pure virtue,
and those fit hand-in-glove, I think, with what the legislation
intends for the DNI, and with what Ambassador Negroponte
intends to do as Director of National Intelligence. I think I
can share with you he has confided to me that he intends to
build a cooperative relationship with the Secretary.
There is one question that Senator Collins posed earlier
with regard to how the DNI communicates with the big agencies
that are, and should remain, within the Department of Defense.
I think the law does the right thing. It doesn't attempt to
write the Magna Carta describing the existential dimensions of
this relationship. It enumerates the powers of the DNI. It says
the DNI should do this, and they should do this--I think that's
quite clear, and I think if we follow that game plan, you
should have every expectation that this should work out very
well.
Chairman Warner. Well, those are encouraging observations.
I'll yield to you, Senator, and then I might come back for a
close-up question.
Senator Levin. General, I asked you before about a specific
document, and you indicated you weren't familiar with it and
that you would see if it's in the possession of any of the
agencies that you'll be supervising, or your own agency. We
appreciate that.
There's a second memo that is of similar importance that's
related to detainee interrogation that has been of great
interest to the committee and Congress. One of the ways in
which this affects this committee's oversight responsibility is
that the techniques that were set forth in this second memo may
have been used, probably were used, at Abu Ghraib, which is a
facility which the Department of Defense operates. So we don't
know if it was Defense Department people or not, but
nonetheless, the second memo which I want you look into for us
is clearly relevant to our oversight responsibility of defense
facilities. This is the memo which was signed by Assistant
Attorney General Jay Bybee, at the Office of Legal Counsel,
which evaluated the legality of specific interrogation
techniques. It was produced around August 2002. I wonder if you
would give us the same assurance that you will, if you're not
already familiar with that memo, that you would look to see
whether or not it is in the possession of the new agency, or
the agencies which it supervises, and if so, whether you will
either provide that document to this committee, or if not, you
would promptly tell us why not.
General Hayden. Yes, Senator, I understand, and I am very
much aware of the committee's interest. I am not familiar with
the document, but I know that Ambassador Negroponte has
promised to look into it, and I, again, will aggressively
support him in that.
Senator Levin. All right, and if it's not going to be
provided to this committee, that we be promptly informed of
that fact, and why it would not be?
General Hayden. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
I think we have fully covered in an exhaustive way the
important issues relating to your new functions. The record for
this hearing will remain open throughout this week. As such,
Senators can provide additional questions for your response. I
think we've had an excellent hearing, General, and I wish the
best good fortune to you and your family. I don't think the
family will see much of you for awhile, but I guess you've been
through that before. Thank you very much, sir.
General Hayden. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. The hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Kenneth J. Krieg by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. Almost 20 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
legislation establishing the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, the reforms resulting from the implementation of the
Goldwater-Nichols Act have become entrenched in our daily business and
will continue to be cornerstones. The effectiveness of joint operations
has been clearly demonstrated in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and I strongly support continued and
increased efforts to improve the jointness of our military forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe that the implementation of Goldwater-Nichols
(over the past 19 years) has been successful and consistent with
congressional intent.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. From an acquisition perspective, the changes resulting from
implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986--particularly the
placement of the acquisition function under the control of civilian
leadership within the military departments--have been important factors
in enabling the acquisition community to more efficiently and
effectively deliver the capabilities that the joint warfighters need to
meet the challenges of the 21st century.
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 over the military; 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; 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 believe that legislative proposals to amend
Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you think it
might be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. It is important to continue to look at how well our current
processes and structures meet the demands of our dynamic environment.
There are several initiatives and studies addressing these kinds of
issues; however the results are not yet final. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with the Committee on these issues.
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)).
If you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that Secretary
Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, as Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, I will perform the statutory
functions of establishing policies on all acquisition matters including
supervising the military department's acquisition systems and
processes. I will serve as the Defense Acquisition Executive with
associated responsibilities of supervising the performance of the
Department of Defense Acquisition System; serve as the Defense
Logistics Executive; serve as the Department of Defense Procurement
Executive; serve as the National Armaments Director and Secretary of
Defense representative to the semi-annual NATO Five Power conference
and Conference of National Armaments Directors; and chair the Nuclear
Weapons Council. I will oversee developmental testing and evaluation
and the Joint Test and Evaluation Program with the DOT&E, and manage
the Foreign Comparative Test Program. I will serve as the Principal
Staff Assistant for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the
Defense Contract Management Agency, the Defense Logistics Agency, the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and the Missile Defense Agency.
Additionally, I will develop international memoranda of agreement and
memoranda of understanding relating to acquisition matters; and
supervise the Defense Science Board.
Question. Do you recommend any changes to the provisions of section
133 of title 10, United States Code, with respect to the duties of the
USD(ATL)?
Answer. No.
Question. If confirmed, what duties and responsibilities would you
plan to assign to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics
and Materiel Readiness?
Answer. If confirmed, I would assign the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology (DUSD(A&T)) as my principal
advisor on acquisition and technology matters and as the principal
acquisition official within senior management of the DOD. He/she would
advise and assist me across the full range of my responsibilities in
providing staff advice and assistance to the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary of Defense. In this capacity, the DUSD(A&T) would monitor and
review the DOD Acquisition System and oversee the development,
implementation, and management of the Defense Procurement program.
If confirmed, I would assign the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Logistics and Materiel Readiness (DUSD (L&MR)) as my principal
advisor on logistics and materiel readiness matters, and as the
principal logistics official within the senior management of the DOD.
He/she would advise and assist me across the full range of my
responsibilities in providing staff advice and assistance to the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. In this capacity, the DUSD
(L&MR) would monitor and review all logistics, maintenance, materiel
readiness, strategic mobility, and sustainment support programs.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the USD(ATL)?
Answer. There are many challenges facing the Department that fall
under the purview of the USD(AT&L). Perhaps the most important of these
is to provide the warfighter the capabilities necessary to achieve
victory in the global war on terrorism. Additionally, I consider the
following some of the more pressing challenges I would face, if
confirmed:
Ensuring the acquisition process is transparent,
objective, timely, and accountable.
Developing successful, integrated supply chains to
meet the warfighters needs.
Building the strategic human capital of the defense
acquisition workforce.
Setting a vision and supporting program for the
research and development priorities to meet the needs of the
coming generation.
Working to establish joint requirements that balance
among performance, schedule, and cost.
Successfully managing the infrastructure transitions
of BRAC and Global Basing.
Working through the industrial base challenges of our
day.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. In several of these areas good work is already underway;
building on those efforts to ensure successful implementation will be
key. The Quadrennial Defense Review report will include recommendations
to improve the Department's management, organization, and
decisionmaking.
In other areas, if confirmed, I will have to develop a leadership
agenda, which will require consultation within the Department, with
Congress, and with Industry.
MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEM ACQUISITION
Question. Describe the approach taken by the Department to reducing
cycle time for major acquisition programs. Do you believe the
Department's approach has been successful?
Answer. DOD has made considerable progress in implementing policy
that should reduce cycle time and allow us to field capability rapidly
and efficiently. These new policies are streamlined and flexible, and
based on an evolutionary or phased acquisition approach. That approach
emphasizes maturing technology before committing to major investment
decisions, but also allows fielding some capability earlier. As a
result, we are able to reduce program technical risk substantially.
Question. What specific steps has the Department of Defense taken
to adopt incremental or phased acquisition approaches, such as spiral
development?
Answer. In May 2003 Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
issued new policies that identify evolutionary acquisition as the
preferred strategy for satisfying operational needs, and spiral
development is the preferred process for executing such strategies.
Their objective is to put capability into the hands of the warfighter
as quickly as possible, while pursuing an acquisition strategy that
will permit growth in capabilities over time.
Question. How will the requirements process, budget process, and
testing regime change to accommodate spiral development?
Answer. The new policies governing the Joint Capabilities
Integration and Development System (the JCIDS process, formerly known
as the ``requirements'' process), the Acquisition System, and the Test
and Evaluation process were tailored to facilitate evolutionary
acquisition.
Question. How should the Department ensure that incremental or
phased acquisition programs have appropriate baselines against which to
measure performance?
Answer. The policies provide that each program or increment shall
have an Acquisition Program Baseline establishing program goals--
thresholds and objectives--for the minimum number of cost, schedule,
and performance parameters that describe the program over its life
cycle.
Question. Over the last several years, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has prepared a series of reports for this
Committee comparing DOD's approach to the acquisition of major systems
with the approach taken by best performers in the private sector. GAO's
principal 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. The Department has
responded to these findings by adopting technological maturity goals in
its acquisition policies.
How important is it, in your view, for the Department to mature its
technologies with research and development funds before these
technologies are incorporated into product development programs?
Answer. The continued advancement of technologies is essential to
maintain the operational superiority of our weapon systems. It is very
important that the proper match between technology maturity and weapon
system requirements exists.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
the key components and technologies to be incorporated into major
acquisition programs meet the Department's technological maturity
goals?
Answer. The framework for accomplishing this is present in the DOD
acquisition processes--the challenge lies in the program construct and
in the decisionmaking that must occur at critical milestone points. The
DOD Science and Technology community develops technology readiness
assessments for major programs. The challenge is to ensure that these
technology readiness assessments are properly considered and that
immature technologies are not pushed forward with major systems. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that these issues are debated and
understood.
WEAPONS SYSTEMS AFFORDABILITY
Question. The investment budget for weapon systems has grown
substantially over the past few years to approximately $150 billion per
year. An increasing share of this investment is being allocated to a
few very large systems such as the Joint Strike Fighter, Future Combat
Systems, and Missile Defense Agency.
Do you believe that the current investment budget for major systems
is affordable given historic cost growth in major systems, costs of
current operations, Army modularization, and asset recapitalization?
Answer. Yes, assuming current topline estimates and continuing
programmed costs in other areas. The Department has been funding most
major investment programs at more realistic estimates than in the past.
This is a practice I intend to continue, if confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to address this issue and
guard against the potential impact of weapon systems cost growth?
Answer. The Department must ensure that only those technologies and
capabilities that are technologically mature are included in new
platforms. If confirmed, I also intend to work to ensure that program
requirements are well understood at program initiation, and stabilized
as much as possible over the long term to guard against ``requirement
creep.''
LEAD SYSTEM INTEGRATOR
Question. On the Future Combat Systems program and several other
major defense acquisition programs, the Department has hired a lead
system integrator to set requirements, evaluate proposals, and
determine which systems will be incorporated into future weapon
systems.
What are your views on the lead system integrator approach to
managing the acquisition of major weapon systems?
Answer. I do not have a specific view today. If confirmed, I will
develop a view on this question. Certainly complex systems are a
challenge, but the government must remain responsible for overall
performance requirements and oversight of program execution.
Question. What lines do you believe the Department should draw
between those acquisition responsibilities that are inherently
governmental and those that may be performed by contractors?
Answer. The rules regarding the performance of inherently
governmental functions do not vary. The Government retains
responsibility for the execution of the program, makes all
requirements, budgeting and policy decisions, and does source
selections at the prime level.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
lead system integrators do not misuse their access to sensitive and
proprietary information of the Department of Defense and other defense
contractors?
Answer. Again, I do not know the details of this question today,
but the Department has contract terms, backed up by law and regulation,
that govern what a prime contractor can do with information gained in
the performance of a contract. Likewise, the subcontract arrangement
established between the prime and subcontractor contains provisions
that protect the subcontractor's information from misuse. If confirmed,
I will develop a view on this question.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
lead system integrators do not unnecessarily limit competition in a
manner that would disadvantage the government or potential competitors
in the private sector?
Answer. This is a concern that arises in many programs as the
defense industrial base becomes more concentrated. It is not an issue
particular to contracts using lead system integrators. The Department
is dealing with the issue by expanding the use of authorities,
inserting a ``Consent to Subcontract'' clause, consenting to
subcontracts the prime intends to award, and getting significant
insight into the subcontractor source selection process.
MULTI-YEAR 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 multi-year
contracts.
What are your views on multi-year procurements? Under what
circumstances do you believe they should be used?
Answer. In general, I favor multi-year procurements that offer
substantial savings through improved economies in production processes,
better use of industrial facilities, and a reduction in the
administrative burden in the placement and administration of contracts.
A key factor in the successful use of multi-year procurements is the
intelligent selection of the programs. The following criteria should be
used for deciding whether a program should be considered for multi-year
application: substantial savings when compared to the annual
contracting methods; validity and stability of the mission need;
stability of the funding; stability of the configuration; tolerable
associated technical risks; degree of confidence in estimates of both
contract costs and anticipated savings; and promotion of national
security.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, should DOD break a
multi-year procurement contract?
Answer. Given careful screening of programs prior to awarding the
multi-year contract, there should be limited circumstances that would
result in the breaking (i.e., cancellation) of a multi-year contract.
However, changes in the view of the criteria above can happen in a
rapidly changing world. Those changes will have to be considered.
Question. How would you treat proposals to renegotiate multi-year
procurements?
Answer. If confirmed, I would treat proposals to renegotiate multi-
year procurements very cautiously to ensure that the changing
circumstances dictate the need for change.
LEASING
Question. Over the last several years, there has been much debate
concerning the leasing of capital equipment to be used by the military
services. Advocates of leasing capital equipment have argued that
leases can enable the Department to obtain new equipment without
significant upfront funding. Opponents of such leases have argued that
this approach shifts today's budget problems to future generations,
limiting the flexibility of future leaders to address emerging national
security issues.
What are your views on leasing of capital equipment, and under what
circumstances, if any, do you believe such leasing is a viable
mechanism for providing capabilities to the Department?
Answer. Leasing of capital equipment could be a potential option
when the equipment is truly commercially available outside of DOD and
can meet the requirements established by the Office of Management and
Budget. If confirmed, I would address any leasing proposals in
objective fashion.
Question. What do you believe were the major problems with the
tanker lease proposal?
Answer. My views on the tanker lease proposal as Director of PA&E
are now a matter of public record. The proposal has been critiqued by a
series of independent reviewers--including the Congressional Budget
Office, the Congressional Research Service, the National Defense
University, the Government Accountability Office, and the Department of
Defense Inspector General.
Question. What lessons do you believe the Department of Defense
should learn from the failed effort to lease tanker aircraft?
Answer. Perhaps the most compelling lesson learned from the tanker
lease process is that the acquisition of major defense systems is the
people's process. The undertaking of such a momentous program must be
fully transparent and consider the concerns of all the relevant
stakeholders. If confirmed, I would continue to work to ensure that the
lessons learned are incorporated into the training, education, and
business processes of the Department.
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
Question. Problems with computer software have caused significant
delays and cost overruns in a number of major defense programs. Section
804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
required DOD to establish a program to improve software acquisition
processes.
What is the status of DOD's efforts to improve software development
in major weapon systems?
Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
Question. What additional steps would you take, if confirmed, to
address delays and cost overruns associated with problems in the
development of software for major weapon systems?
Answer. I understand the importance and challenge in this area and,
if confirmed, would develop a better understanding of the Department's
current effort and my own view of appropriate next steps.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Question. When a required capability is defined, one method to
ensure that capability is provided in the most cost-effective manner is
through the conduct of an analysis of alternatives. This analysis not
only helps to present alternatives, but also assists in the
determination of key performance parameters and the threshold and
objective values of these parameters.
Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe it is appropriate
for the Department to proceed with the acquisition of a major system
without first conducting an analysis of alternatives?
Answer. The Department's Acquisition Policy requires the completion
of an analysis of alternatives prior to the initiation of any major
system acquisition. This is a sound business practice.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your position on conducting
analyses of alternatives for the programs for which you would be the
Milestone Decision Authority?
Answer. If confirmed, my duties as Under Secretary for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics and the Defense Acquisition Executive would
include management of the Department's formal acquisition process. The
analysis of alternatives is a requirement under that process, and I
would support it.
RAPID ACQUISITION
Question. Section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 gave the Secretary of Defense
new authority to waive certain statutes and regulations where necessary
to acquire equipment that is urgently needed to avoid combat
fatalities.
What plans do you have, if confirmed, to use the rapid acquisition
authority provided by section 811?
Answer. If confirmed, I would use the authority only if and when it
becomes necessary to acquire equipment that is urgently needed to avoid
combat fatalities.
Question. Do you believe that the Department has the authority and
flexibility it needs to rapidly acquire products needed to avoid combat
fatalities? If not, what additional authority or flexibility do you
believe is needed?
Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
Question. When the Department acquires equipment under section 811
or other authority without first undertaking full operational testing
and evaluation, what steps do you believe the Department should take to
ensure the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the equipment?
Answer. The QDR business practices team will look to determine how
to ensure that the sound aspects of the current acquisition approach--
operational testing, ensuring the long-term effectiveness and
sustainability of the equipment, etc.--are incorporated into follow-on
efforts to better ensure that equipment obtained under the provision of
rapid acquisition works and is supported.
SERVICES CONTRACTING
Question. Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase
in the volume of services purchased by the Department of Defense. At
the request of the committee, the GAO has compared DOD's practices for
the management of services contracts to the practices of best
performers in the private sector. GAO concluded that leading companies
have achieved significant savings by insisting upon greater visibility
and management over their services contracts and by conducting so-
called ``spend'' analyses to find more efficient ways to manage their
services contractors. Section 801 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 required DOD to move in this direction. While
DOD has initiated efforts to establish a management structure and
leverage its purchasing power, such efforts remain in various stages of
implementation.
What is the status of these efforts and do you believe the
Department is providing appropriate stewardship over services
contracts?
Answer. As Director of PA&E, I have not been involved in these
efforts. I understand that a number of efforts are underway, but have
not reviewed them personally. If confirmed, I look forward to working
on this area.
Question. Do you believe that the Department should conduct a
comprehensive analysis of its spending on contract services, as
recommended by GAO?
Answer. As Director of PA&E, I have not been involved in these
efforts. I understand that a number of efforts are underway, but have
not reviewed them personally. If confirmed, I look forward to working
on this area.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to improve the
Department's management of its contracts for services?
Answer. If confirmed, I would develop an approach to managing this
set of issues.
Question. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the
Department of Defense have long agreed that Federal agencies could
achieve significant savings and improved performance by moving to
``performance-based services contracting'' or ``PBSC''. Most recently,
the Army Environmental Program informed the committee that it has
achieved average savings of 27 percent over a period of several years
as a result of moving to fixed-price, performance-based contracts for
environmental remediation. Section 802 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, as amended, establishes
performance goals for increasing the use of PBSC in DOD service
contracts.
What is the status of the Department's efforts to increase the use
of PBSC in its services contracts?
Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
Question. What additional steps do you believe the Department needs
to take to increase the use of PBSC and meet the goals established in
section 802?
Answer. As Director of PA&E, I have not been involved in these
efforts. I understand that a number of efforts are underway, but have
not reviewed them personally. If confirmed, I look forward to working
on this area.
INTERAGENCY CONTRACTING
Question. GAO recently placed interagency contracting--the use by
one agency of contracts awarded by other agencies--on its list of high-
risk programs and operations. While interagency contracts provide a
much-needed, simplified method for procuring commonly used goods and
services, GAO has found that the dramatic growth of interagency
contracts, the failure to clearly allocate responsibility between
agencies, and the incentives created by fee-for-services arrangements,
have combined to expose the Department of Defense and other Federal
agencies to the risk of significant abuse and mismanagement. The DOD
Inspector General and the GSA Inspector General have identified a long
series of problems with interagency contracts, including lack of
acquisition planning, inadequate competition, excessive use of time and
materials contracts, improper use of expired funds, inappropriate
expenditures, and failure to monitor contractor performance. We
understand that DOD, in conjunction with the General Services
Administration and the Office of Management and Budget, is taking a
number of actions to improve training and guidance on the use of this
contract approach.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of the actions currently underway or planned regarding
DOD's use of other agencies' contracts?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue the efforts underway, such
as the January 1, 2005 policy on the ``Proper Use of Non-DOD
Contracts.'' Adequate data must be obtained so that DOD and the
assisting agencies know which DOD activities are utilizing non-DOD
contracts to meet their needs and to specifically identify what the
assisting agencies are acquiring on our behalf. I would also continue
the coordination between OSD and the assisting agencies (i.e., GSA,
Interior, Treasury, and NASA) to ensure that: (1) acquisitions are
compliant with all procurement regulations; (2) assisting agencies are
properly motivated to provide support to DOD; (3) training is available
to all members of the acquisition workforce (DOD and Assisting
Agencies); and (4) accurate acquisition data is captured for future
analysis.
Question. Do you believe additional authority or measures are
needed to hold DOD or other agency personnel accountable for their use
of interagency contracts?
Answer. Given what I know today, I believe the authority and
regulations are sufficient in terms of accountability.
Question. Do you believe contractors have any responsibility for
assuring that the work requested by personnel is within the scope of
their contract?
Answer. The primary responsibility for ensuring work is within the
scope of a contract rests with the contracting officer, but contractors
have some responsibility in the process. If a contractor receives an
order but has concerns about whether the service or item of supply
ordered is within scope of the contract, the contractor should bring
its concerns to the contracting officer. This should prompt the
contracting officer to confirm the validity of the order.
Question. Do you believe that DOD's continued heavy reliance on
outside agencies to do award and manage contracts on its behalf is a
sign that the Department has failed to adequately staff its own
acquisition system?
Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
``BUY AMERICA''
Question. ``Buy America'' issues have been the source of
considerable controversy in recent years. As a result, there have been
a number of legislative efforts to place restrictions on the purchase
of defense products from foreign sources.
What benefits do you believe the Department obtains from
international participation in the defense industrial base?
Answer. International sales, purchases, and licensed production
promote international defense cooperation and contribute to operational
interoperability and promote cost savings. These arrangements
rationalize the defense equipment supplier base to achieve the greatest
efficiency in equipping our collective forces.
Question. Under what conditions, if any, would you support the
imposition of domestic source restrictions for a particular product?
Answer. In certain instances involving national security and the
preservation of a key defense technology or production capability,
domestic source restrictions may be necessary.
THE DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE
Question. What is your view of the current state of the U.S.
defense industrial base?
Answer. Overall, U.S. defense systems lead the world, and the U.S.
industry that develops and builds them continues to be the most
technologically innovative, capable, and responsive in the world.
Nevertheless, there are and will always be challenges the Department
must address. If confirmed, I would work within the Department and with
Congress to address them.
Question. Do you support further consolidation of the U.S. defense
industry?
Answer. There should be no blanket policy of encouraging or
discouraging further consolidation or divestiture. Each proposed
transaction must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in the context of
the individual market, the changing dynamics of that market, and the
need to preserve competition.
Question. What is your position on foreign investment in the U.S.
defense sector?
Answer. In general, I favor foreign investment in the United
States, whether for defense industries or non-defense industries, so
long as the investment does not pose a threat to national security.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department of
Defense should take to ensure the continued health of the U.S. defense
industrial base?
Answer. The Department should continue to take actions and make
decisions that strengthen that portion of the industrial base that
supports defense. The Department also should continue to focus its
acquisition strategies, both for development and production, in a
manner that encourages true competition that drives innovation,
specifically drawing non-traditional suppliers into the defense
enterprise.
ROLE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (AT&L)
Question. Concerns have been expressed that over time the purview
of the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L has been
diminished. The Department has established a separate set of
regulations for the acquisition of space systems. The Missile Defense
Agency has the primary role for missile defense systems and has
established its own acquisition approach for these systems. Air Force
acquisition scandals and the use of Other Transaction Authority on the
Future Combat Systems program have raised questions as to the
effectiveness of oversight provided by the USD(AT&L).
Do you believe that the USD(AT&L) has the authority necessary to
provide effective oversight over major acquisition programs of the
military departments and defense agencies?
Answer. At this point, I believe USD(AT&L) has the necessary
authority for oversight of major defense acquisition programs.
Question. Do you believe that the USD(AT&L) should have additional
authority to reverse acquisition decisions of the military departments,
where the USD(AT&L) believes it is necessary to do so in the public
interest?
Answer. At this point, I believe USD(AT&L) has sufficient
authority.
Question. In your view, should the Service Acquisition Executives
report directly to the USD(AT&L)?
Answer. The current arrangement facilitates a strong tie between
the SAEs and their other Service leadership, including those
developing-capability needs. However, if confirmed, I would review this
issue as well as the reporting authorities for the technology
developers and the logistics and sustainment communities.
Question. What role, if any, should the USD(AT&L) perform in the
oversight and acquisition of joint programs, the acquisition of space
systems, and missile defense systems?
Answer. I am aware of the current arrangement for space systems and
for missile defense systems. If confirmed, I would review these
relationships.
OTHER TRANSACTIONS AND COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCUREMENT STRATEGY
Question. In recent years, the military departments have attempted
to acquire several major defense systems--such as the Air Force KC-767
tankers, the C-130J aircraft, and the Future Combat System--through
novel techniques and approaches such as Other Transaction Agreements
(OTAs) and commercial item designations. OTAs and commercial item
contracts exclude a number of statutory requirements--such as the Truth
in Negotiations Act and the Cost Accounting Standards--that were
intended for the protection of the taxpayer in the acquisition of major
weapon systems.
What is your view on the use OTAs or commercial item contracts to
acquire major weapon systems? Under what circumstances, if any, do you
believe that such acquisitions would be appropriate?
Answer. Section 845 Prototype OTAs provide a valuable acquisition
tool under very limited circumstances. It is important to limit use of
the OTA authority to remain within the parameters of the original
intent.
Question. If you believe that it may be appropriate to use OTAs or
commercial item contracts to acquire major weapon systems, what steps
should be taken to protect the public interest when using these
techniques?
Answer. This is an area I would need to examine in more detail if
confirmed.
procurement fraud, integrity, and contractor responsibility issues
Question. The recent Air Force acquisition scandal has raised
concerns about the adequacy of mechanisms to uphold procurement
integrity and prevent contract fraud.
What is your view of the adequacy of the tools and authorities
available to DOD to ensure that its contractors are responsible and
have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics?
Answer. I believe we have adequate tools and authorities to ensure
the responsibility and ethical behavior of DOD contractors. We must
constantly reinforce the conviction that such behavior is critically
important and must be led from the top.
Question. Are current ``revolving door'' statutes effective?
Answer. I believe the revolving door statutes are sufficient.
Question. What tools, other than law enforcement measures, could be
used to help prevent procurement fraud and ethical misconduct?
Answer. Some of the tools available include ensuring that decisions
are made at lower, more appropriate levels; no employee remains without
supervision for extended periods of time; no employee makes a large
proportion of source selection and other decisions; and employees,
especially senior ones, are evaluated on the ethics they display in
their dealings with industry, within the Department, and with their
subordinates.
Question. Are there sufficient enforcement mechanisms in place to
ensure compliance with laws and regulations?
Answer. Mechanisms exist, but culture must also be changed.
Training, emphasizing ethics in all our dealings and empowering
employees to speak out in the face of apparent unethical behavior are
key steps to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
Question. Over the last decade, DOD has reduced the size of its
acquisition workforce by almost half, without undertaking any
systematic planning or analysis to ensure that it would have the
specific skills and competencies needed to meet DOD's current and
future needs. Additionally, more than half of DOD's current workforce
will be eligible for early or regular retirement in the next 5 years.
While DOD has started the process of planning its long-term workforce
needs, GAO reports that the Department does not yet have a
comprehensive strategic workforce plan needed to guide its efforts.
What are the critical skills, capabilities, and tools that you
believe DOD's workforce needs for the future? If confirmed, what steps
would you take to ensure that the workforce would, in fact, possess
them?
Answer. The Department must aggressively plan for a motivated and
agile acquisition workforce whose capability is built on the
foundations of integrity, effective policy execution, mission focus,
and business excellence. If confirmed, I would aggressively lead and
promote department-wide strategies and programs to ensure that we have
the right acquisition, technology, and logistics workforce skills,
capabilities and tools to support statutory, policy and warfighter
requirements.
Question. Do you agree that the Department needs a comprehensive
human capital plan, including a gap analysis and specific recruiting,
retention and training goals, to guide the development of its
acquisition workforce?
Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
is leading department-wide efforts to ensure comprehensive human
capital planning and programs are in place at the department and
component level. If confirmed as the Under Secretary of Defense,
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, I would support those efforts,
and in particular, ensure that targeted human capital planning and
programs for the AT&L workforce across the components are effective and
aligned with AT&L strategy and guidance.
Question. Do you believe that DOD's workforce is large enough to
perform the tasks assigned to it? Do you support congressionally-
mandated cuts to the acquisition workforce, and do you think further
cuts are necessary?
Answer. This issue deserves further examination. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with the committee to understand the demand for
acquisition personnel and to appropriately size the workforce.
Question. Has the Department had difficulty in attracting and
retaining new staff to come into the acquisition workforce? If so, what
steps do you think are necessary to attract talented new hires?
Answer. The Department has succeeded in attracting and retaining
new acquisition workforce staff within the current economic environment
and hiring constraints. However, there is a continued need for improved
flexibilities and improved targeting of certain areas (e.g.,
engineering) to meet acquisition workforce recruiting and retention
needs. The Department's ability to attract and retain staff with the
right skill sets will be newly tested with the eventual onset of the
retirement of a significant percentage of the workforce.
Question. What are your views regarding assertions that the
acquisition workforce is losing its technical and management expertise
and is beginning to rely too much on support contractors, FFRDCs, and,
in some cases, prime contractors for this expertise?
Answer. The general degradation of technical expertise is not
limited to the government's workforce. We are seeing problems,
especially in systems engineering, across the board in government,
industry, and in the number of students in systems engineering
curricula. If confirmed, I would work on a range of issues to attract,
develop, and retain technical expertise in this field.
Question. What is the appropriate tenure for program managers and
program executive officers to ensure continuity in major programs?
Answer. The assignment period for program managers and program
executive officers must facilitate both continuity and individual
accountability. Assignments must be of such duration as to allow the
individual insight into and experience with the program in order to
make long range decisions that ensure success. If confirmed, I would
monitor implementation of these tenure requirements to ensure
continuity in major acquisition programs.
LOGISTICS AND SUPPORT
Question. The Department is increasingly relying on civilian
contractors in combat areas for maintenance and support functions.
How do you view this trend? Do you believe that the Department has
drawn a clear and appropriate line between functions that should be
performed by DOD personnel and functions that may be performed by
contractors in a combat area?
Answer. The Department is committed to providing the best possible
support for our warfighters, and industry continues to provide
exceptional performance-based support to our weapon systems. However,
the Department must maintain a clear and appropriate line between
functions that should be performed by DOD personnel and functions that
may be performed by contractors in a combat area.
Question. What is the status of DOD's effort to develop new
guidance for contractors on the battlefield? Do you believe that this
guidance, when published, will adequately address the issues raised in
sections 1205 and 1206 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005?
Answer. The Department is in the final stages of developing this
guidance. If confirmed, I would monitor its implementation to ensure it
adequately addresses the issues raised by Congress.
Question. Transforming supply chain management will require not
only process improvements but major investments in technology and
equipment, ranging from the use of passive Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) tags, to improved asset visibility, to procuring
more trucks, to improve theater distribution.
What steps do you believe are necessary to improve the management
of DOD's supply chain?
Answer. A great deal of good work is underway in this area.
Effective supply chains begin with a collective understanding of the
customer--the warfighter, in this case.
Several steps are necessary for success to continue to improve the
management of the DOD supply chain such as asset identification and
tracking, use of RFID technology, condition-based maintenance,
performance based support from our industry providers, lean maintenance
in all of the Depots, and integrating the Supply and Distribution folks
to focus fully on factory-to-fighter.
ROLE IN THE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC) PROCESS
Question. If confirmed, you would play a role in the Department's
preparation of the Secretary's recommended list of base realignments
and closures, as chairman of the Infrastructure Steering Group to which
the Joint Cross Service Groups Report, and as a member of the
Infrastructure Executive Council that also reviews the proposals from
the military departments.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to prepare yourself for
these responsibilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would review the deliberative record and
discuss these actions in great detail with their proponents and with
the deliberative bodies that reviewed them. As the statutory deadline
for submission of the Secretary's recommendations is less than 30 days
away, I expect that my efforts will focus on ensuring the Commission
has the information it needs to fulfill the responsibilities assigned
to it by Congress. I would also prepare for the implementation of the
Commission's recommendations.
Question. What is your current involvement, if any, in the
Department's BRAC process?
Answer. I have not been involved in any part of the development,
analysis, or approval of recommendations the Secretary may provide to
the Commission and Congress by the statutory deadline of May 16, 2005.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Question. What, in your view, is the role and value of science and
technology (S&T) programs in meeting the Department's transformation
goals and in confronting asymmetric threats?
Answer. S&T is a cornerstone to both the Department's
transformation goals and in countering asymmetric threats. The past
investment of the DOD in science and technology provided the dominant
capabilities of our conventional forces. Stealth, precision-guided
munitions, night vision devices, and the global positioning system all
emerged from DOD laboratories and the S&T program. It is critical to
continue to develop new capabilities that will enable continued
dominance of our forces. If confirmed, I believe one of my key
challenges will be to set a vision and support a program for the
research and development priorities of the coming generation.
Question. If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding
funding targets and priorities for the Department's long term research
efforts?
Answer. A strong S&T program remains central to maintaining our
dominant operational capability status. Determining the level of
investment is not a precise science, but a strategic corporate
decision. I think it is critical to state the level of S&T investment
needs to be sufficient to allow the Department to continue to develop,
mature, and affordably field new dominant operational capabilities for
US and allied forces while maintaining program stability. If confirmed,
I would place a high priority on achieving adequate funding levels
aimed at the right priorities.
Question. The Director of Defense Research and Engineering has been
designated as the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of the Department of
Defense.
In your view, what is the appropriate role of the CTO of the
Department of Defense?
Answer. The Department views the roles of CTO and DDR&E as
synonymous. The DDR&E is the principal staff advisor to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense on research and engineering
matters.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the
last few years. Challenges remain to institutionalizing the transition
of new technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons
systems and platforms. The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget request
proposes increases across a spectrum of technology transition programs.
What challenges do you see to technology transition within the
Department?
Answer. The Department will need to make wise decisions on research
and development to ensure we maintain technology superiority over
potential adversaries. Our acquisition processes must be flexible to
respond to evolving warfighting requirements and joint solutions that
do not align easily with Service needs.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to enhance the
effectiveness of technology transition efforts?
Answer. Rapid transition of technology from development to
acquisition does not happen without deliberate effort and adequate
funding. The research and development process must provide incentives
to reward rapid delivery of tangible products to the acquisition
process. If confirmed, I would work to ensure our processes have the
proper incentives to speed technology transition.
TEST AND EVALUATION
Question. What are your views about the degree of independence
needed by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in ensuring
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. If confirmed, I expect to seek the advice of
the DOT&E on testing and evaluation issues.
Question. Are you concerned with the level of test and evaluation
conducted by the contractors who are developing the systems to be
tested?
Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
Question. What is the impact of rapid fielding requirements on the
standard testing process?
Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003 included several provisions to improve the management of DOD test
and evaluation facilities.
What has been done to implement these provisions?
Answer. This is not an area in which I have had much personal
involvement. If confirmed, I expect to be actively engaged in the
strategic management of the Department's test and evaluation
facilities.
Question. Do you believe that the Department should take any
additional steps to improve the management of its test and evaluation
facilities?
Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
Question. As systems grow more sophisticated, networked, and
software-intensive, DOD's ability to test and evaluate these systems
becomes more difficult. Some systems-of-systems cannot be tested as a
whole until they are already bought and fielded.
Are you concerned with DOD's ability to test such new weapons?
Answer. The Department's ``Testing in a Joint Environment Roadmap''
defines the changes that will position T&E capabilities to fully
support adequate T&E of new warfighting capabilities. If confirmed, I
would oversee implementation of this Roadmap, which outlines an
approach to link geographically distributed test facilities,
laboratories, and ranges to create more realistic test environments.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
Question. The fielding of initial elements of the Ground-Based
Midcourse Defense system has begun as part of the ballistic missile
defense test bed and for use in an emergency. In accordance with
section 234 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005, the system has not yet been subject to the
operational test and evaluation process applicable to other major
weapon systems.
What role do you believe independent operational test and
evaluation should play in ensuring that the Ground-Based Midcourse
Defense system will work in an operationally effective manner?
Answer. DOD is committed to conducting operationally realistic
testing of our missile defense program. Our test program has become
more robust and realistic over time. I expect that this trend will
continue. I also understand that in November 2004 the Director of OT&E
(DOT&E) approved the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) Integrated Master
Test Program and that he will continue to work closely with MDA to
ensure an increasingly operationally realistic test program.
Question. What steps do you believe should be taken to ensure that
ground-based interceptors will work in an operationally effective
manner?
Answer. The ground-based interceptors are designed to be
operationally effective and the testing to date has demonstrated the
basic hit to kill functionality. The recent test failures indicated a
need for more component qualification testing and a more robust
approach to quality control. Steps have been taken by the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency to address these shortfalls. DOD expects a
return to a robust flight program will occur this year to demonstrate
the interceptor's effectiveness with operationally realistic tests
agreed upon by the DOT&E.
Question. The Ballistic Missile Defense System is being developed
and fielded by the Missile Defense Agency using Research, Development,
Test, and Engineering funds.
Question. At what point do you believe that elements of the system
should transition to the military departments and procurement funds?
Answer. I have not addressed this issue specifically in my current
positions. However, in general, my sense is that systems should
transition to the military departments and utilize procurement funds
when the design is stable, tested and ready for production. Until that
time, systems should remain in RDT&E where greater flexibility is
available to make necessary and appropriate changes to the design. If
confirmed, I would address these issues over time.
Question. Do you believe that the Department should be developing
specific plans for this transition now?
Answer. Each of the individual missile defense program elements is
in a different stage of its development; consequently, some are much
more mature than others. I support close collaboration between the
Missile Defense Agency and the military departments so the Department
can understand the costs, logistics, and other implications of
transitioning missile defense capabilities to better prepare for
transition.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS COUNCIL
Question. If confirmed as Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, you will chair the Nuclear
Weapons Council (NWC).
In your view, what are or should be the highest priorities of the
NWC?
Answer. The NWC should help develop capabilities appropriate for
21st century threats; support a range of activities such as studies on
potential weapon concepts; and revitalize the nuclear weapon R&D and
production infrastructure.
Question. What improvements, if any, do you believe should be made
to the operations of the NWC?
Answer. I would not suggest any immediate changes to the operations
of the NWC. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the members of
the council to identify improvements, if any.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
Question. There are significant problems with the management and
implementation of the DOD chemical weapons demilitarization program.
Congress has become increasingly concerned that the Department does not
appear to be on track to eliminate its chemical weapons in accordance
with the Chemical Weapons Convention timelines.
What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the U.S. remains
in compliance with its treaty obligations for chemical weapons
destruction?
Answer. My understanding is that if the Chemical Demilitarization
Program continues on its current path, the United States will not meet
the Convention's extended 100 percent destruction deadline of April 29,
2012. Accordingly, the Department has requested that alternative
approaches be developed to evaluate whether the deadline can be met
using a different approach.
Question. Do you agree that the United States should make every
effort to meet its treaty commitments, including its obligations under
the Chemical Weapons Convention?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Can you assure the committee that you will focus your
personal attention on this matter?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would ensure appropriate efforts are
applied to comply with our international treaty obligations in a safe,
secure, timely, and cost effective manner.
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.
Do you believe that these goals serve a valid and useful purpose in
the Department of Defense contracting system?
Answer. Yes, the overall small business goals serve a worthwhile
purpose by focusing top DOD leadership attention on small business
matters and serving as a stimulus for continuous improvement to the DOD
Small Business Program.
Question. DOD has a number of programs to improve small business
participation in defense contracts. These include, among others, 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, the Section 8(a) program, and the DOD
mentor-protege program.
In your judgment, how could the overall DOD small business program
be improved to ensure that it is providing the right results for the
Department in meeting its acquisition needs?
Answer. I do not have a preconceived view. If confirmed, I would
work to understand would steps should be taken.
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,
which, in their view, tend to preclude small businesses from competing.
What is your view of contract ``bundling''?
Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
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 great value in small businesses
providing the opportunity to contract directly with the Federal
Government.
Question. The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program
accounts for approximately $1 billion in defense research grants
annually.
In your view, are modifications needed to the Department's SBIR
program to ensure that the program is meeting Department of Defense
research goals?
Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, what emphasis would you place on
participation by the acquisition community in setting research
priorities for SBIR?
Answer. I do not have a preconceived vision and, if confirmed,
would look into this issue.
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. I will always be prepared to offer my best professional
judgment.
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 John Warner
JOINT ACQUISITION PROGRAMS
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, many of the Department's future
requirements will require solutions that involve the participation by
more than one Service. How can so-called ``joint'' programs be better
managed?
Mr. Krieg. I do not have a detailed action agenda for this critical
question today, but, if confirmed, look forward to working with
Congress and, in particular, this committee on this important subject.
I would observe, however, that there has been a shift in the
understanding of ``demand and supply'' in the years since Goldwater-
Nichols as the Department has more fully appreciated the importance and
implications of joint warfighting. A critical aspect of managing joint
programs will be to better define ``joint demand'' upfront.
Understanding and planning for joint warfighting requirements at the
start of the acquisition process will prove less costly than trying to
retrofit ``jointness'' into weapons systems that are close to fielding.
I also believe the Department should evaluate existing and new
processes for better managing efforts at the seams or traditional
Service roles, an examination that is under way in the business
practices section of the Quadrennial Defense Review.
2. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, should the Services conduct more
joint development, for example, in the area of helicopters and unmanned
systems?
Mr. Krieg. The Department already is considering joint efforts in
these two areas, and I believe the opportunity to increase focused
joint development exists. The challenge will be to define the joint
requirements clearly and comprehensively at program inception and to
manage the development phase of joint programs to ensure that an
appropriate balance of performance, schedule, and cost is achieved.
FUNDING AND REQUIREMENTS INSTABILITY IN MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS
ACQUISITION
3. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, the Packard Commission found that
``weapon systems take too long and cost too much to produce'' and
blamed ``chronic instability'' in funding and overstated requirements.
Twenty years later, major weapon systems programs are still plagued by
funding and requirements instability which drives up the costs and
delays the eventual fielding of new systems. How should the Department
of Defense (DOD) maintain funding and requirements stability in its
weapon systems programs?
Mr. Krieg. Many of the Packard Commission's insights are relevant
today. I believe that maintaining funding and requirements stability in
weapon systems programs requires discipline on numerous fronts--in the
requirements process, in trade-offs between cost and performance, in
unambiguous lines of authority, in firm internal agreements on
baselines, etc. Exercising this discipline requires commitment across
the Federal Government over time. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with this committee to develop the discipline and processes
that will help keep the programs on track.
ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE ACQUISITION SYSTEM
4. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, the recent Air Force acquisition
scandal has raised concerns about the adequacy of safeguards to ensure
the integrity of the procurement system. There are those who suggest
that Congress should strengthen ``revolving door'' and ethics statutes.
What do you think is needed to restore credibility and trust in the
acquisition system that has been lost from this scandal?
Mr. Krieg. As a guiding principle, I believe we owe the taxpayers
who fund the Department, and the warfighters who rely on our efforts,
the commitment to and continual reinforcement of the highest ethical
standards. Ultimately, only leadership and accountability will restore
and sustain credibility and trust. If confirmed, this will be one of my
highest priorities.
FORCE PROTECTION PROGRAMS
5. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, over the past several years, the
Department, with the assistance of Congress, has spent billions of
dollars on force protection programs such as Interceptor Body Armor,
up-armored high mobility multipurpose vehicles and counter-improvised
explosive device measures. If confirmed, how do you intend to ensure
that our armed services continue to receive effective force protection
equipment in a more timely manner?
Mr. Krieg. Procuring equipment to meet emerging warfighting
requirements is challenging on four fronts. First, prompt response to
emerging threats requires the defense community to anticipate future
needs and have options in development. Second, the Department must
shorten the identification cycle: needs (demand) must be translated
into programs as rapidly as possible. Third, the supply system must be
agile enough to respond to new demands on short notice. Fourth,
effective feedback mechanisms are needed to evaluate the usefulness of
these items when they reach the field and measure whether they are
meeting the threat as designed. As part of the Quadrennial Defense
Review, the Department is studying how to enable the acquisition system
to respond quickly to emerging warfighting requirements. If confirmed,
I intend to work with the committee to ensure the warfighter will
receive effective force protection equipment in a timely manner.
JOINT IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES TASK FORCE
6. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, the Department established a Joint
Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) Task Force as a means to quickly
develop tactics, techniques, and procedures and to field IED-
countermeasures quickly to provide force protection to our soldiers and
marines. If confirmed, what recommendations will you make to improve
the functioning of the Joint IED Task Force to make it responsive to
the warfighters?
Mr. Krieg. As Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, I have
followed only broadly the work of the IED Task Force and provided staff
support to the effort. I believe this Task Force is an effective forum
for bringing emerging warfighting requirements to the attention of
senior leaders, but success in this endeavor is also dependent on the
Department's ability to better anticipate future threats, identify
programs to meet them, and manage supplier relationships to ensure
items can be quickly produced and delivered. If confirmed, I look
forward to the challenges of making the Department's business processes
work more effectively to ensure they are responsive to emerging
warfighting requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
ACQUISITION TIMELINE
7. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Krieg, I am very concerned about the length
of time it takes our country to deploy a new weapon system. Too often
it takes so long for a new system to go from the cradle to the
operational field that the world will have changed so dramatically and
the challenge for which it was designed is no longer the threat that it
was originally. Or the enemy's application of current technology makes
the system less lethal than it would have been had the system rolled
off the line sooner. We have seen one or both of these instances in
systems such as the Comanche, Crusader, and Wolverine programs, and
these are just some examples from the Army. I know that DOD recognizes
this problem as well and the Pentagon has identified processes to
streamline acquisitions. To improve the process, Congress has
authorized such programs as Fast Track, Spiral Development, and special
dispensation for the purchase of products with commercial applications.
How do we get fully operational weapons systems into the hands of the
warfighter in a quicker and still cost effective manner? What do we
need to do to make this happen?
Mr. Krieg. With the support of Congress, the Department has
initiated a number of programs to speed the identification and delivery
of material to the warfighter.
The following existing initiatives are reducing acquisition cycle
time:
The Joint Staff expedites the processes by which
Urgent Operational Needs are identified and transitioned into a
materiel or logistics solution.
The Army's Rapid Equipping Force (REF) provides much
needed force protection equipment to personnel serving in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
The Army's Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) equips
soldiers in CONUS with all the necessary items they will need
in the Area of Operations. These items are continually updated
as the needs change.
The Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) addresses the
bureaucratic impediments that slow the Department's ability to
meet urgent materiel and logistics solutions for the combatant
commanders.
The Department is accelerating fielding S&T
developments to the warfighter via the Combating Terrorism
Technology Task Force (CTTTF) process that quickly identifies
emerging technologies in response to operator needs and
provides funding for rapid prototyping, testing, and
evaluation.
The Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD)
program rapidly develops, demonstrates, and fields new
technological capabilities and complementary concept of
operations to the warfighter in response to Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC) validated joint requirements.
In the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Department is
reviewing acquisition procedures to develop an integrated process with
reduced cycle time. If any additional statutory changes prove necessary
the Department will request those changes in its QDR report to
Congress. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress on this
important issue.
ACQUISITION WORKFORCE SIZING
8. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Krieg, Michael Wynne, the acting Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L),
said last week in his prepared statement, ``I believe we are at the
point where any further reductions beyond the levels of this workforce,
consistent with the President's 2006 budget request, will adversely
impact our ability to successfully execute a growing workload.'' I
agree with Mr. Wynne in that we do have quite a workload ahead for our
acquisitions workforce. With the upcoming weapons systems needed to
upgrade the capability of an aging and sometimes technologically dated
air and naval force, especially, there is a lot needed to give our
young men and women the best tools to protect America's freedom. During
the Clinton administration, we reduced the size of our acquisitions
work force. Here we are today bundling program purchases, often because
we don't have the manpower capability to manage and oversee the
management of individual purchases, when that would be in our best
interest. We now have Lead Systems Integrators with contractors being
hired to manage other contracts, like we have with Boeing overseeing
the contract for the Army's Future Combat System. Our military, itself,
cannot even determine if it is getting what it needs when it's
scheduled, according to contract. We have a contractor do this for our
military. In light of this, is our acquisitions workforce already
adversely impacted and preventing us from being successful with a
growing workload? Has the pendulum already swung too far? What is your
personal professional opinion?
Mr. Krieg. I have not worked on this set of issues in my current
capacity. In general, I am concerned with the eventual generational
transition that will take place in the Defense workforce and believe
that the National Security Personnel System offers an opportunity to
create the right framework for attracting, developing and retaining the
kind of work force the Department will need. More specifically I
believe the Department must not only be mindful of the required skills
and competencies of the workforce, but also ensure the right business
practices are in place to enable the DOD workforce to perform
effectively. If confirmed, sizing and managing the acquisition
workforce would be of my high priorities and I look forward to working
with this committee to ensure the Department has the right workforce to
perform its acquisition mission.
PRIVATIZATION OF DEPOT FACILITIES
9. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Krieg, I met recently with Major General
Terry Gabreski who is the commander of the Tinker Air Logistics Center.
We discussed a previous visit of mine to the Center, where I saw an
exceptional partnership between the private and public sector. A
contractor, Pratt and Whitney, has built a technology center and
supplies technical expertise, while the military member and Federal
worker carry out the engine repairs and rebuild. We spoke with the
contractor, the military, and the union member and all agreed the
partnership worked out exceptionally well with increased performance
metrics to show the results. There has been some discussion about
privatization of depot facilities. This would put the resources to
repair and overhaul our military equipment, as well as manage our spare
parts, in the hands of a contractor. Contracting does have a purpose,
in those areas that are not a part of the military's core competency.
Repair of our assets and management of our spare parts are clearly
within the military's core competency. What are your thoughts about
privatization of depot facilities?
Mr. Krieg. I do not have a preconceived view on privatization of
depot facilities, but I agree that the Department must define and
understand its current and future core competencies. From this
baseline, the Department should then fund partners who complement and
supplement its core competencies to ensure success. I am aware that
there has been some very good progress in developing depot partnerships
and look forward to learning more about them, if confirmed.
SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS
10. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Krieg, small businesses are complaining
that they are being cut out of contracts because of bundling of
contracts to larger vendors, etc. DOD complains the cuts in acquisition
people are forcing these measures. Because there is a concern about
small businesses being able to participate in the acquisition process,
depots have small business offices in an effort to help shepherd small
business through the process. Yet, there doesn't seem to be much
improvement in this arena. Do you see this is a concern and what can we
do to enable small business to participate more fully, while still
getting the newest equipment into the hands of the warfighter in an
timely manner and safeguarding the American taxpayer?
Mr. Krieg. I believe that small businesses can be an engine for
innovation and that the Department should draw on the best that the
private sector has to offer. In my current capacity, I have not worked
small business concerns in detail, but, if confirmed, I look forward to
working with this committee to figure out the best role that small
businesses can play in meeting the Department's mission.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ROADMAP AND EXECUTIVE AGENCY
11. Senator Sessions. Mr. Krieg, there has been a great deal of
interest regarding the capabilities and future development of all the
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) being used or under development by DOD.
These platforms are saving lives in Iraq and the Services have been
working hard to get as many UAVs with as much capability to the
warfighter as soon as possible. While this fact is to be commended, I
am deeply concerned about the long-term direction of UAV development
and acquisition. There have been discussions within DOD about the need
for an Executive Agent (EA) for UAVs. While the Air Force has seized
onto this opportunity, recent cost overruns related to Global Hawk and
other well-publicized acquisition troubles deeply concern me and give
me reason to pause and question how this process might unfold. I was
recently briefed on the UAV Roadmap by Ms. Diane Wright and Mr. Dyke
Weatherington. We had an excellent discussion on how DOD is attempting
to reign in development of multiple service UAV systems that duplicate
effort, lead to increased costs and the development of numerous UAVs
which are not compatible with one another. As the head of the DOD UAV
Planning Task Force, I am interested in how DOD and the Task Force will
get control of UAV development and procurement now and in the years to
come?
Mr. Krieg. As Director of PA&E, I have not worked on this set of
issues but look forward to working with the committee, if confirmed. It
is my understanding that there has been no decision on an Executive
Agent (EA) within the Department of Defense (DOD) for UAVs. Given the
wide use of UAVs, multiple Service interests in them, and lessons
learned from current use, it is prudent to consider carefully the need
and scope of a UAV ``EA'' or ``EA-like'' leadership. The Joint Staff
has already started to review this. For UAV development and
procurement, the DOD UAV Planning Task Force will continue to work with
the Services and Joint Staff, through the Joint Capabilities
Integration and Development System process, to field suitable,
effective, and affordable UAV systems and to integrate them into the
force. The Department will promote commonality and interoperability
between its UAV systems and is working toward achieving these goals.
12. Senator Sessions. Mr. Krieg, I would welcome the opportunity to
speak to you about this important issue and perhaps we can brainstorm
how the EA concept might work. Perhaps as Ms. Wright suggested there
might be two EAs: one for strategic and one for tactical and
operational. What are your thoughts on the creation of two EAs?
Regardless, I think we have some work to do to assist the Department as
we have no resources to waste.
Mr. Krieg. If confirmed, I look forward to a discussion with you on
this important topic. In the business practices section of the
Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department will be looking at the
concept of executive agency for managing efforts at the seams of
traditional Service roles. Several variations on the concept of
executive agency are already at work inside the Department. The QDR
analysis will also examine these various models to recommend best
practices given the variety of tasks executive agents are assigned to
accomplish.
JOINT COMMON MISSILE
13. Senator Sessions. Mr. Krieg, I am very concerned about the
decision to cancel the Joint Common Missile (JCM) program that was
contained in PBD-753. The JCM is a next generation weapon system being
developed for our advanced aircraft (F/A-22, Joint Strike Fighter, and
Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS)) coming on line in the next
few years. The Services and the DOD have spoken consistently since the
global war on terror started about how important joint operations are
and how all new systems must be joint from their inception. The JCM
meets this requirement! Unfortunately, the rhetoric of the Department
in regards to being committed to joint weapon systems, like the JCM,
does not match the decision to cancel the program. Please explain to me
why this missile was cut in the PBD and why it should not be restored
in the budget?
Mr. Krieg. The Department cancelled JCM after a review by members
of the Senior Level Review Group (Deputy Secretary, Chairman, Vice
Chairman, Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Secretary and
Chief of Staff of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval
Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Under Secretaries of
Defense) of strategic priorities, technical risks, and affordability.
As demonstrated in OIF and OEF, current joint capabilities against
vehicles and fixed targets are very good, and several new precision
munitions to attack moving and fixed ground targets are in development.
The Hellfire II--a joint Army, Navy, and Marine Corps program--worked
well in OIF and is still in production. The Air Force is refurbishing
Mavericks (a joint program) and developing the Small Diameter Bomb
(SDB) increment II to field the same capabilities as JCM for fixed-wing
aircraft. Further, the JCM faced technical risks because of the
difficulty in combining three sensors into a single device, and
financial risks as its independent estimates of procurement and RDT&E
costs were higher than the Services' estimates.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
DEPOTS AND CORE CAPABILITIES
14. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Krieg, one of my concerns since I've
been in Congress has been how DOD defines ``core'' relative to the type
of and amount of work we need to ensure remains in our DOD depots and
logistics facilities. I've also been extremely concerned as I've seen
DOD recommend and approve total system support contracts and contractor
provided logistics operations for entire weapon systems. This was
initially the way we went with the C-17 program, and part of DOD's now
defunct tanker lease proposal was to give Boeing a non-competed,
totally commercial, $5 billion maintenance contract for those
airplanes. What is your view on DOD's role in maintaining a robust, up-
to-date, maintenance and logistics function within the Department of
Defense?
Mr. Krieg. At this time I do not have a detailed answer to your
question. If confirmed, I will look into this issue in greater detail
and be ready to discuss it further. I do offer a couple of ingoing
principles that may shape my views.
I believe that DOD needs to be precise in what it identifies as
core competency. DOD must certainly be great at managing its capital
asset maintenance and logistics supply chain. I have no ingoing reason
to question the DOD policy that it will maintain depot maintenance core
capabilities in Government owned and operated facilities. These
capabilities provide effective and timely response to surge demands and
sustain institutional expertise.
My understanding is that the Department has also built some
successful public-private partnership models and I look forward, if
confirmed, to understanding how to achieve the best overall balance of
support to ensure that we provide our warfighters with the best
supporting infrastructure that we can.
15. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Krieg, if confirmed in your new
position, how will you ensure that DOD does not turn over these
functions to contractors and allow them to maintain the primary
expertise or decisionmaking authority regarding how and when our
airplanes and military hardware are maintained?
Mr. Krieg. It is important that DOD be great at managing its
capital asset maintenance and logistics supply chain. If confirmed, I
will work with the Services to ensure that DOD can provide our
warfighters with the best supporting infrastructure that we can.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
DARPA
16. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, a recent New York Times article
quotes a spokeswoman from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) as stating that ``DARPA is rightly devoting more attention to
`quick reaction' projects that draw on the fruits of earlier science
and technology to produce useful prototypes as soon as possible.''
Although the need to address immediate issues may exist, this cannot
replace the basic research efforts that support the future military
technological advancement. Some of America's leading scientists and
technology companies' CEOs are expressing deep concern that DARPA has
abandoned its historic mission to ensure that the U.S. will never be
taken by technology surprise by focusing on incremental and not
breakthrough research. What steps are you taking to reverse the short-
term focus that DARPA by numerous accounts is now embarked on?
Mr. Krieg. The scope of my current responsibility as Director, PA&E
does not include this area. I have not formed an opinion at this time
but look forward to working with the Committee, if confirmed. However,
it is my understanding that DARPA's spokeswoman was not quoted
accurately in the New York Times article. The statement she gave to the
reporter on that point reads:
During periods of active conflict, DARPA adds an additional
type of activity--quick reaction projects that take the fruits
of previous science and technology investment and very quickly
move the technology into a prototype, fieldable system and into
the hands of deployed forces. There have been many published
articles on some of these technologies. Quick reaction projects
are done in addition to DARPA's usual activities, not instead
of.
A review of DARPA's strategic plan and the individual programs and
projects that DARPA has underway, reveals how ambitious their programs
are and how revolutionary the results of these programs will be if
successful.
BASIC RESEARCH
17. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, at a time when military
excellence is essential, the Department of Defense's S&T funding is
down 15.9 percent from last year's appropriated amount. Additionally,
in recent reports, both the Defense Science Board and the President's
IT advisory committee commented on DARPA's reduction of support for
university research. What efforts are you taking to restore this
funding and specifically to address the cuts in the long-term
university-based research in the physical sciences?
Mr. Krieg. On the broader question, the Department has increased
its requests for Science and Technology investment by roughly 33
percent over the past 4 years. The fiscal year 2006 budget request is
the same level requested in fiscal year 2005. Given the competing
demands, the requested amount is what the Department needs to achieve a
balanced investment overall. In my current role, I have not reviewed
DARPA's funding, but, if confirmed, I plan to look into this important
matter.
SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY
18. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, as you are aware, East Asian
countries are leveraging market forces through their national trade and
industrial policies to drive the migration of semiconductor
manufacturing to that region. If this accelerating shift in this
manufacturing sector overseas continues, the U.S. potentially could
lose the ability to reliably obtain high-end semiconductor integrated
circuits. Semiconductors impact every aspect of a warfighter's mission
including secure communications, smart weapons and precision targeting,
and navigation and guidance. Specifically, the photomask industry is of
particular concern especially given that this is the only area in the
fabrication process where raw data is handled for laying down a complex
pattern for circuitry. This offshore shift in semiconductor
manufacturing is occurring at a time when these components are becoming
an even more crucial defense technology advantage to the United States.
For example, network centric capability demands ever faster real time
processing for defense purposes and also because of the increasing need
for such high-end components in the intelligence communities. Why has
the research in this area been cut back?
Mr. Krieg. The scope of my current responsibilities as Director,
PA&E does not include this area. I have not formed an opinion at this
time but look forward to working with the committee, if confirmed.
However, I am told that the Department has partnered with the
semiconductor industry to support a broad agenda of academic research
at U.S. universities aimed at sustaining the domestic industry's world
leadership. The goal is to attract U.S. citizens back into science and
engineering careers to provide the future workforce for both the
military and commercial semiconductor needs.
19. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, without ongoing research in
place, how do you plan to mitigate this national security risk and are
these efforts adequate to fully abate this serious issue?
Mr. Krieg. I have not reviewed this issue in my current position.
If confirmed, I will look into the question and develop my view on what
ought to be the Department's approach.
DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD REPORT ON SEMICONDUCTORS
20. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, the Defense Science Board
released a report titled `High Performance Microchip Supply' in
February 2005 listing its recommendations to maintain U.S.
semiconductor capabilities for national security needs. Specifically,
the report calls for an overall long-term vision for the future of the
chip industry; the current foundry agreements only address the short-
term needs, not the structural issue of funding research that will
sustain our information superiority. When will you deliver a plan to
implement the recommendations listed in this report?
Mr. Krieg. The scope of my current responsibilities as Director,
PA&E does not include this area, and I do not have a preconceived plan
to implement. If confirmed, I will look into the recommendations of the
report and develop my view.
MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY
21. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, the U.S. trade deficit in
manufactured goods increased $94.5 billion in 2004 from $536 billion
reported in 2003. Our largest goods deficit is now with China, $162
billion, an increase of $37.9 billion from 2003. We are running major
deficits with China in defense critical manufacturing areas, such as
computer hardware ($25 billion) and electronics machinery and parts
($23 billion) as U.S. production drifts offshore. We are transferring
major portions of our circuit board, semiconductor, machine tool, and
weapon system metal casting manufacturing to China because of low wage
and production costs. Without productivity breakthroughs, the U.S.
defense manufacturing base particularly, 2nd and 3rd tier small
manufacturers will continue to erode. What research efforts are in
place to address the needed innovation in manufacturing and are these
efforts adequate to fully abate this serious issue? Specifically, do
you have a plan to focus DARPA on process innovation?
Mr. Krieg. At this time I do not have direct experience in this
area to have a preconceived plan. If confirmed, I will look into the
question and develop my view on what ought to be the Department's
approach.
In the broad sense, the Department of Defense is a relatively small
player in the overall U.S. economy (about 3.75 percent of the gross
domestic product), and DOD's leverage within the overall U.S.
manufacturing sector is limited. Many U.S. industries once dominated by
DOD demand now are focused on, and dependent on, commercial markets.
Nevertheless, it is desirable--and absolutely necessary--that the
Department take the steps necessary to ensure the industrial base on
which it depends remains sufficiently reliable, innovative, and cost-
effective to meet the Nation's national defense requirements.
22. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, additionally, ManTech currently
is funded at $237 million for fiscal year 2005, all of which is
directly tied to the near term needs of the Services. The Joint Defense
Manufacturing Technology Panel (JDMTP) does not have funding
independent of the Services to initiate new efforts focusing on longer-
term, higher-risk, higher-payoff technologies and processes. ManTech
needs to balance the current shorter-term portfolio by refocusing on
longer-term, higher risk manufacturing processes and technology
development that are industry game-changers and yield big efficiencies
and cost-savings to DOD. When will you provide funding to JDMTP to
initiate the needed manufacturing programs?
Mr. Krieg. It is my understanding that a Defense Science Board
study is currently underway to review the issue of ManTech strategies
and priorities including the need for cross-cutting programs. This
report is planned for completion in the fall of 2005. It would be
premature to make a decision without first reviewing the study.
23. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, are the efforts in your area
coordinated with the Defense Industrial Base Capability Studies (DIBCS)
that are currently underway in the DOD Office of Industrial Policy? Is
there more coordination needed and if so, what are your plans to
achieve this?
Mr. Krieg. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial
Policy prepared the Defense Industrial Base Capability Studies. I have
been briefed on the methodology, conclusions and recommendations of
several of the studies.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
ACQUISITION WORKFORCE AND HUMAN CAPITAL
24. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, at your confirmation hearing you
answered several questions regarding the Department of Defense
acquisition workforce and the impact that the downsizing of this
workforce has had on major program acquisition. Additionally, recent
guidance was issued by the OMB on acquisition policy which emphasized
employee training, certification, and the role of chief acquisition
officers. What do you see as the most critical factors in improving the
strength of the acquisition workforce within the Department?
Mr. Krieg. At this time I do not have a specific agenda of action
on acquisition workforce issues. The issue of how to better structure
acquisition functions of the DOD is under review as part of the
Quadrennial Defense Review and this should include the acquisition
workforce capability to meet future needs. Several key themes seem
important as we begin this work.
First, the Department must keep acquisition workforce capabilities
aligned with the emerging future needs of the DOD. Second, the
Department must have effective implementation of the National Security
Personnel System (NSPS). The NSPS provides new mechanisms to hire,
assign, and reassign employees and to set pay. It enables DOD managers
to acquire, advance, and shape their workforce in response to changing
mission needs and to compete for the best talent. Third, the Department
must use the flexibilities provided by several useful changes that
Congress made to the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act in
fiscal years 2004 and 2005. These changes enable the DOD to have a
single acquisition corps and to streamline management of the
acquisition workforce. Finally, the Department must integrate workforce
programs and human capital strategic planning efforts regarding the
acquisition workforce so that DOD can achieve the outcomes needed
component and department-wide.
25. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, what is being done to ensure that
strategic management of human capital is focusing on not just hiring
people but hiring the right people with the acquisition skills
necessary to reverse the trend where lost corporate knowledge is
limiting the Department's ability to perform acquisition management
effectively?
Mr. Krieg. The Department is emphasizing the need to strategically
analyze and plan workforce capability through assessing the skills of
the current workforce, projecting workforce capability needs into the
future, identifying gaps, and ensuring the filling of those gaps. The
effective implementation of the National Security Personnel System
(NSPS) and the outcomes of the next Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
will add to DOD's ability to improve and ensure the right workforce
capability. Meanwhile, the Department is strengthening its approach
toward systems engineering by issuing new policy, revamping education
and training programs and bolstering the learning and performance
support environment.
PLACEMENT OF RESOURCES
26. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, as Director of Program Analysis and
Evaluation (PA&E), you have been deeply involved in implementing the
Department of Defense's Balanced Score Card in support of the
President's Management Agenda. Through this approach you have used four
risk areas to ensure that the Department's performance goals cover the
initiatives of the President's Management Agenda. As you are moving
from your position of Director of PA&E to Under Secretary of Defense
for AT&L, do you feel that you are using the proper risk factors in
determining the placement of resources?
Mr. Krieg. The approach to managing risk, first outlined in the
2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, gave the Department an organized
construct for considering the implications--now and in the future--of
efforts with respect to operations, managing forces and managing the
institution. The balanced scorecard approach, used widely in the
private sector, helps managers think about their initiatives across the
full range of their enterprise. We have had some substantial success at
getting management to consider the balance among risks as they consider
resourcing.
Fully employed, the approach helps them align activity across the
enterprise behind key metrics of outcomes that are linked to the
strategy of the organization. In an enterprise as complex as the
Department of Defense, the full implementation of the balanced
scorecard is a challenge as precise metrics relevant from the top to
the bottom of the organization are difficult to define.
27. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, how do you best assess the results of
these resourcing choices?
Mr. Krieg. Ideally, we would measure all of our results in terms of
real outcomes. In many cases, we can. However, the outcomes of some of
our investments are harder to assess in a classic performance
management sense; the longstanding defense analysis question of ``How
much is enough?'' is still a challenge. In those cases, we attempt to
look at a balance between the costs and the benefits of options--both
in the near and far term.
ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES
28. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, at your confirmation hearing you were
asked several questions about the current acquisition process, with
specific references to contracts such as the Army's Future Combat
System and the Navy's DD(X). In addition, the Defense Acquisition Board
recently approved funding for the Global Hawk unmanned spy plane
program, and some in Congress would like to see the C130J cargo plan
program go forward. You stated at your confirmation hearing that the
Department must press for acquisition accountability but all of these
programs have been the subject of much debate both within Congress and
within the Department. If confirmed as Under Secretary of Defense for
AT&L, what accountability measures would you put in place to change the
current acquisition process for major programs to ``contain costs and
keep programs from ballooning and becoming unworkable?''
Mr. Krieg. At this time I do not have a specific plan of action on
containing costs. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress
on this issue. I do offer two preliminary views, however. The
Department must carefully construct its statement of requirements,
balancing among performance, cost, and schedule. Achieving an
integrated strategic priority across all three of our major defense
decision processes--requirements generation, acquisition management,
and the Defense Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution
process--is also important.
CORROSION CONTROL AND PREVENTION
29. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, the impact of corrosion on systems,
equipment, and infrastructure costs the Department of Defense billions
of dollars each year. In late 2003, the Office of Corrosion Policy and
Oversight was created for the Department of Defense within AT&L with a
Corrosion Executive leading the initiative. Currently this Corrosion
Executive is several layers down from the Under Secretary in the AT&L
organization, which limits his effectiveness, in my opinion. I am
concerned that the way the DOD has set up this office does not comply
with the spirit and intent of the legislation that Congress enacted
regarding corrosion control. I believe the office should report
directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L and not be buried
in the bureaucracy. In October 2004, the Defense Science Board (DSB)
issued its report on Corrosion Control which assessed ongoing corrosion
control efforts across the Department of Defense. This report made five
explicit recommendations and specific actions to implement those
recommendations. The DSB estimated that 30 percent of the billions
wasted annually could be avoided through proper investment in
prevention and mitigation of corrosion during sustainment, design, and
manufacture. One of the recommendations of the DSB review included each
Service provide $10 million per year beginning in fiscal year 2006 in
addition to the funds required by the Office of Corrosion Policy and
Oversight. But PBD753 recommends reducing funds for corrosion
prevention by $10 million every year over the Future Years Defense
Plan. What would be your first priority in the office of Under
Secretary of Defense for AT&L to ensure that the corrosion control and
prevention initiative be brought back in line with the original intent
of Congress in order to save the billions of dollars currently spent on
corrosion each year?
Mr. Krieg. As Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, I have
only a broad understanding of the issue. I would not bring any
preconceived plan to the position but would look forward to working
with the committee on this issue, if confirmed.
It is my understanding that the Department has embarked on a long-
term study, initiated this year, to provide a justifiable and
defendable basis for: (a) structuring and prioritizing the Department's
efforts as they relate to balancing investments in corrosion control
and in corrosion prevention and (b) attendant funding levels. The OSD
corrosion program is currently budgeted at $15 million per year across
the Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP). The Department established Program
Element (PE) 0604016D8Z for RDT&E ($5 million) and manages the
corrosion O&M ($10 million) funds in a DOD-wide account.
From an organizational perspective, the Deputy Secretary appointed
the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics (PDUSD(AT&L)) as the DOD Corrosion Executive,
who reports directly to the Under Secretary (AT&L). This ensures that
corrosion prevention and mitigation receives appropriate executive-
level attention. The Office of the Special Assistant for Corrosion
Policy and Oversight reports directly to the DOD Corrosion Executive on
policies, issues, and actions directly associated with the corrosion
prevention and mitigation initiative. The office is aligned as a
component of the Directorate of Systems Engineering within OUSD (AT&L).
This alignment allows the Department to ensure corrosion prevention and
mitigation receive appropriate attention during design trades as part
of the baseline systems engineering effort for equipment and
infrastructure design and development.
______
[The nomination reference of Kenneth J. Krieg follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 4, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Kenneth J. Krieg, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, vice Edward C. Aldridge,
resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Kenneth J. Krieg, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Kenneth J. Krieg
Ken Krieg currently serves at the Department of Defense as Special
Assistant to the Secretary and Director for Program Analysis and
Evaluation. In this capacity, he leads an organization that provides
independent advice to the Secretary of Defense in a range of areas
including defense systems, programs and investment alternatives as well
as providing analytic support to planning and resource allocation.
He joined the Department of Defense in July 2001 to serve and
continues as the Executive Secretary of the Senior Executive Council
(SEC). The SEC, comprised of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Service
Secretaries and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics, is responsible for leading initiatives to improve the
management and organization of the Department of Defense. Among other
areas, the SEC is working on strategy-based measurement approaches,
transformation strategies for the business infrastructure and
organizational approach and design. The SEC also serves as a senior
decisionmaking and advisory body on a broad set of issues, including
resource allocation.
Prior to joining the Department of Defense, Ken was the Vice
President and General Manager of the Office and Consumer Papers
Division. He had responsibility for International Paper's $1.4 billion
retail, commercial office, and consumer papers businesses. Prior to
this position, Ken was the business manager for the office and consumer
paper business.
Ken was with International Paper for 11 years and held marketing
and sales positions in the office papers and bleached board businesses.
He was actively involved in integrating the Federal Paper Board, Union
Camp and Champion companies into International Paper. He began his
service with International Paper as executive assistant to the Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer.
Before joining International Paper, Ken worked in a number of
defense and foreign policy assignments in Washington, DC, including
positions at the White House, on the National Security Council Staff
and in Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Ken received his BA degree in history from Davidson College and his
Masters in Public Policy from the Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University. He and his wife, Anne, have two children (Allen and
Meredith).
______
[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 Kenneth J.
Krieg 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.)
Kenneth Joseph Krieg, also Kenneth J. Krieg, Ken Krieg.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics).
3. Date of nomination:
April 4, 2005.
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 29, 1961; Nelsonville, OH.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Anne Hurt Krieg.
7. Names and ages of children:
Allen Joseph Krieg, 12; Meredith Aileen Krieg, 10.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
John F. Kennedy School, Harvard, 9/1983-6/1985, M.P.P., 6/1985.
Davidson College, 9/1979-6/1983, B.A., 6/1983.
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, Program Analysis & Evaluation, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Supervisor: Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon, 4/2003 to
present.
Executive Secretary, Senior Executive Council, OSD, Supervisor:
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon, 7/2001 to present.
Vice President and General Manager Office and Consumer Papers,
International Paper, Supervisor: Charlie Greiner, 6400 Poplar
Avenue,Memphis, TN, 7/2000-7/2001.
Business Manager, Office Papers, International Paper, Supervisor:
L.H. Puckett and Rick Smith, 5/1997-7/2000.
Sales & Marketing Manager, Bleached Board Division, International
Paper, Supervisor: Tom Gestrich, 6/1995-5/1997.
National Sales Manager and Marketing Manager, Bleached Board
Division, International Paper, Supervisor: Scott Murchison, 5/1993-6/
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.
I supported Chairman and CEO of International Paper, John Georges
when he was a member of President George Bush's Commission on
Environmental Quality 1991-1992. I was employed by International Paper,
but worked on Commission business on his behalf.
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 of Lewinsville Presbyterian Church, McLean, VA (2002-
present); Stewardship committee 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.
Bush-Cheney 2000 $1,000.
Bush-Cheney 2004 $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.
Air Force Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service--January
2005.
Army Decoration for Distinguished Civilian Service--May 2003.
Navy Distinguished Public Service Award--January 2003.
Davidson College Alumni Service Award--2002.
DOD Medal for Distinguished Public Service--October 1990.
Phi Beta Kappa.
Omicron Delta Kappa.
Agnes Sentelle Brown Award; Davidson College.
Richardson Scholar; Davidson College.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Introduced a section of a book, ``The All-Volunteer Force-Thirty
Years of Service,'' which captured the proceedings of a DOD conference
on the topic in September 2003. Contributed to one article in The
Washington Quarterly in 1988 with Rhett Dawson and Paul Stevens titled
Defense Efficiency in the 1990s.
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 delivered numerous talks on defense resources and
management, as well as defense transformation since returning to
government. Most of the talks have been to internal audiences,
conferences or schools. Only two have been from partially prepared
text; most are delivered off handwritten notes. I have included those
two.
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.
Kenneth J. Krieg.
This 13th day of April 2005.
[The nomination of Kenneth J. Krieg was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on May 25, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 26, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. Michael V.
Hayden, USAF, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with
answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. More than 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 support these reforms. I have been personally
working to implement these reforms in every position I have held since
they were passed in 1986 because of the efficiency and effectiveness
they engender.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. My experience has been that defense reforms under
Goldwater-Nichols have been broadly accepted and institutionalized.
They have been the underpinning of much of our success in joint war
fighting over the past decade.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The provisions of Goldwater-Nichols have contributed to the
success of our armed forces in many areas. My personal view, however,
is that the personnel provisions of Title IV have done more than any
other aspects of the law to create a true culture of jointness.
Moreover, as I said in my testimony to the House Intelligence
Committee last August, I think that the personnel provisions of the act
are more transferable to the Intelligence Community (IC) than any other
aspects of the law.
The essence of jointness is to consider the whole over the parts
and to dampen demands for individual control in favor of collaboration
and cooperation. The underlying principle of Goldwater-Nichols holds
true for the IC: the rejection of the idea that ``If I don't own it or
control it, I can't count on it.''
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 over the military; 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; 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. In your view, are the goals of the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 fully consistent with the goals of
the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act? Please
explain.
Answer. The goals of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 are consistent with the goals of the Goldwater-
Nichols Act that reorganized the Department of Defense to increase
cooperation and jointness among the services.
The authorities given to the Director of National Intelligence will
allow the DNI to manage the IC in ways that will increase
interoperability among the elements of the Intelligence Community. A
more effective Intelligence Community cannot help but better support
the combined operations of the American armed forces.
For example, the DNI is to prescribe, in consultation with the
heads of other agencies or elements of the Intelligence Community, and
the heads of their respective departments, personnel policies and
programs applicable to the IC including standards for education,
training, recruitment, and retention. At the heart of this is building
a community ethos of cooperation and collaboration--the IC equivalent
of jointness.
The Act also directs the DNI to prescribe mechanisms to facilitate
the rotation of IC personnel through various IC elements during the
course of their careers to facilitate the widest possible understanding
of intelligence requirements, methods, users, and capabilities.
The law authorizes the DNI to give special incentives for personnel
to get IC-wide perspectives by working in the Office of the DNI or in
other positions in support of the DNI's IC management functions; I
strongly support these initiatives.
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (PDDNI)?
Answer. The formal answer is that the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act (IR&TPA) of 2004 specifies certain duties and
functions of the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.
These include assisting the Director of National Intelligence in
carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Director. Further,
the law specifies that the PDDNI is to act for, and exercise the powers
of, the DNI during the absence or disability of the DNI or during a
vacancy in the position of the DNI.
If confirmed, the DNI and I would work out the details of my job
description within the formal framework. No decisions have yet been
made, but it would be reasonable to assume that the DNI would want me
to help him ensure that the Intelligence Community runs as smoothly as
possible.
I should also point out that the IR&TPA notes the sense of Congress
that either the DNI or his principal deputy should be a serving
military officer or someone with an appreciation of military
intelligence activities and requirements. If confirmed, one of my key
responsibilities will be to provide the DNI with insight into the needs
of America's combat forces.
I also expect that my experience in the production of intelligence
and my knowledge of intelligence sources, tasking, analysis and
distribution as well as of budgetary issues, laws and military
organizations should complement the DNI's experience as an intelligence
consumer.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. Over the course of my career, I have had extensive
experience in managing and leading the military personnel that have
been under my command. As the Director of the National Security Agency
(DIRNSA), I have also had a large number of civilian employees under my
direction.
In my current position as DIRNSA, we transformed NSA into a modern
agency that operates effectively and efficiently in the digital age. I
am especially proud that we have improved many aspects of NSA's mission
including transforming the SIGINT process to get pertinent SIGINT
information out to warfighters and to NSA's other customers in a timely
fashion.
With regard to my responsibility to provide the DNI with insight
into the intelligence needs of DOD, I believe my experience in leading
the National Security Agency through the campaigns in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and the war on terrorism has given me a robust appreciation of
DOD requirements in wartime.
In my position as DIRNSA I have also had extensive experience
contending with the IC's dispersion of authority. While responsible for
the Nation's entire cryptologic architecture, I directly controlled
just over a third of the Nation's cryptologic spending and was obliged
to influence the remainder through an often cumbersome system of staff
coordination. The current legislation takes significant steps in better
aligning responsibility with authority.
My experience also includes dealing with issues of some political
sensitivity. For example, while Deputy Chief of Staff, United Nations
Command and U.S. Forces Korea, I routinely led the military delegation
charged with negotiating with North Korean generals.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Principal Deputy
Director of National Intelligence?
Answer. If confirmed, there are a variety of actions I would need
to take to enhance my ability to perform as PDDNI. I would need to
listen to the advice and counsel of individuals with unique experiences
to share. I have already made a concerted effort to reach out to such
people, both inside and outside of government. For example, I have
listened to insightful advice from the SECDEF, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence, other DOD officials, former DCIs, Attorneys
General, members of the National Security Council, other White House
officials, leaders of industry, prominent academics, and friends whose
advice I value. All have been highly supportive.
I particularly would need to familiarize myself with aspects of the
IC beyond the immediate confines of DOD and NSA--issues like the
linkages between law enforcement and intelligence or between foreign
and domestic intelligence.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Director of National Intelligence will prescribe
for you?
Answer. In the months ahead we have to set up an office, build an
organization, hire the right kind of people from inside and outside the
government, and establish new ways of doing business for the
Intelligence Community. As with all Deputies, however, I would assume
much of my time would be taken up with ``other duties as assigned.''
That is right and proper and I will use my best efforts to complete
whatever tasks the DNI assigns me.
relationships
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
following:
The Secretary of Defense.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information
Integration.
The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The Director for Intelligence, J-2, the Joint Staff.
The Service Secretaries and the Service Intelligence Directors.
The Directors of the Defense intelligence agencies.
Answer. In the broadest possible terms, I will seek if confirmed to
work with each individual listed in a cooperative spirit for the good
of the Nation. Much has been written about potential bureaucratic
roadblocks to effective cooperation. We have all heard the warnings,
particularly from the WMD Commission, about how bureaucracies are
loathe to change and how organizations may want to keep a death grip on
what they perceive as ``their turf.''
That said, I personally know the individuals listed and know that
each has the best interests of the country at heart. I look forward to
working with each of them in my new capacity, if confirmed, because I
believe they understand that a successful DNI means a successful IC,
which means a safer Nation. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 gives us an opportunity to improve the overall
performance of U.S. intelligence for all consumers.
Many of the Defense officials noted above will be, as they have
been in the past, at a key intersection of American national security
policy and combat operations. They support both the Department of
Defense and national needs. Some of the discussion and press commentary
over this past year seems to suggest that this is somehow a new or
troublesome development. This is not new and has not been new since
1952 when President Truman established NSA as the first ``national''
intelligence component housed within DOD. The ``difficulties''
associated with this arrangement are not so much circumstances to be
solved as conditions to be managed in the national interest. At their
best, agencies such as NSA are at the cornerstone of a ``culture of
collaboration'' since their placement makes collaboration essential to
their success.
More specifically, as the role of the DNI is established and DOD
continues to develop the role of the USD(I), it is important that we
explore ways in which the latter can play an important role in helping
both the Secretary of Defense and the DNI to develop greater
integration within those IC elements located within DOD.
In that light, I would like to echo remarks Ambassador Negroponte
made in his confirmation hearing. He noted that the act gives him the
authority to deal directly with heads of IC entities in certain areas
and that he intended to exercise this authority. I share Ambassador
Negroponte's views because, as I told the Senate Intelligence
Committee, I believe it is critically important to the success of the
DNI that he have robust authority over the big, national collection
entities like the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency, and CIA's Directorate of Operations.(start)
As noted above, as a military officer (and if confirmed) I would
bring to this job a perspective much sought by Congress. I would also
note, however, that the IR&TPA states that a commissioned officer,
during his term as DNI or PDDNI, shall not be subject to supervision or
control by the Secretary of Defense or by any officer or employee of
the Department of Defense. This is a carry-over from the National
Security Act of 1947, and it makes good sense to do so in order to
ensure the independence of the incumbent.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (DNI)?
Answer. If confirmed, I see three major challenges that immediately
will confront me as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence:
establishing the organization of the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, staffing that organization with the best qualified
people, and beginning to address significant issues for the DNI and the
Intelligence Community.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. With respect to establishing the organization of Office of
the DNI (ODNI), a number of options exist. If confirmed, the DNI and I
will weigh those options and decide which structure will best meet the
needs of the DNI and the goals of the IR&TPA.
Today, the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community
Management and those acting as the Assistant Director of Central
Intelligence for Collection, and the Assistant Director of Central
Intelligence for Analysis and Production perform important Community
functions, which the DNI may want to continue in some form under the
DNI structure. For instance, it may be desirable to have one person in
charge of management issues that cut across the IC. This could include
developing and determining the budget for the National Intelligence
Program.
The law also gives the DNI important responsibilities for tasking
intelligence collection, which the DNI may want reflected in the ODNI
structure.
Similarly, the law obligates the DNI to ensure analytic integrity
and objectivity obligations that should be considered as the DNI
designs the ODNI.
With respect to staffing the ODNI, if confirmed, I would recommend
to the DNI that the overriding consideration when selecting personnel
should be doing what is best for the country. The law makes the DNI
responsible for ensuring that this happens, and I support his
authority. I would recommend to the DNI that he look for people who
have the qualities needed to carry the Intelligence Community into the
21st century.
This would include people who are dedicated to
protecting the country. Intelligence work is a high calling and
often requires sacrifices by individuals and their families.
The IC needs people who are willing to put national needs above
personal needs and serve the country by being its first line of
defense.
It would also include people who are proven leaders. I
have often said that the strength of NSA is its people; NSA
goes down the elevators when our people go home at night.
Finding the right individuals with the skills to lead the
workforces of the various IC elements is critical to
successfully facing the challenges confronting the IC and the
Nation.
I would also advise the DNI to choose people who are
committed to working cooperatively across the IC while
fulfilling the mission of their host agency or department. This
will take a special kind of talent. Individuals chosen to lead
the IC must be keenly focused on the IC mission and work
together to further the national interests of the United
States.
Ambassador Negroponte values diversity as an important
goal in managing large organizations, and I support him in
that.
Question. What do you anticipate will be the most serious problems
in the performance of the functions of the Principal Deputy Director of
National Intelligence?
Answer. I see the most serious problem in the performance of the
functions of the PDDNI as creating within the IC a culture of
collaboration. One of my goals as PDDNI will be to build a
collaborative environment where cooperative analysis becomes the norm,
resulting in one intelligence discipline being made stronger by
another, and each prompting useful activity by still a third.
If confirmed, I would propose to the DNI that every member of the
IC be given an urgent responsibility to understand his or her role
within the larger community, and to carry it out as assigned. For
example, while I would want DIA analysts to have access to NGA-
generated imagery in order to inform their finished reporting, I would
want, even more, DIA analysts to have access to the NGA expert who is
responsible for having collected the information in the first place,
has been collecting such information for 30 years, and can provide
insights concerning the information that would not occur to a non-
expert.
We have to stress this kind of culture at every opportunity. It
needs to be apparent in personnel appointments. It needs to be central
in all of our professional education and training. It needs to be
reinforced with a passionate commitment that the DNI leads all of the
community.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would take management actions as soon as
possible to ensure that the Intelligence Community operates like a true
``information enterprise.'' We need to find ways to enable the IC to
provide relevant information at the appropriate stage of its
development and in a form usable to those who have the mission,
capability, and expertise to act on it. There ought to be no artificial
barriers set up--or maintained--that deny significant information to an
entity that requires it. Access to meaningful information in a form
that is useful and responsive to the needs of the user is a key
component of the information enterprise, and is absolutely vital to our
success.
The IC has made progress in building close partnerships between and
among intelligence agencies. Some of the collaborative relationships
are relatively new; others have functioned effectively and efficiently
for years. If confirmed, I would recommend to the DNI that we must act
even more assertively and comprehensively; we need to build on our
success to make cooperative relationships more lasting in their
duration, more inclusive across the IC in their breadth, and more
profound in their depth.
We would, of course, have to be specific with regard to timelines
and metrics. In the absence of these, some of our efforts in the past
to promote information availability and access have been received as
guidelines rather than as determinative policy.
PRIORITIES
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Principal Deputy
Director of National Intelligence?
Answer. If confirmed, I would recommend to the DNI several broad
priorities. One priority, as discussed above, would be to establish the
organization of the Office of the DNI and to staff it with the right
people.
Another recommendation would be to issue clear DNI guidance on a
variety of issues to the IC. I would recommend that the DNI's guidance
be clear, short, and authoritative, and not the product of endless
staffing or a lengthy search for absolute consensus. Consensus is
rarely bold and it is often wrong.
Yet another priority would be to monitor the activities of the IC--
in short, to improve our performance. The IR&TPA is quite clear in this
regard. Among other things, the DNI is to: ensure the effective
execution of the budget; monitor the implementation of that budget by
the heads of the elements of the IC; establish objectives, priorities,
and guidance for the IC to ensure timely and effective collection,
processing, analysis, and dissemination of national intelligence; and
ensure compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
INFORMATION SHARING
Question. A consistent finding of almost all studies,
investigations, and commissions evaluating the performance of the
Intelligence Community with regard to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001 and pre-war intelligence regarding Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction programs have concluded that there are impediments to
the rapid and efficient sharing of information between elements of the
Intelligence Community.
In your view, what are the institutional and cultural impediments
to the effective sharing of information between elements of the
Intelligence Community?
Answer. I see at least five broad categories of impediments to
information sharing today: (1) technology, (2) law, (3) policy, (4)
culture, and (5) impediments that grow out of enduring urban myths.
The technological impediments can be overcome. In short, we have
wired ourselves north-south, i.e. within each of our disciplines. We
have far less wiring east-west, i.e. between disciplines. But this can
be overcome and massive efforts to do so are already underway.
The legal impediments to information sharing have traditionally
grown out of a concern for the privacy of U.S. persons. Intelligence
agencies are responsible for ensuring that information to, from, or
about U.S. persons is ``minimized'' in accordance with procedures
approved by the Attorney General. Such procedures protect the
legitimate privacy interests of U.S. persons against unconstitutional
actions by the U.S. Government. When information about U.S. persons is
collected as a result of the interception of the communications of a
foreign entity, the identity of the U.S. person is not included in an
intelligence report unless that identity is necessary to understand the
foreign intelligence or to assess its importance. We are working very
hard (and much progress has already been made) to maximize the sharing
of information while continuing to protect privacy rights.
Policy issues also play a role in impeding the flow of information.
The quintessential issue in this category is concern about the
protection of sources and methods. Such concerns are legitimate, and at
NSA we have experienced the loss of some lucrative sources of
information when the communications methods we were exploiting became
publicly known. That said, in my personal experience I have never seen
``sources and methods'' concerns sufficient to prevent the flow of
intelligence to those who have a genuine need for it and we need to
accelerate our training efforts to ensure that this is consistently the
case. Again, we have made great strides in the past 3 years but this is
an area that demands constant attention.
In addition, cultural issues can result in impediments to
information sharing. Turf wars and the desire to overemphasize the
``ownership'' of data (i.e., knowledge is power) do indeed play a
role--sometimes--in the erection of barriers to information sharing.
These are, in my experience, much less common than the press would have
us believe, and thankfully have become even more rare since the 2001
attacks on the United States. Nonetheless, our tolerance for this
attitude must be zero.
Finally, I am occasionally struck by the number of so-called
impediments to information sharing that result not from any conscious
decision by one or more agencies in the IC, but instead from simple
misunderstandings. We need to continue to educate IC members of the
actual limitations so that they fully understand the rules.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you recommend to ensure
that critical intelligence information is fully shared within the
Intelligence Community? How would you ensure that sensitive sources and
methods of collection are fully protected?
Answer. If confirmed, I would recommend to Ambassador Negroponte
that he make clear to all parts of the IC that he has access to all IC
data and should set the standard by which that data may be accessed by
those that need it. Information access is no longer a question for
individual IC members, it is expected throughout the IC.
COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION NETWORKS
Question. The Intelligence Community depends, in large part, on
communications architectures and information networks established and
managed by the Department of Defense.
How would you ensure that the ``C3'' functions, including
information technology management, multi-level security,
interoperability, and cybersecurity policy are fully coordinated
between the Department of Defense and the Director of National
Intelligence?
Answer. This is a critical issue for DOD and the Intelligence
Community to resolve. Intelligence agencies need interoperable
communications with each other and DOD agencies need to be able to get
relevant information to combatant commanders. These objectives, though
different, are not mutually exclusive. I expect to work closely with
the DOD to ensure that the IC and DOD develop information systems
architectures and information security policies that promote secure and
timely information access. In addition, the establishment of the
INFORMATION SHARING ENVIRONMENT MANDATED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 13356 AND
the IR&TPA represents a positive step in promoting assured information
access across different communities of interest.
NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER
Question. The Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) was
established 3 years ago to facilitate the fusion of information about
terrorist threats from various intelligence and law enforcement
agencies. In accordance with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the
TTIC has evolved into the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).
What role do you envision for the Department of Defense in relation
to the NCTC, including the provision of military and civilian personnel
from DOD as members of the NCTC staff?
Answer. Success in the global war on terrorism demands the
effective use of all national instruments. As the organization charged
with strategic operational planning and threat warning, the NCTC will
only succeed if there is a full partnership with the Department of
Defense that leverages the depth and expertise of elements of DOD,
including DOD assignees to the NCTC. DOD brings to the NCTC strength in
planning, experience in the global war on terrorism battlefield and
analytic engagement with targets of interest.
Question. In your view, what has changed within defense
intelligence agencies, and within the other elements of the
Intelligence Community since September 11 to enable them to better
share information amongst themselves, within the larger Intelligence
Community, and with appropriate law enforcement agencies?
Answer. The intelligence and operations environment necessary to
confront a distributed networked threat like terrorism has challenged
the Intelligence Community to reevaluate notions of what constitutes
effective collaboration and sharing.
We have greatly enriched the broad understanding that we have
significant interdependencies upon one another. This learning, and
realizing the power of leveraging what we have learned, has done much
to spur action towards establishing relationships, connectivity and
effecting policy changes that further enable this capability.
I believe a bridge we still need to cross is closing what gaps
remain between the flow of information between our IC and State and
local officials. We need to set and implement appropriate relationships
that provide first responders the kind of actionable information we
have been successful in delivering to the fight overseas.
Question. In your view, what additional changes, if any, are needed
to improve the function of the NCTC and its coordination with the
defense intelligence agencies and the broader Intelligence Community?
Answer. I believe authorities stemming from the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 will provide opportunities to
strengthen the strong foundation Interim Director Brennan has
established.
Ongoing work to build NCTC's strategic operational planning role is
a good example of where NCTC is taking on the task of marrying
operational planning with threat assessments in a fully collaborative
environment. This is an area where DOD elements, in particular, have a
considerable amount of experience and I expect they will play a key
role in that process.
HOMELAND DEFENSE
Question. In recent years, with the establishment of the positions
of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Homeland Defense, the Department of Defense has been
fundamentally reorganized to better address the critical homeland
defense mission.
In your view, what challenges lie ahead in integrating the
intelligence capabilities of the Department of Defense with those of
the Department of Homeland Security and other associated Federal, state
and local agencies?
Answer. The inclusion of ``homeland security'' within the national
security framework of the United States is the most significant shift
in American security thinking in decades. We need to ensure that we
think through what it means to operate in a homeland security
environment, one that does not lend itself to the facile distinction
between ``domestic'' security issues and more traditional
``international'' security issues. My personal view is that this issue
represents the immediate intellectual ``heavy lifting'' for the DNI.
The challenge of creating a consistent threat information stream
from Federal players to state and local counterparts must be addressed.
I expect that the Office of the DNI will play a significant role in
fostering these relationships.
Question. In your view, does the Department of Defense's existing
requirements process adequately support the establishment of
intelligence requirements for homeland security and missions?
Answer. I am very familiar with the requirement's process used by
NORTHCOM; it is consistent with other parts of the DOD requirements
system. Although I have spoken to Secretary Chertoff and his staff
about DHS intelligence needs, I am not yet as familiar as I need to be
and look forward to learning more about those needs.
TRANSFORMATION
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld has established transformation of the
Armed Forces to meet 21st century threats as one of his highest
priorities.
What is the role of intelligence in the overall defense
transformation process?
Answer. One of the key tenets of Secretary Rumsfeld's
transformation initiatives is information dominance. The protection of
our information and its networks and the seamless transfer of
information throughout our military forces enable us to act upon our
adversaries before they act upon us.
Question. Specifically for the defense Intelligence Community, what
does transformation mean?
Answer. As a military officer I am fully aware that--in a doctrinal
sense--we have opted for precision over mass. Said differently, we have
decided that we can operate smarter and better by creating the effects
of mass through precision targeting. We will defeat our enemies because
the impact of destroying a critical target in a discrete, or focused,
way maximizes our effectiveness and maximizes the disruptive effects on
the enemy.
But precision weapons are never more precise than the intelligence
that enables them. We need intelligence worthy of the precise weaponry
that we have and are creating.
This shouldn't be surprising. The way a nation makes war is as
indicative of its culture as the way it writes poetry or creates music.
We are an information-based society. America's military is an
information based combat force; hence, the absolute criticality of
precise, timely and relevant intelligence for our battlefield forces.
Question. In your view, what transformational capabilities does our
Intelligence Community require?
Answer. Transformation in the Intelligence Community requires both
a technological and a cultural change.
Culturally, we need to combine like efforts while at the same time
encouraging analytical differences. To do this, the DNI will need to
gain visibility into all intelligence related activities but also know
what management approach to emphasize for each of the IC's individual
parts: a firmer hand to gain economies of scale when it comes to
collection but perhaps a lighter hand when it comes to nurturing a
variety of analytical approaches.
Technology must be harnessed to deal with what will become even
more acute information overload in the future. We need to present
information in the ``language'' of the receiver and in such a way as to
facilitate decisionmaking.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that defense
transformation and the larger Intelligence Community transformation are
mutually supportive and complementary?
Answer. Many efforts are already underway within the Intelligence
Community to transform and improve processes. Step one will be to use
the enhanced authorities of the DNI to get our arms around all
disparate efforts. We need to combine like efforts and eliminate
duplication where appropriate. We need to identify best practices and
eliminate the inefficient. Most of all, we need to set a direction with
clear, unambiguous guidance and use the tools that the law gives us to
ensure our efforts are synchronized.
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE
Question. The defense intelligence structure has evolved over the
years, most recently with the creation of the Defense Human
Intelligence Service in 1996, the establishment of the National Imagery
and Mapping Agency (NIMA), now the National Geospatial Intelligence
Agency, in 1997, and the establishment of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence in 2002.
In your view, is the current organizational structure of defense
intelligence the best structure to support military and national
intelligence needs?
Answer. The organizational structure of defense intelligence is
complex. The USD(I) already has several efforts underway to improve the
efficiency and the effectiveness of defense intelligence. The creation
of Joint Intelligence Operations Centers (JIOCs), for example, is a
clear recognition that intelligence--by its nature--is inherently
operational. The creation of intelligence campaign plans is another
effort that will rationalize and clearly articulate DOD intelligence
needs. Similarly, the increased authorities of Commander STRATCOM in
global ISR promise to bring greater order and flexibility into this
important area.
I would therefore be very reluctant to conclude that any current
structure is the ``best.'' It will be important, though, to harmonize
changes planned or underway in DOD's tactical activities with the
changes the DNI may make at the national level.
Question. If not, what changes would you recommend to the current
structure?
Answer. Although I have no specific recommendations to make, I
would stress that this structure is clearly something that should not
be static, but should evolve over time in response to changing
circumstances and needs. All of our activities are simply elements of
larger strategies and policies. As the operational environment evolves,
we need to ensure that our institutional arrangements emerge
accordingly.
Question. In your view, what role should the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence play in order to best serve the needs of the
Department of Defense, as well as the Director of National
Intelligence?
Answer. My personal sense is that to the degree that Defense can
package up the tactical intelligence activities of the military
departments and present them in a unified, integrated, coherent way to
the DNI, that would be a real virtue and something that would be very
welcome. Under the best of circumstances, the USD(I) should be a key
agent of the SECDEF and a key ally of the DNI.
ACQUISITION AUTHORITY
Question. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 establishes significant acquisition authority for the Director of
National Intelligence, and provides that the Director of National
Intelligence shall exercise exclusive milestone decision authority over
Intelligence Community acquisition programs; except that with respect
to Department of Defense intelligence programs, the Secretary of
Defense and Director of National Intelligence will jointly exercise
this authority.
What challenges, if any, do you see associated with the exercise of
joint milestone decision authority by the Secretary of Defense and the
Director of National Intelligence?
Answer. If confirmed, we will need to work out procedures that will
allow us to exercise this joint authority in a way that does not create
undue burdens in paperwork or time.
Question. What organizational structures will the Director of
National Intelligence need to establish to ensure comprehensive and
professional oversight of complex acquisition programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will recommend to the DNI that he create a
robust acquisition office to carry out the responsibilities identified
in the law. Once the above referenced joint MDA process is defined, the
DNI will need a staff to ensure proper practices and oversight.
Question. In your view, should milestone decision authority within
the Intelligence Community be centralized within the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence, or delegated to the heads of the
respective elements of the Intelligence Community?
Answer. Under the IR&TPA, milestone decision authority rests
exclusively with the DNI, except with respect to DOD programs. An
analysis of specific practices, and the possible need or desirability
to delegate any such authorities, will have to be reviewed after the
DNI has been confirmed.
TACTICAL INTELLIGENCE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES AND JOINT MILITARY
INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS
Question. The Department of Defense currently funds important
military intelligence programs through the Tactical Intelligence and
Related Activities (TIARA) and Joint Military Intelligence Program
(JMIP) accounts. The Director of National Intelligence will have
significant budget authority in the formulation of National
Intelligence Program budget recommendations made by elements of the
Intelligence Community, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11
Commission also recommended that the Secretary of Defense retain
principal authority for the formulation of TIARA and JMIP programs. The
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 provides for
the Director of National Intelligence to participate in the formulation
of TIARA and JMIP budget submissions.
In your view, what role should the Director of National
Intelligence play in the development of military intelligence budget
recommendations submitted by the military Services and the Department
of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will recommend to the DNI that his office
play a robust and constructive role in the formulation of the JMIP and
TIARA programs budgets.
This will be very important. Much of the discussion in the press
and elsewhere over the past year has implied that there exists a clear
distinction between ``tactical'' and ``national'' intelligence. This is
at best wrong headed and it is potentially dangerous. One can still
suggest that some users are more ``national'' users of intelligence,
while others can still be described as ``tactical'' but the
intelligence itself is likely to be part of a seamless whole, riding on
a common network and applied simultaneously by various users pursuing a
range of objectives.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
the various components of the intelligence budget meet the needs of
battlefield commanders, as well as the needs of the President and other
national decision makers?
Answer. Support to the warfighter is a principal objective of the
Intelligence Community. If confirmed, I will recommend to the DNI that
we regularly consult with DOD and combatant commanders to identify both
their current and future requirements. These needs will then be
communicated through budgetary guidance to the intelligence components
for preparation and development of the annual NIP budget submission.
HUMAN INTELLIGENCE
Question. The Secretary of Defense has indicated that he would like
to have enhanced human intelligence capabilities within the Department
of Defense.
Do you support the goals of the Secretary of Defense in enhancing
the human intelligence capabilities of the Department of Defense?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What aspects, if any, of enhancing Defense human
intelligence that would cause you concern as the Principal Deputy
Director of National Intelligence?
Answer. This is largely an issue of coordination and deconfliction.
HUMINT collection efforts between DOD and CIA must be coordinated and
deconflicted for efficiency and to prevent unintended consequences. We
do not want, for example, the HUMINT operations of one organization to
interrupt or reveal the HUMINT operations of another. We must also
ensure that all HUMINT operations are conducted in a manner consistent
with US law and policy.
Question. What steps do you believe need to be taken to ensure that
the goals and overall mission of defense human intelligence are
consistent with the overall human intelligence goals of the
Intelligence Community?
Answer. One of the statutory responsibilities of the DNI is to
ensure effective use of intelligence resources. If confirmed, I would
recommend to the DNI that he issue consistent guidance across the IC
about maximizing the use of HUMINT resources.
Question. In your view, what changes or additional capabilities, if
any, are needed in the Department's human intelligence organization?
Answer. As a SIGINTer and head of NSA, I am not fully prepared to
address detailed changes needed by DOD's HUMINT organizations at this
time. As a general matter, however, I would stress the need for
language skills and area expertise as essential building blocks for any
HUMINT activities.
Question. At various times, some have suggested that the human
intelligence efforts of the Department of Defense and the Central
Intelligence Agency should be consolidated.
Do you believe the Defense Human Intelligence capabilities should
be consolidated or integrated into the Central Intelligence Agency?
Answer. I understand that this is an issue discussed in the WMD
Report and I look forward to considering it in more detail, if
confirmed.
MILITARY PERSONNEL TRAINING AND ASSIGNMENT
Question. The Intelligence Reform Act and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 gives the Director of National Intelligence significant
authority over the assignment, extensions and transfers, and the
proposed training of uniformed personnel serving within the
Intelligence Community.
In your view, what procedures should be established to ensure that
military personnel assigned to the Intelligence Community are managed
so as to ensure that they develop the intelligence skills required to
support both military and national intelligence requirements?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to use my experience at NSA to help
inform the judgment of the ODNI on this issue. Specifically, NSA is
well practiced in working with a military workforce that is more
junior, less experienced and more transient than its civilian
counterpart in the Agency. I viewed this as a condition to be managed,
rather than a problem to be solved. Accepting that the demands of
uniformed service made the above conditions almost inevitable, we
worked on the positive aspects that our military workforce brought to
the enterprise--youth, energy, new ideas, deployability, recent
education--rather than these more negative attributes.
I would also suggest that the greatest return on HR policy
investment for the DNI would be with the Community's civilian workforce
that does not yet enjoy the advantages of tech schools, leadership
training, professional military education, mentoring and a rigorous
promotion system that are already routine for our military personnel.
I would also add that many of these military programs should serve
as models for how we develop our civilian workforce within the IC.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that
assignment, transfer, and extension policies for military personnel
detailed to the Intelligence Community are consistent with the
assignment and professional development policies of the parent military
service?
Answer. It is to the mutual advantage of DOD and the DNI to
routinely review how the military services recruit, train, and develop
intelligence professionals. It would be inefficient and counter-
productive for all concerned if time and efforts were spent giving a
service member the skills to prosecute an intelligence target, only to
have that person transferred to a new assignment before any of us could
reap the value of that development. I believe it especially important
that we examine ways that service members can be promoted or otherwise
recognized for their excellence as intelligence professionals.
EVALUATION OF INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT
Question. In your capacity as Director of the National Security
Agency and as Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, you gained
insights into the process by which the Intelligence Community provides
intelligence support to the combatant commanders and other elements of
the Department of Defense.
Based on this experience, how would you rate the job the
Intelligence Community is doing in supporting the combatant commanders
and other elements of the Department of Defense and what improvements,
if any, would you recommend?
Answer. Let me address this from what I am very familiar with,
SIGINT. SIGINT has gotten overwhelmingly positive reviews in
prosecuting the counterterrorism mission over the last 3 years. As the
target evolves, we have constantly evaluated and adjusted our efforts
to ensure continued success in protecting the homeland and defeating
our adversaries. We have created a more expeditionary force, moving
forward into the warfighters' environment to operationalize
intelligence to the maximum degree.
Question. If confirmed as Principal Deputy Director of National
Intelligence, what steps would you take to ensure that support to the
warfighter is a priority of the overall Intelligence Community and the
Director of National Intelligence?
Answer. I am unable to imagine circumstances in which support to
American combat forces would not enjoy the same priority it does today.
That said, if the need were ever to arise, I would rely on my
experience at NSA to reinforce the priority that American forces should
enjoy. In short, we are critical to the fight and every bit as much a
part of the operational team as air, armor, or infantry.
REQUIREMENT FOR SENIOR MILITARY OFFICERS ON THE STAFFS OF THE DIRECTOR
OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY
Question. A position currently exists within the Director of
Central Intelligence (DCI) staff for an Associate Director for Military
Support, specifically to coordinate Intelligence Community support to
the military and military support to the DCI.
Do you believe that a similar position should be established within
the staff of the Director of National Intelligence?
Answer. While there have been no decisions regarding the structure
of the ODNI, it is clear to me that that the needs of the Department of
Defense and of American military forces are a priority and that the DNI
will have to craft an organizational structure to support those needs.
Question. In your view, is there a continuing requirement for a
senior military officer on the staff of the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency?
Answer. I would, of course, defer to the DCIA and Secretary of
Defense on this issue. My personal experience, however, indicates that
the Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support was
a very valued member of the CIA team and an important spokesman for the
needs of the Department of Defense.
LESSONS LEARNED
Question. You have served in a variety of both operational and
intelligence positions within the Air Force and within the Department
of Defense during your military career.
What are the most important lessons you have learned regarding
tactical, operational, and strategic intelligence during your tenure in
senior leadership positions within the Department of Defense and within
the Intelligence Community?
Answer. One of the most important lessons I have learned through
observation over the course of my career is the rapid pace at which the
distinctions between national and tactical intelligence have
disappeared. In fact, in my 6 years as Director, National Security
Agency, I have never had to choose between a ``national'' and a
``tactical'' effort. In today's environment, those two terms have
eroded to non-recognition. I have had to make many choices based on
resources, but never were the challenges tactical versus national.
With the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, NSA was designated a
Combat Support Agency for those activities it provides in support of
operational commanders. We take this role very, very seriously and
provide actionable, near-real-time intelligence and information system
risk management support to operational commanders.
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 to give your personal views, when asked
before this committee to do so, even if those views differ from the
administration in power?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be as forthcoming as possible in
giving this committee my views, consistent with my responsibilities
under the Constitution and laws as an executive branch official.
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 Principal Deputy Director
of National Intelligence?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided in a timely manner to
this committee and its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORATE AND DOD INTELLIGENCE IMPROVEMENTS
1. Senator Inhofe. General Hayden, recently our country and
Congress have had a debate on intelligence reform and it resulted in
the consolidation of our intelligence resources under the Director of
National Intelligence (DNI). As you addressed in your opening
statement, the Defense Department is the single largest user of
intelligence in the U.S. Government. An issue of concern when Congress
created this new organizational structure was how the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA) would operate in this new body--what would be
its ability to continue to collect and disperse specific and applicable
information in a time-sensitive environment. You have said in your
statement that this new framework will give us the opportunity to
improve overall intelligence for DOD. Given this previous concern and
your background in the military and the National Security Agency, would
you please elaborate on how you foresee the realization of this
opportunity for the DOD?
General Hayden. The establishment of the position of the Director
of National Intelligence offers an opportunity to improve the quality
of intelligence the Department of Defense receives today and will
receive tomorrow. By separating the authority for managing the
Intelligence Community from the head of the Central Intelligence
Agency, Congress, and the President have created the conditions under
which the head of the Intelligence Community will be able to focus more
attention across the entire community. This will help ensure that
resources can be better marshaled and tracked to sharpen the focus of
intelligence collection and analysis. Production improvements at the
agency level can be further leveraged through DNI efforts to create and
formalize a culture of collaboration across the Intelligence Community,
for example through establishment of a deputy DNI position for Customer
Outcomes with an associate deputy responsible to focus on military
support. The objective is to produce more and better information and
share it more widely. To the degree we succeed this approach will
benefit DOD and indeed all intelligence consumers.
HUMAN INTELLIGENCE
2. Senator Inhofe. General Hayden, one of the areas in which we may
find ourselves lacking and has been point of concern is our
government's ability to gather human intelligence. Understanding that
the best way to understand what is going on in the world is to analyze
information from multiple sources, it seems that with our utilizing
information from other governments and international non-governmental
sources, as well as from our own technological sources, we may not be
getting enough information from our own human intelligence sources. Is
this of concern to you and is this an area the Director of National
Intelligence will be exploring to ensure we have the best information
to make critical national security decisions?
General Hayden. Human intelligence can make a critical difference
to the policy and military decisions of the United States Government.
Much good work has been done at CIA in the recent past to beef up its
human collection capabilities, and it is clear this work needs to
continue so that our country will have the ability to obtain the best
human intelligence possible. Other organizations, and in particular
DOD, have roles to play in this area as well. As recognized in the
IRPTA, one of the DNI's key responsibilities will be to ensure
effective coordination and synchronization of all HUMINT activities
within a collaborative intelligence environment. Enforcing the role of
a HUMINT manager and ensuring deconfliction of CIA and DOD operations
are two steps towards achieving this goal.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
NATIONAL AND TACTICAL INTELLIGENCE
3. Senator Chambliss. General Hayden, let me quote something from
an article I wrote for the current edition of Parameters, which is the
Army War College Quarterly: ``Real intelligence reform must look beyond
the definitions of `national' and `tactical.' It must address the
intelligence needs of the President in the White House, but it must
also address the needs of the U.S. Army private in Baghdad or the U.S.
Marine lance corporal in Fallujah. We cannot send American military
forces into battle without the full spectrum of support from the entire
Intelligence Community.'' What are your views on the definition of
``national'' versus ``tactical'' intelligence?
General Hayden. I would agree with your quoted statement, and
reiterate my testimony to you in April that in my view the idea of a
separation of national and tactical intelligence is wrong-headed and
potentially dangerous. In a collaborative intelligence environment the
availability of timely and relevant intelligence, from White House to
foxhole, would be based upon the intelligence need, not the
characterization of the intelligence source. The new intelligence
structure will provide the DNI the opportunity to look across all
intelligence operations to ensure that the information that is needed
to serve all the intelligence needs of our country--tactical as well as
national--is collected and shared.
4. Senator Chambliss. General Hayden, do these terms even have
meaning in today's threat environment?
General Hayden. From an operational perspective, no. The
distinction between them lives on at the programmatic level.
5. Senator Chambliss. General Hayden, if the distinction between
``national'' and ``tactical'' intelligence is eroding, should we
address having a closer relationship between our tactical capabilities
and the DNI?
General Hayden. I believe a closer relationship would be
advantageous, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
provides several tools in this area. The Act makes specific provision
for the Director of National Intelligence to participate in the
development by the Secretary of Defense of the annual budgets for the
Joint Military Intelligence Program and for Tactical Intelligence and
Related Activities. It also provides for the Director of National
Intelligence to provide advisory tasking to intelligence elements of
those agencies and departments not within the National Intelligence
Program. More broadly, the act states that the Director of National
Intelligence shall have principal authority to ensure maximum
availability of and access to intelligence information within the
Intelligence Community consistent with national security requirements.
This provision makes no programmatic distinctions regarding either the
information to be made available or the organizations that are to
provide and receive it. Summarizing, with regard to our tactical
capabilities the DNI helps shape their budgets, helps focus their
collection and analysis, and exercises principal authority for
integrating them into a collaborative intelligence environment.
INTELLIGENCE COMMAND
6. Senator Chambliss. General Hayden, in your prepared remarks you
said, ``My personal sense is that to the degree that Defense can
package up the tactical intelligence activities of the military
departments and present them in a unified, integrated, coherent way to
the DNI, that would be a real virtue and something that would be very
welcome.'' Senator Ben Nelson and I couldn't agree more, which is why
we introduced our Intelligence Command (INTCOM) bill. In your view,
could a unified command for intelligence accomplish what you are
looking for relative to the unification and integration of our tactical
intelligence activities in the military departments and DIA?
General Hayden. My personal view is that a unified command for
intelligence is not necessary in order to improve the unification and
integration of U.S. tactical intelligence activities. What I meant in
my prepared remarks was that unifying and integrating the tactical
intelligence activities of the Services, such as the tactical signals
intelligence elements of each Service, into some coherent structure for
reporting up to the Director of National Intelligence on issues of
common concern would better help the DNI understand their issues. This
could be accomplished through internal DOD restructuring, perhaps
involving oversight by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence,
without the need for a unified command.
______
[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden,
USAF, follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 14, 2005.
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, United States Code,
section 601:
To be General
Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden
______
[The biographical sketch of Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, USAF
Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden is Director, National Security Agency,
and Chief, Central Security Service, Fort George G. Meade, MD. The NSA/
CSS is a combat support agency of the Department of Defense with
military and civilian personnel stationed worldwide. He is the
department's senior uniformed intelligence officer.
General Hayden entered Active Duty in 1969 after earning a
bachelor's degree in history in 1967 and a master's degree in modern
American history in 1969, both from Duquesne University. He is a
distinguished graduate of the university's ROTC program. General Hayden
has served as Commander of the Air Intelligence Agency and as Director
of the Joint Command and Control Warfare Center. He also has served in
senior staff positions at the Pentagon, Headquarters U.S. European
Command in Stuttgart, Germany, National Security Council in Washington,
DC, and the U.S. Embassy in the People's Republic of Bulgaria. Prior to
his current assignment, General Hayden served as Deputy Chief of Staff
for United Nations Command and U.S. Forces Korea at Yongsan Army
Garrison, South Korea.
Education:
1967 Bachelor of Arts degree in history, Duquesne University,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
1969 Master's degree in modern American history, Duquesne
University.
1975 Academic Instructor School, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.
1976 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
1978 Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
1980 Defense Intelligence School, Defense Intelligence Agency,
Bolling AFB, DC.
1983 Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Virginia.
1983 Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Assignments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1970.................... January 1972...... Analyst and
briefer,
Headquarters
Strategic Air
Command, Offutt
AFB, Nebraska.
January 1972.................... May 1975.......... Chief, Current
Intelligence
Division,
Headquarters 8th
Air Force,
Andersen AFB,
Guam.
May 1975........................ July 1975......... Student, Academic
Instructor
School, Maxwell
AFB, Alabama.
July 1975....................... August 1979....... Academic
instructor and
commandant of
cadets, ROTC
program, St.
Michael's
College,
Winooski,
Vermont.
August 1979..................... June 1980......... Student, Defense
Intelligence
School
(postgraduate
intelligence
curriculum),
Defense
Intelligence
Agency, Bolling
AFB, DC.
June 1980....................... July 1982......... Chief of
Intelligence, 51
st Tactical
Fighter Wing,
Osan Air Base,
South Korea
July 1982....................... January 1983...... Student, Armed
Forces Staff
College, Norfolk,
Virginia.
January 1983.................... July 1984......... Student, air
attache training,
Washington, DC.
July 1984....................... July 1986......... Air attache, U.S.
Embassy, Sofia,
People's Republic
of Bulgaria.
July 1986....................... September 1989.... Politico-military
affairs officer,
Strategy
Division,
Headquarters U.S.
Air Force,
Washington, DC.
September 1989.................. July 1991......... Director for
Defense Policy
and Arms Control,
National Security
Council,
Washington, DC.
July 1991....................... May 1993.......... Chief, Secretary
of the Air Force
Staff Group,
Office of the
Secretary of the
Air Force,
Headquarters U.S.
Air Force,
Washington, DC.
May 1993........................ October 1995...... Director,
Intelligence
Directorate,
Headquarters U.S.
European Command,
Stuttgart,
Germany.
October 1995.................... December 1995..... Special assistant
to the Commander,
Headquarters Air
Intelligence
Agency, KellY
AFB, Texas.
January 1996.................... September 1997.... Commander, Air
Intelligence
Agency, and
Director, Joint
Command and
Control Warfare
Center, Kelly
AFB, Texas.
September 1997.................. March 1999........ Deputy Chief of
Staff, United
Nations Command
and U.S. Forces
Korea, Yongsan
Army Garrison,
South Korea.
March 1999...................... Present........... Director, National
Security Agency,
and Chief,
Central Security
Service, Fort
George G. Meade,
Maryland.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Awards and Decorations:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal.
Defense Superior Service Medal with oak leaf cluster.
Legion of Merit.
Bronze Star Medal.
Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters.
Air Force Commendation Medal.
Air Force Achievement Medal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotion Effective Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Lieutenant.................................... June 2, 1967
First Lieutenant..................................... June 7, 1970
Captain.............................................. Dec. 7, 1971
Major................................................ June 1, 1980
Lieutenant Colonel................................... Feb. 1, 1985
Colonel.............................................. Nov. 1, 1990
Brigadier General.................................... Sept. 1, 1993
Major General........................................ Oct. 1, 1996
Lieutenant General................................... May 1, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
[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 Lt. Gen.
Michael V. Hayden, 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.)
Michael Vincent Hayden, Allan Michael Myers (Amended April 15,
2005).
2. Position to which nominated:
Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC.
3. Date of nomination:
April 14, 2005.
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 17, 1945; Pittsburgh, PA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Jeanine Carrier Hayden (Nee Jeanine Alice Carrier).
7. Names and ages of children:
Margaret Graf, 36; Michael Hayden, Jr., 35; Liam Hayden, 30.
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.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Office Held Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council on Foreign Relations.... Member............. 2003 to present.
American Association of Retired Member............. 2003 to present.
People.
Council on Foreign Relations.... Member............. 2003 to present.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
Michael V. Hayden.
This 22th day of March 2005.
[The nomination of Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, USAF, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Warner on April 21, 2005,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on April 21, 2005.]
NOMINATIONS OF GEN. PETER PACE, USMC, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF
GENERAL AND TO BE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF; ADM EDMUND P.
GIAMBASTIANI, JR., USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND
TO BE VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF; GEN. T. MICHAEL MOSELEY,
USAF, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE CHIEF OF
STAFF OF THE AIR FORCE; AMBASSADOR ERIC S. EDELMAN TO BE UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY; DANIEL R. STANLEY TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS; AND JAMES A. RISPOLI TO
BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2005
U.S. Senate
Committee on Armed Services
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe,
Roberts, Sessions, Talent, Chambliss, Graham, Cornyn, Thune,
Levin, Dayton, and Clinton.
Other Senators present: Senator Allen and former Senator
Bob Dole.
Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Ambrose R. Hock,
professional staff member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff
member; Sandra E. Luff, professional staff member; Thomas L.
MacKenzie, professional staff member; David M. Morriss,
counsel; Stanley R. O'Connor, Jr., professional staff member;
Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky,
general counsel; Kristine L. Svinicki, professional staff
member; and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional
staff member; Madelyn R. Creedon, minority counsel; Gabriella
Eisen, research assistant; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff
member; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling,
minority counsel; and Peter K. Levine, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Andrew W. Florell and Catherine
E. Sendak.
Committee members' assistants present: Christopher J. Paul,
assistant to Senator McCain; Chris Arnold, assistant to Senator
Roberts; Meredith Moseley, assistant to Senator Graham; Russell
J. Thomasson, assistant to Senator Cornyn; Bob Taylor,
assistant to Senator Thune; David S. Lyles, assistant to
Senator Levin; William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill
Nelson; Mark Phillip Jones and Kimberly Jackson, assistants to
Senator Dayton; and Andrew Shapiro, assistant to Senator
Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good morning all. The Armed Services
Committee is very pleased, and indeed honored, to have before
us such a distinguished panel of nominees from our President.
This morning we have two very distinguished panels of
nominees who will come before us.
For our first panel, we have three military nominees.
General Peter Pace, U.S. Marine Corps, has been nominated to be
the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Edmund
P. Giambastiani, Jr., has been nominated to be the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General T. Michael
Moseley is the nominee to be the next Chief of Staff of the
U.S. Air Force.
We also have joining us Ambassador Edelman. Senator Allen,
we'll recognize you momentarily for the introduction. I
understand that Senator Nelson, of Florida, will introduce
General Pace, Senator Clinton will introduce Admiral
Giambastiani, and Senator Cornyn will introduce General
Moseley. We'll proceed with those introductions momentarily.
We will have a second panel, again, with Ambassador
Edelman, to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Dan
Stanley, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs; and James Rispoli, to be the Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Environmental Management.
I would now like to ask Senator Levin to say a few words
before the introductions. Then we have a special need to hear
from our distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, who is chairman
of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and has a
conference on the Highway Bill.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to withhold my
statement until later so that our introducers, including
Senator Nelson, who have scheduling conflicts can proceed. If
it's all right with the chair, I would give my opening
statement a little bit later, after those introductions are
made.
Chairman Warner. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me thank you for giving me just a moment
here. I do chair the Highway Bill Conference, and we're in the
middle of doing that right now, and there's a lot of interest
in this room, as well as in that room, on that. So, I won't be
able to stay here.
However, I've been honored to be able to talk to five of
the six nominees that are before us today. I fully support all
six of them. General Pace has always been one of my heroes, and
I'm hoping that, in some of the advance questions that I sent
in, that you'd be in a position to elaborate on the quality of
the training of the Iraqi security forces. That is often
demeaned. It's been my experience, being over there, that
they're doing a great job. The spirit is there, the capability
is there, and I can see them growing in ability, as well as in
numbers.
So I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, I do support all of
these nominees, and I am anxious to hear what they have to say
vicariously through staff.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Now, Senator Nelson, if you can grab a chair, at some
point? Most appropriate--standing tall, as always. Just grab a
seat there, Senator. That is fine. Please go right ahead.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
It's my privilege to formally introduce to our committee
General Pace, who is going to assume the very august
responsibility as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
I think it's noteworthy that it's almost a family affair.
General Pace was introduced to his wife, Lynne, by Admiral
Mullen, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). As a matter of
fact, General Pace had his engagement party with General Jones.
So, this family has come up together. General Pace has his own
immediate family here--his son, his daughter, and his wife,
Lynn.
I got to know General Pace when he was our commander, in
Miami, of the United States Southern Command. Of course, that
is a unique command in which you not only need a military
warrior as commander, but you need a diplomat. He did such an
excellent job that he was asked to be the Vice Chairman, a role
he has performed the last several years. It's very fitting
that, at the time in which this country is going to have
challenges that are extraordinary, and at a time in which we
have to be successful in our efforts in Iraq, because the
alternatives are rather consequential if we were not
successful, that this responsibility is falling to a leader who
has been prepared all of his life, and that is General Pete
Pace.
So, it's my pleasure to introduce him to our committee, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. We thank you, Senator. You clearly spoke
from the heart.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Now, Senator Allen, I understand you have
a time constraint, and if you'd like to introduce our
distinguished nominee?
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member,
Senator Levin, and other members of the Armed Services
Committee.
It is my pleasure to present to you a gentleman that some
of you all have voted on over the years, and that is the
respected gentleman who resides in Stafford County. I'll not go
through all of his wedding matters. If you want to put that
part in, that's good to hear. I will note that he does have a
son who is at Mary Washington University, but the President has
nominated Ambassador Eric Edelman to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy. I think that many of the members of this
committee have voted for him at least once--and some, twice.
He has 25 years of distinguished service as a Foreign
Service officer in a variety of roles. He has provided, indeed,
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, bipartisan service
to the United States under several presidents. He has been
confirmed twice by the United States Senate. Most recently, in
2003, President George W. Bush nominated, and the Senate
confirmed, Ambassador Edelman to be Ambassador to Turkey, where
he served with distinction until last week. In 1998, President
Clinton nominated, and the Senate confirmed, Ambassador Edelman
to be the Ambassador to Finland, where he served from 1998
until 2001. He's also served in numerous other diplomatic
posts, from Prague to Moscow and elsewhere. He has had
assignments, including several key executive positions in
various agencies and administrations. He has served as Vice
President Cheney's Principal Deputy Assistant for National
Security Affairs, and was actually with the Vice President when
Washington was attacked on September 11, 2001.
Ambassador Edelman also served as Deputy Secretary of State
Strobe Talbott's executive assistant, and Secretary of Defense
Cheney's Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Soviet
and East European Affairs. He was also Special Assistant to, I
think, one of the most highly regarded, wise, and respected
Secretaries of State, George Schultz.
He graduated from Cornell. He has his Ph.D from Yale. He
received the State Department's Superior Honor Award, amongst
many of his honors, which are part of the record.
If he is again, Mr. Chairman, confirmed by the Senate, I
believe that Ambassador Edelman's return to the Defense
Department will carry on the tradition of other distinguished
diplomats, such as Mort Abramowitz, Frank Wisner, and Michael
Armacost, who have lent their wisdom and skill to the
Department in bipartisan service to our country.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for
allowing me to present this outstanding individual for your
consideration and, hopefully, prompt action.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Allen, we thank you for taking the
time to introduce this distinguished nominee. I wish to
associate myself with your remarks. I share your views about
this nominee. Thank you.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Clinton, for Admiral Giambastiani?
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It's a great honor and privilege to formally introduce
someone who probably doesn't need an introduction, but I can't
resist doing so anyway, because I have had the great
opportunity to work with Admiral Giambastiani over the last
several years. Of course, he was born in Canastota, New York,
and we claim him, still, to this day.
After graduating from the Naval Academy in 1970, his
distinguished career took him back home to New York twice,
early in his career. He served at the Naval Reserve Training
Center in Whitestone, New York, and at the Nuclear Power
Training Unit in Schenectady, New York. Since those early
assignments in New York, his career has taken him all over the
globe as a submarine commander and in several assignments in
which he was responsible for development of new technologies
and experimental processes. Many of us remember him in the days
after September 11, when he often accompanied Secretary
Rumsfeld to Capitol Hill for briefings, as the Secretary's
senior military assistant.
Over the past 2 years, I've had the privilege to become
well acquainted with the admiral. During his current assignment
as Commander, Joint Forces Command, in Norfolk, and as North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Supreme Allied Commander
Transformation, last year I was pleased to be invited by
Admiral Giambastiani to join the Joint Forces Command's
Transformation Advisory Group (TAG), a group that he formed to
advise him on transformation issues. Through our work together
on TAG, I have been impressed by the Admiral's intellectual
openness to new ideas, as well as his devotion to joint
transformation.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, any committee that includes as
many distinguished former military officers, people who run
some of the most well-known think tanks and think deeply about
military ideas and strategies with Newt Gingrich and me has to
have an open discussion, and we certainly have had that.
As our military faces new challenges of transformation over
the next several years, I can think of no one better suited to
helping us think through these challenges than Admiral G., as
he is often called. I'm looking forward to working with him, as
well as with General Pace and General Moseley, to apply some of
the lessons that we have learned and ideas that have emerged
out of the Transformation Advisory Group.
New Yorkers are very proud, but I think Americans are, as
well, that this appointment is being considered today. I am
pleased that he has been joined by his family--his wife Cindy,
his daughter Cathy, and his son Peter, who's also serving in
the Navy. It is a real privilege to not only introduce him, but
to look forward to working with him in the years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I, again, wish to
associate myself with your remarks. I have the highest regard
for the Admiral.
Now we have Senator Cornyn, who will introduce General
Moseley.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
say a few words on behalf of General ``Buzz'' Moseley.
It's always a privilege to introduce such a fine American
and Texan to the committee. I commend President Bush for
nominating this fine individual to be Chief of Staff of the
United States Air Force. There's no doubt in my mind he will do
an outstanding job.
We're all very much aware of the problems that the Air
Force has faced over the past few years. These challenges
provide even more reason why the Air Force needs a leader of
the caliber of Buzz Moseley as Chief of Staff. I'm confident
General Moseley is equal to the challenge. He's a man of
integrity and honor, and I know he is equally concerned about
the problems in the Air Force, as we all are.
Although the committee is certainly aware of General
Moseley's distinguished career, I would like to point out just
a few of the highlights.
He graduated from Texas A&M University in 1971, with a
Bachelor of Arts degree in political science. He earned a
Master of Arts degree from Texas A&M in 1972, also in political
science. Then he went to Big Spring, Texas, where he earned his
wings. He's a command pilot, and has flown more than 2,800
hours in a range of aircraft. He commanded the F-15 Division of
the Fighter Weapons School in the 57th Wing, the Air Force's
largest, most diverse flying wing. He's also served as the
Director of Legislative Liaison for the Air Force, something
this committee knows about and which is no small assignment.
More recently, he served as Commander of the 9th Air Force
and the U.S. Central Command Air Forces. I know General Tommy
Franks is full of praise for Buzz's work in ensuring that
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom were
truly joint and successful operations.
Mr. Chairman, as the Department of Defense and the Services
work to transform our military to meet the threats of the 21st
century, I believe that General Moseley is the right person for
this job. He has the proven experience, leadership, and
dedication to see that the Air Force lives up to its proud
history and tradition.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Senator, we thank you for your strong
statement on his behalf, and I associate myself with your
remarks, having known and worked with this distinguished
officer for some years now.
I want, at this moment, to say, with a great sense of
humility, that being a former marine myself, we marines--and
I'm going to call on Senator Roberts, another fellow marine--to
take due note of the fact that one of our marines in the 200-
plus-year history of the Marine Corps now has been recognized
by the President to take over the highest position for a
professional military officer.
Senator Roberts, would you like to add your erudite
comments at this moment?
Senator Roberts. I don't know about the erudite part, Mr.
Chairman, but I'm very happy to note, with pride, that General
Pace will be the first marine to serve as Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs. As a former member of our Nation's September 11 force
in readiness, and ready to put cold steel on the enemy anytime,
anyplace, at the direction of the President or the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, I know I speak for all marines in saying how
proud we are, General, in regards to this outstanding officer
and this nomination.
Mr. Chairman, we are all joined at the hip with the Navy. I
say ``we''--those of us in the Marine Corps--in our amphibious
missions and our operations. In doing so, we have always been
proud--over 200 years--to assist and serve our Navy. I note
with pride that today we will soon see an outstanding Admiral
assisting and serving our new chairman.
I won't say that ``it's about time,'' I just would like to
say it is very appropriate. [Laughter.]
I think it will be an outstanding team, on behalf of our
national security.
General Pace, on behalf of all of our marines, again, I
express a great deal of pride in regards to your past service
and what we know will be outstanding service to our Nation in
the future.
General Pace. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Chairman Roberts.
I think there's another footnote in history that should be
recognized here this morning. One of the most important
functions of a Member of Congress, both the House and the
Senate, is our nominations to the Service academies. I believe
there is a benchmark in history about to be established, in
that the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, and the CNO are all
graduates of Annapolis. Would you set the appropriate order of
protocol, General Pace, as to the classes and the rankings,
which I'm sure will be observed in these respective positions
now?
General Pace. Sir, I'm Class of 1967. Mike Mullen is Class
of 1968, and Ed Giambastiani is Class of 1970.
Chairman Warner. Class of what?
General Pace. 1970, sir, and Mike Hagee, sir, is Class of
1968.
Chairman Warner. That locks it up pretty well.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I join you in welcoming our nominees and their families
this morning. All of us here know, and I believe all Americans
know, of the tremendous sacrifice that you and your families
have made, and will continue to make, for the good of our
Nation. We thank you for that dedication. We thank you and your
families for the long hours that you put in, on behalf of all
of us.
The three officers on our first panel have assembled an
impressive record of service, with more than 100 years of
collective experience in the military. Each has performed well
in some of the most senior positions in our military. General
Pace has served as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, and Commander of U.S.
Marine Corps Forces Atlantic. Admiral Giambastiani has served
as Commander of the U.S. Joint Forces Command, Commander of
Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, and Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations. General Moseley has served as Vice Chief of Staff
of the Air Force and Commander of the 9th Air Force in U.S.
Central Command Air Forces.
If confirmed, these highly distinguished officers will take
the helm of our military at a time of serious challenge. As
Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Air Force member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, Admiral Giambastiani, and
General Moseley will be asked to play a critical role,
balancing the heavy demands placed on our forces by current
operations against the need to train and equip the force to
meet future threats.
As Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Moseley will be
asked to help strengthen the morale and confidence of an
organization which has been undermined by a serious
acquisitions scandal and by recent events at the Air Force
Academy.
By the way, Senator Kent Conrad just came by a few minutes
ago to express his strong support and long friendship with you,
General. He really looks forward to your confirmation.
I've referred to this time of serious challenge when our
nominees are assuming their new duties. Foremost among those
challenges is the war in Iraq, which has not only taken its
physical and financial toll, but it has weakened recruitment
and threatens to weaken retention within our volunteer Army.
There is a consensus among our military leaders that military
action without a political settlement will not defeat the
insurgency in Iraq.
Iraq has become a terrorist-producing factory whose output
is increasing. To say that we are there as long as we are
needed is too open-ended and sends the wrong message to Iraqi
leaders. The best chance to change the dynamic in Iraq and to
succeed in Iraq is to make clear to the Iraqis that, unless
they meet their own timetable for adopting a constitution, that
the United States will review our position in Iraq with all of
our options open, including a reevaluation of our military
commitment. If the Iraqis come together politically, and if
they can unify against the outside jihadists, who do not want
an Iraqi nation to be created, then we will have the best
chance of success in Iraq.
I look forward to the thoughts of our nominees on Iraq or
other critical issues that they face. I believe they are
extremely well qualified to take on these challenges, and I
look forward to their testimony.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
I would like, at this time, to ask each of the nominees to
introduce all of their family members who are in attendance
today. As Chairman, I ask those family members to stand and be
recognized.
General Pace?
General Pace. Sir, I would be delighted, thank you very
much.
My wife Lynne, who I met when I was a first-class
midshipman at the Naval Academy over 38 years ago, who has been
my wife for 34 years, who has--as many, many spouses in the
military--been the glue that has held our family together while
I've been about our country's business. She serves this country
as well as any uniformed member of the Armed Forces, and I love
her, as you would expect.
Because of her, we have two wonderful children. Sitting
next to my wife is our daughter Tiffany. Tiffany is an
accountant here in Fairfax, Virginia, with the National Rifle
Association. She is studying hard at night to add to her
undergraduate degree so she can get her Certified Public
Accountant degree.
Next to her is our son Peter, who just spent 6 years on
Active-Duty in the Marine Corps. He is now a captain, United
States Marine Corps Reserve. He is going to graduate school to
get his MBA at the University of Chicago. His wife Lindsay is
not here with us today, because she is working in Chicago.
Next to my son is my sister-in-law, Mary Pace, married to
my brother, Sim, for over 37 years. They live here in
Arlington, Virginia. Sim preceded me at the Naval Academy,
Class of 1965, served in Vietnam, was wounded twice, and has
been an example for me all my life and someone I truly respect.
Missing, importantly, my brothers Sim and Tom, my sister,
Elizabeth, and my mom, who thought she could make it today,
but, because of illness, could not. But she is in Waretown, New
Jersey. If she's not in church right now, burning the church
down, saying prayers that I get through this confirmation
hearing, she's watching on television, sir. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, General. You did that with
superb feeling, and it means a lot to the families of the
military, wherever they are in the world. At no time in our
recent history have the hearts and the minds of Americans
poured out more to the families who care and love those who are
serving in uniform, wherever they are.
General Pace. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Admiral Giambastiani, would you kindly
introduce your family?
Admiral Giambastiani. Thank you, Chairman Warner.
Once again, it's an honor to be here before this committee
today.
I am joined by my fire-support team, led by my wife. Cindy
and I celebrated our 29th anniversary 3 days ago. She is the
daughter of a career Air Force officer, and had two brothers,
both of whom served--one served in the Navy as a Naval Academy
graduate and a test pilot, another brother who was an Air Force
Academy pilot. She comes from a long family of distinguished
servicemembers; and she has moved her entire life. She has been
the rock of our family, as you would imagine, and she has led
the way, all the way. I can't thank her enough for what she has
done.
She also has brought two lovely children into our family.
My son Peter is a Navy lieutenant. He has just returned from
two tours of duty on the east and west coast, on a frigate and
a cruiser. He now serves on the House side of the Navy's
Legislative Liaison Office. He arrived there in September. We
are very fortunate to have him.
She also gave me my daughter Kathy. Kathy is a just-
recently-graduated law-school graduate of American University.
She is studying to take her bar exam, and will do that at the
end of July. She is accompanied by a friend, also from American
University. I guess we would call him her boyfriend.
[Laughter.]
As it turns out, he is also a lawyer, and studying for that
bar exam, also. You can stand up, Jason. [Laughter.]
Senator Levin. He just sunk right through the floor.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Giambastiani. He's a ``significant other,'' as my
wife has corrected me.
Finally, I am not joined by my dad, but he's in Cazenovia,
New York, along with my sister and her family, watching today.
My dad is almost 87 years young. He was a Navy man for a few
years, a long time ago. He is the sole remaining one of my
parents, but I know my mom is looking at us. General Pace said
that the church is burning down. My mother is saying a few
novenas, as we like to say. My dad, I know, is very proud, and
I'm very proud of him.
Thank you for the opportunity to introduce this family.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Admiral, beautifully
done.
General Moseley.
General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
opportunity to introduce my best friend, companion, and wife
Jenny, who is the daughter of a naval officer, who is now a
rancher and a farmer in Texas. Jenny has been alongside on this
journey with me since August 1967. We've been married 34 years,
and everything good that has happened to me and my family is a
direct result of her.
We have two wonderful kids. We have a daughter who is a
school teacher in public service, and is not with us today
because she's preparing for her next academic year. We have a
son, a captain fighter pilot in the Air Force, who, after five
deployments, is home in the Pacific right now, and, I am told,
on the flying schedule this morning. So, he would rather be
there than here.
Again, Mr. Chairman, everything that is good that has
happened in my family is a direct result of Jenny and her
leadership and her advice and her partnership. Sir, thank you
again, for the opportunity to introduce her.
Chairman Warner. We thank you, General, and we thank all
the families. We thank all those in attendance who have joined
me in the privilege of hearing these magnificent statements and
seeing the true military family that we are so proud of here in
America.
Now, the committee has asked all our nominees, military and
civilian, to answer a series of advance policy questions. They
have responded to those questions, and, without objection, I
will make the questions and the responses part of the record.
I also have certain standard questions we ask every nominee
who appears before this Senate committee. Gentlemen, if you
would please respond to each of the following questions.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
General Pace. I have, sir.
Admiral Giambastiani. I have, sir.
General Moseley. I have, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
General Pace. No, sir.
Admiral Giambastiani. No, sir.
General Moseley. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that you and your staff
comply with deadlines established for communications with the
Congress of the United States, including responses to questions
for the record, in the course of our hearings?
General Pace. I will, sir.
Admiral Giambastiani. Yes, sir.
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
General Pace. Yes, sir.
Admiral Giambastiani. Yes, sir.
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
possible reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
General Pace. Yes, sir.
Admiral Giambastiani. Yes, sir.
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify, upon request, before this committee and other
committees of Congress?
General Pace. I do, sir.
Admiral Giambastiani. I do, sir.
General Moseley. I do, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views,
when asked, even if those views might differ from the views of
the administration in power, or your respective superiors?
General Pace. I will, sir.
Admiral Giambastiani. I will, sir.
General Moseley. I will, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee of
Congress, or to consult with the committee regarding the basis
for any good-faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
General Pace. Yes, sir.
Admiral Giambastiani. Yes, sir.
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. General Pace, again, I warmly welcome you
and your family, and would you kindly proceed with your opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF GEN. PETER PACE, USMC, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE
GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
General Pace. Senator Warner, Senator Levin, members of the
committee, thank you.
To be nominated to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
is both exhilarating and humbling. It's exhilarating because,
if confirmed, I will have the opportunity to continue to do my
best to serve this country. It's humbling because I know that
the road ahead will not be easy. We are a country at war. We
have a tough road ahead. But I am absolutely confident in our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen that
they will deliver for this country, as they always have.
If confirmed, my priorities will be the war on terror,
improving joint warfighting capacity, transforming our forces
for the future, and pursuing initiatives for quality of life
for our families and our troops.
Sir, I thank you and the committee for this opportunity to
appear before you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Admiral Giambastiani.
STATEMENT OF ADM EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI, JR., USN, FOR
REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE VICE CHAIRMAN,
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
Admiral Giambastiani. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank the committee and also the United States
Congress for your tremendous continuing support of our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coastguardsmen, and Defense
civilians.
I am proud and humbled, as General Pace said, to be
nominated to serve alongside the superb officers at this table.
I'm also honored that our Nation's leaders have nominated me,
and shown trust and confidence in me to help lead our Armed
Forces, along with General Pace. I assure you that, if I am
confirmed, I will wake up every day dedicated to serving our
national defense and those soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines,
and coastguardsmen who protect our Nation and its interests.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Admiral.
General Moseley.
STATEMENT OF GEN. T. MICHAEL MOSELEY, USAF, FOR REAPPOINTMENT
TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE AIR
FORCE
General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, committee
members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
I am deeply humbled and honored to be here. I truly
appreciate the enormity, the importance, and responsibility of
the Office of Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force.
For me, it's a humbling experience to look down the path of
history and see the faces of those who have held this position.
Since 1947, the Air Force has seen 18 outstanding airmen as
Chiefs of Staff, including the expert leadership of our current
Chief, General John Jumper. If confirmed as the next Chief of
Staff, I will wake up every morning and pledge to do all in my
power to live up to their legacy and to earn the sacred trust
that you gave them. I am most grateful for the opportunity to
continue serving my fellow airmen, along with my wife Jenny,
who has been my primary advisory, loyal companion, again, best
friend, and partner through this journey.
Mr. Chairman, today I am incredibly proud to be a member of
an Air Force family that has over 28,000 airmen deployed in
every continent, in every time zone, in a true joint endeavor,
alongside soldiers, sailors, marines, coastguardsmen, and
merchant marines. The 684,000 Active, Guard, Reserve, and
civilians of the United States Air Force also wake up every
morning knowing that this Nation is at war. It is hard for me
to express how intensely proud I am of each of them and their
families. Their professionalism, determination, and expertise
are second to none.
Mr. Chairman, as I wake up every morning, the things that I
worry about are fighting this war in a true joint,
interdependent way, transforming our military, being a better
partner on the joint team, taking care of our people, and
looking at opportunities to modernize this force. Sir, our
people are our greatest asset, and, in every way, they serve
every day without asking for much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, again, for the opportunity to come
before this committee, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, General.
We will now proceed to a 6-minute round of questions.
Each of you were selected from amongst your peers because
of outstanding records of achievement as professional officers.
But now you're taking on a responsibility that has a new
dimension, in that you're going to be charged with representing
the interest of your respective branches of Services. As you
are referred to now, that is, in case of General Pace, Admiral
Giambastiani, purple-suiters--in that you will give your
unbiased opinions, fairly, on behalf of each of the Services,
no matter how much your continuing loyalty to your respective
Service. I'm confident, having worked with each of you for some
many years now, that you can make that transition.
I remember, most affectionately, when I served as Secretary
of the Navy with Admiral Moorer, he used to quip that he had
his purple suit on, but he really had a little book on his desk
written by Robert E. Lee's aide-de-camp, called ``The Unbiased
History of the Civil War from the Southern Point of View,'' and
he never forgot the naval perspective, but he rose above that
and was a distinguished chairman.
In addition to equality of opinion among the respective
Services is your duty to give your best and your most honest
appraisal of situations to your immediate superior, the
Secretary of Defense. When you deem it necessary, under
Goldwater-Nichols and its modifications, the law clearly
provides that you can go to the President.
Now, I think, for this record this morning, I would like to
ask each of you if you agree, or have any hesitation
whatsoever, when you may have a position which differs from
that of the Secretary of the Defense, or, indeed, might differ
from that, as enunciated by the President, that you would
unhesitatingly go forward and provide, each with your own
professional judgment and opinion.
General Pace.
General Pace. Sir, I absolutely agree with that
responsibility. My experience from the last 3\1/2\ years tells
me that not only is it expected of me by you and the members of
the committee, but it is expected of me by the Secretary of
Defense and the President of the United States. I've taken that
opportunity in the last 3\1/2\ years, and, if I need to, and if
confirmed, I will do so again, sir.
Chairman Warner. Admiral Giambastiani.
Admiral Giambastiani. Mr. Chairman, as General Pace has
stated, I believe it is a duty of each of us--and, of course, I
take this duty very solemnly--that I, in fact, will continue to
express my military advice, whether it's contrary or not, to
the President, the Secretary of Defense, and to the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other members of the Joint Chiefs
at any point, at any time. I think it is important and
incumbent upon each of us to understand that's part of our role
and duty as a member of the Joint Chiefs, and also in the
position for which I've been nominated. If confirmed, you have
my absolute commitment to carry forward through that.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
You made reference ``out of respect for Congress,'' but
also those duties go down to the lowest-ranking private or
sailor, seaman, in respective branches of our Government, and
the airmen and the Army, all the way down, and to every citizen
of this country. You owe that obligation. There is no higher
obligation you will have than to express your best personal
advice to those who are making the critical decisions along
with you.
Further, General Pace, as Chairman, should members of the
Joint Chiefs and the Vice Chairman, likewise, have views
differing from those that you have expressed and the Vice have
expressed, and they so desire to let their superiors--namely,
the Secretary and the President--know of their views, do you
assure this Committee you will facilitate that opportunity?
General Pace. Sir, absolutely. It is their responsibility,
as well as mine, to ensure that every opinion is spoken,
especially if it is different.
Admiral Giambastiani. Sir, I will carry forward that
commitment.
Chairman Warner. I stress these questions, because I've had
the privilege of observing the military contributions of men
and women in the Armed Forces for some 60 years, and I cannot
recall a period in contemporary military history where the
challenges are more diverse, where we face an enemy, which is
really without precedent, an enemy that follows no
international conventions or international law, follows nothing
but their determination to bring death and destruction to
people all over the globe. Therefore, there are not going to be
many guideposts out there as you make these decisions as to how
best to employ the men and women of the Armed Forces of the
United States in this war on terror. It's going to require
innovation and initiatives unlike any that we have seen before
in our contemporary military history.
In the course of the President's remarks last night, and in
the national debate that is ensuing, General Pace and Admiral
Giambastiani, we see a continuation--and I don't say this by
any means as criticism--of the issue of whether or not there
are adequate forces of the combined coalition force--and most
particularly of the U.S. contribution to the coalition forces
of our troop strengths in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our President,
with a measure of great courage, states clearly that he listens
carefully--as he should--to the advice of the military leaders,
and he is willing to accede to a recommendation, which might be
forthcoming, suggesting an increase in the level of our forces.
General Pace, that will be a question that will be raised
every day between now and whenever we succeed with our goals in
Iraq, and I would like to have you advise the committee this
morning as to how you will go about your own formulation of a
decision as to that level, and how you would then communicate
it with the Secretary of Defense and, indeed, the President.
General Pace. Sir, I have struggled with the answer to that
question for the last couple of years, because it is, in fact,
a very difficult situation to judge properly. On one hand, you
want to have the correct number of troops to provide enough
security in the country to allow the mechanisms of governance,
the political process, to move forward, and but on the other
without so heavy a presence that you become an oppressor and
don't allow the Iraqi people to participate in building their
own country.
So, as an example of the way we process this--and, to my
knowledge, sir, every single request for forces that has come
from General Abizaid, General Casey, and their predecessors has
been provided to them. As an example, when General Casey was
here this past week, on Monday, he came in to the Tank with the
Joint Chiefs. He briefed us on the current situation, as he saw
it. He briefed us on how he envisioned using troops in the
future so that we could analyze his plan for the future and
determine for ourselves whether or not we agreed or disagreed,
to ask him questions, to reach a conviction that the numbers of
troops he was asking for, and the way he planned on employing
them, were correct. We did that again just this past Monday.
Collectively, as Joint Chiefs, we were comfortable with his
plan for the way ahead and the number of troops, but it is
clearly a balance between enough troops, to get the job done,
and too many troops so as to appear to be an oppressor. We work
with that literally weekly, sir.
Chairman Warner. Admiral.
Admiral Giambastiani. Mr. Chairman, I had the honor of also
attending that meeting earlier this week with the Joint Chiefs,
on invitation. As the Commander, United States Joint Forces
Command, all of the requests for forces that come in from
combatant commanders from around the world all get funneled to
the Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command. So, my staff and I
work very hard to fulfill all of these requests for forces. As
General Pace said, I'm not aware of any requests that we have
not met, to the full satisfaction of General Abizaid, General
Casey, our other combatant commanders.
I might mention one or two things that I think are
important, in addition to what General Pace has said. Number
one, it is important for us to come up, if you will, with this
right number. I never know if any specific number is exactly
right. There's always a range of numbers that are good. The
reason I would say that is, without getting into any classified
details, we always put forces on what we call ``prepare-to-
deploy orders.'' There may be a 24-hour prepare-to-deploy, 48-
hour, 72-hour, or something else.
The reason why I say this is that, during the January
elections, we increased the total number of troops there by
keeping some longer in theater and also sending a couple of
battalions--in this case, out of the 82nd Airborne Division--
and we put them in, at the request of General Casey and General
Abizaid--and they were sent out on short notice, because they
were prepared to do this. In fact, in Iraq and in Afghanistan
we also have arrangements to provide, if you will, for
flexibility that the combatant commanders want. So, it is not
just the number that is in the theater, it is also this
flexible number that we can add above it on short notice if
they need additional troops.
The last thing is that, in order to get my head right, in
addition to talking with the senior commanders, as Commander,
U.S. Joint Forces Command, I've made repeated visits into the
theater to talk with the commanders so that I had a better
understanding; and also when they came back to the United
States after being deployed, to get a feel for where they are.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
General Moseley, you take over as Chief of Staff of the Air
Force in the aftermath of a very troubled period for this very
distinguished and historic branch of our Armed Forces. I have
the greatest respect for General Jumper. I think he has done
his very best. I commend him for the manner in which he has
steadfastly continued in his leadership in the face of
challenges, whether they've been procurement allegations, of
contracts being handled in a manner inconsistent with law and
regulation, or very severe problems experienced by the U.S. Air
Force Academy. One of the reasons that you were selected is
that you are perceived to possess the strength to carry on the
good work of your predecessor to, as we say in the Navy,
``right the keel and bring her back.'' I know that you will do
that. You have my personal commitment to assist in every way
possible.
Please outline some of the initial steps, if confirmed,
that you will take to respond to these problems in the
Department of the Air Force.
General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that trust and
confidence.
Let me first say, because we had a hearing yesterday on the
Air Force Academy, that one of the first things that I would
like to tackle, if confirmed, is to meet again with a variety
of the cadets out there, and with faculty, and to re-emphasize
the Agenda for Change, and to reinforce the policies that we
have set in motion, under the leadership of General Jumper, to
bring more leadership and more visibility onto the Air Force
Academy. It is unsatisfactory, and it is outrageous, to have
one of our cadets that is either mistreated, assaulted, or in
any way fearful of walking across the campus or going anywhere
on that campus. So, sir, you have my pledge that that is at the
top of my list.
Also, we have, over the last few weeks, had a chance to
look at the religious intolerance allegations at the Academy. I
think, with General Brady's report that we distributed to the
committee, we see that we have had some insensitivities at the
Academy. We have had some things that concern me, personally,
that relate to superior/subordinate relationship dialogue,
relative to religious freedom. You can rest assured that is
also at the top of my list, because one of the pillars of our
society in this great country is religious freedom and the
freedom to practice one's faith and one's spirituality. It is
unsatisfactory to have a cadet feel that she or he cannot
practice their faith or somehow believe that they are
disadvantaged because of their faith. That is absolutely
unsatisfactory.
Sir, I would also offer to you that there is much to be
done in the world of acquisition reform. This committee has
been very helpful. Senator McCain has been very helpful in
highlighting this. There are processes that we should have
taken, and acts we should have taken along the way, that we now
see, with acquisition reform, would make this a lot better.
Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that, in the world of
acquisition reform along the way, as we downsized the Air
Force, we took too many people out of that oversight role--cost
estimators, engineers, testing evaluators, program managers. My
pledge to you, the committee, and to my Air Force, is that we
will right this with the right rudder trim to get the right
people back into that process, because it is a process--it is a
legal process, and it is a process that needs to be open and
visible.
So, sir, the first two things, other than fighting this war
and taking care of our people, will be to ensure that the Air
Force Academy, which is the backbone of our officer corps,
which produces about a thousand lieutenants a year, is right,
and that every kid that goes to that academy feels safe and
comfortable and graduates as a lieutenant to serve this country
and hold a commission as a lieutenant. The second is to look at
acquisition reform, because, Mr. Chairman, that's so critical
to the recapitalization and modernization of our Air Force that
we have to do this right.
Sir, thank you for that question.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, General. This committee
stands by to help you in every way possible.
Senator Levin?
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Pace, both Active and Reserve Forces are
experiencing significant challenges in achieving their
recruiting targets. The Active Duty Army is more than 8,000
enlistments behind its goal for fiscal year 2005. The Army and
Air National Guard, the Army Reserve, the Navy Reserve, and the
Marine Corps Reserve have all missed monthly recruiting goals.
Recruiting professionals predict that the recruiting
marketplace will be even more difficult next year. What, in
your opinion, will be the effect of an ongoing conflict in Iraq
and Afghanistan on recruiting for our Armed Forces?
General Pace. Senator, thank you. You're absolutely correct
that we face a challenge recruiting right now, especially for
ground forces, like the Army and the Marine Corps. Congress has
been very generous in supporting us with incentives for
recruiting, but this is not about money; it's about message,
it's about our young folks in this country understanding that
we truly are at war with an enemy that seeks to eliminate the
way we live, and to encourage our young people, as young folks
have done throughout our Nation's history, to come forward to
help defend this Nation against a very real threat, and to
encourage the families of those young folks to let them follow
their instincts in supporting this Constitution and this
country.
I believe that there is sufficient love of country and
desire to serve, that if encouraged properly by the leadership,
and if sent to do missions that are understood to be good and
supported, that we will continue to fill the ranks of our
Services. I point to the fact that, for those who are currently
in uniform, active and Reserve, our retention rates are higher
than what we have experienced historically. Those who are in
uniform serving this country ``get it.'' They understand what
they're doing; they understand the value; and they understand
this enemy. Those who are looking to serve this country should
be encouraged to do so, sir.
Senator Levin. General Pace, a number of our senior
military officers have said that military action alone won't
solve the situation in Iraq. General Myers said that,
``Progress in the political front's going to be the key to
progress against the insurgency.'' General Casey has said,
``The political process will be the decisive element.'' General
Alston said, ``This insurgency will not be settled through
military options or military operations. It's going to be
settled in the political process.'' Do you agree?
General Pace. I absolutely agree, sir. The military and
police forces of the coalition can provide a level of stability
inside the country for the political process to go forward, but
this clearly now is the responsibility of the Iraqi people and
the Iraqi government to write their constitution, to vote for
their new government, to take responsibility for their future,
with the coalition's help, and to get on about the business of
governance, because it is governance and economics that will be
the future success in Iraq, sir.
Senator Levin. Senator Collins and I wrote a letter to the
President the other day and I want to quote portions of that
letter to you, relative to the subject that you just addressed.
``Some administration officials,'' we wrote, ``have said
recently that we would stay in Iraq as long as needed. We
believe that goes too far, because it is too open-ended a
commitment to the Iraqis that we will continue to provide
security, even if they fail to agree on a constitution; thereby
lessening the chances the Iraqis will make the compromises
necessary to defeat the jihadists and the insurgency, and
become a nation.''
We continue, ``There is a consensus that military action,
without a political settlement, will not defeat the insurgency
in Iraq. We believe that we should send a clear message to the
Iraqis that they need to reach a political settlement according
to the timetable to which they have agreed.''
We continue that we should ``review our position in Iraq,
with all of our options open, if the Iraqis fail to meet their
own timetable for adopting a constitution. Part of that review
of our position would include a re-evaluation of our military
commitment.''
I want to just read the final two paragraphs. ``The failure
of the Iraqis to adopt a constitution as scheduled would
represent a lack of will to create a country, and would,
instead, reflect a continued willingness by them to rely on
U.S. troops to carry a burden that the Iraqis must accept. We
should demonstrate to the Iraqis that our willingness to bear
that burden is not unlimited. We have opened the door for the
Iraqis, but only they can walk through it; we cannot hold that
door open indefinitely. Only a constitutional agreement, a
political agreement among all parties, can change the status
quo and end the current deadly dynamic in Iraq. The possibility
of our leaving, unless such a settlement is reached, can help
bring about that agreement.''
Now, this is a question for you, and I'd welcome a comment
on what I've quoted, do you agree it is essential to success in
Iraq that the Iraqis recognize that it is important to stick to
the timeline for the drafting and ratification of a new
constitution?
General Pace. Sir, first, what you read to me is the first
time I've heard those words, so, without them in front of me, I
would not want to comment on the totality of what you said.
With regard to the absolute requirement for the Iraqis to take
hold of their own future, to stay on timeline, and to begin the
process, which they have, of writing their constitution on
time--and on time is 15 August--having the referendum on that
constitution, which is 15 October, and having a vote for the
new government under that constitution, which is 15 December,
are all things which we should continue to press forward on.
From the military viewpoint, we need to continue to work
with their armed forces to make them stronger and better so
that they can provide the proper environment inside of which
that process can take. But, whatever you and the other
political leaders of this Nation do on the political side to
impress upon the Iraqis the need for assuming more and more
responsibilities for themselves will certainly help in the
governance of that country and the way ahead, sir.
Senator Levin. Does that include meeting their own self-
imposed deadline for adopting a constitution?
General Pace. We should absolutely encourage them to do
that, yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Encourage, or tell them how essential it is?
General Pace. Sir, that is out of my lane, but I do agree
with the fact that, as they write their constitution and have
their elections, just like the last election, it will have
major impact on the society and on their armed forces. As an
example, if I may, sir, since the elections in January there
has not been a single Iraqi armed-force unit that has been
pushed off the battlefield. Before January 2005, they left
combat sometimes. Since that time, not a single Iraqi unit has
left. I believe that a significant reason for that is the
belief in their own political process, the standup of their own
government, their own elections, and that another election,
based on the new constitution, will further reinforce the
belief in their own country, of their own armed forces.
Senator Levin. Well, to put it in another way, will there
be any fallout if they don't meet that deadline? Do you believe
this--just as it was important, militarily, that they met their
election date last time, is it also critically important,
militarily, that they meet their self-imposed timetable this
time?
General Pace. I think it is important, sir, that they meet
timelines. I think it's important to the Iraqi people to
understand that they're moving forward. So, yes, if they were
to miss timelines, that would have some negative impact.
Again, that would be situation dependent on why they missed
the timeline and how long they missed it by; but the fact of
the matter is, we should encourage them to stay on their own
timelines, to take care of their own business.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
My time is up.
Chairman Warner. I just wish to add, here, in the course of
our hearings last week I asked similar questions of General
Abizaid, What would happen if they missed the August 15
deadline? Would it send a message to the terrorist insurgents?
Unhesitatingly, he said yes, it could well have serious
implications that would be negative, in terms of our ability,
militarily, to continue to repress this terrorism. I hope you
share that view.
General Pace. Sir, I do share that view. I would align
myself with General Abizaid's statement.
Chairman Warner. I would put into this record, at this
point, the actual question and reply by General Abizaid.
[The information referred to follows:]
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
General Abizaid, you have had a very long and distinguished career
in our military and much of that career of service has been in this
region of the world. Your understanding of the people and the culture
and their capabilities and the history--there is a lot to be said that
we should have examined with greater care the history of this culture
as we proceeded with this military mission.
What are your assessments as to the ability of the Iraqi people to
succeed in the goals outlined very clearly by Secretary Rumsfeld just
now and in other testimony?
General Abizaid. Mr. Chairman, I think both General Casey and I
would tell you that we spend a lot of time working very closely with
Iraqis on the political side and on the military side, and we have
known Iraqis that have been killed by the terrorists, that have
succumbed to the insurgents. It is interesting how many times when one
of them is killed another one will stand up and take their place.
The desire to be free, the desire to develop a society within their
own cultural norms, that allows them freedom and opportunity for a
better future for their families, is not only an Iraqi desire; I think
it is a desire of most human beings everywhere on this planet. That the
United States Armed Forces help to give them that is absolutely one of
the most important things I think we have ever been engaged in.
We often do talk past one another culturally. We do have barriers
of understanding that get in the way of efficient business sometimes.
But as we go down this road, both in Afghanistan and Iraq and in other
places in the region, the cultural gap is closing, and it needs to
close faster. There is nothing about Islam that says Iraq cannot move
in the direction it is moving. There is nothing about the Arab culture
that says that people cannot participate in their future in a free and
participatory manner.
The opportunity for a new beginning is clearly there. I believe
that people throughout the region, not only in Iraq but elsewhere, in
Lebanon, in Syria, in Saudi Arabia, you name the country in the Middle
East--but they are all looking for the opportunities for reform and a
better future and for accountability from their governments, and I
think that is possible.
Chairman Warner. Let me ask a second part of this question. Should
there be a delay in adopting the constitution, or the invoking of the
6-month extension, creating a perception that the formation of this new
permanent government is being delayed, for whatever reason, what is
likely to be the reaction of the insurgents and others who want to stop
this process in Iraq? Will they redouble their efforts? Will there
likely be more participants from other nations that are flowing into
Iraq daily? What would be the consequences from a military standpoint
should that scenario become a reality?
General Abizaid. My view is that if there is a delay, it gives the
insurgents the opportunity to get better organized, it increases the
number of deaths and the tempo of action. It would be a bad thing, but
not fatal.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put into the
record, also, the letter which I and Senator Collins sent to
the President the other day.
Chairman Warner. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Chairman Warner. Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Pace, I know there's another hearing tomorrow
regarding the status of the Army and the Marine Corps, as we
fight the global war on terrorism. I just came back from Fort
Riley to welcome home a battalion who are back from their
second mission. I know you are not a witness at tomorrow's
hearing, but--I may not be there, but I would like to know,
basically, any comments you would make in regards to the
``wearing out''--and I'm using that term in quotes--of the
equipment that we must have to conduct any mission there in the
desert. It is a big problem.
As I look at the armor there at Fort Riley, and talk to our
marines, I am gravely concerned. I don't know what we're going
to do, in terms of all of the equipment. There is much of it
that you're going to try to redo or re-engine or re-something.
I'm not too sure that, once you do that, that it's worth the
effort, in terms of cost. In my view, I don't know how we're
going to fund that. Would you have any comments?
General Pace. Senator, thank you.
First, if I may, sir, thank you for your very generous
comments, before. I deeply appreciate it, sir, especially
coming from a fellow marine. Thank you.
Our estimates, sir, are that it will take about 2 years
after the end of armed conflict to be able to put all of our
equipment through the depots to be reconstituted to like-new
status. About 2 years, sir. That means that, currently, if we
go to war somewhere else, if we had to, that we would certainly
be able to meet this Nation's obligations to defeat any enemy,
but we clearly would not have 100 percent of the equipment that
we would like to have to fight that war. So, it would be less
precise, for example, than we have been in this conflict.
Senator Roberts. I thank you for your candor, and I think
we have a major obligation and responsibility. I think Congress
has to take a hard look at that. I congratulate the chairman on
holding the hearing.
General Moseley, we talked about the issue of tanker
recapitalization. It reminds me of Zane Grey's ``To the Last
Man,'' on the sheep and cattle war, out in Arizona, John. After
we have the analysis of alternatives, when that is finished
later this year, we talked about the time frame by which the
Air Force is looking to recapitalize this very aging fleet.
Some of the planes are as old as I am. From my side of the
table, I'm concerned about the price tag it's going to bring
with it, as we discussed. I think the tankers are some of the
most important things in the inventory, without question. We
don't go to war without the tankers. I mean, the war stops.
We've had cost problems with these planes. With the budget
constraints Congress faces, and will continue to face for the
foreseeable future, my question is, How can we recapitalize the
tanker fleet at such a rate that we don't significantly
sacrifice our strategic capabilities? Would you have any
comments on that, sir?
General Moseley. Sir, thank you for the question. The
analysis of alternatives (AOA) is in work now, within the
Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD). We anticipate that to
provide some insight, later this summer, which will then be
reviewed for sufficiency by OSD Program Analysis and Evaluation
(PA&E), which will then take us back to a request for proposal
(RFP) and open competition to drive the best cost, the best
price for the chosen alternative.
Senator Roberts, this process is the right way to do that,
with an analysis of alternatives, and to look at competing this
to get the costs down on the chosen alternative.
We also have the mobility capability study that is in work,
and is working inside the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
right now, that will help us with mobility requirements and
lift requirements and tanker requirements. It's working
parallel to that. We look forward to seeing what the AOA says,
and we look forward to the PA&E sufficiency review so that we
can get on with the competition and get the best price for this
airplane.
Senator Roberts. My only concern is, by the time we're
through, to replace the tanker fleet, or to go back in and do
the re-engineering, that we're going to have planes that are
not my age; we're going to have planes 80 years old. We've
never done that before. So, I hope we can find an answer to
this, and I hope, with my colleagues' attention, we can do it
in the proper way, in regards to authorizing and appropriating,
which could have saved us a lot of time, before.
I have one other comment to make. I'm concerned about the
Southern Command. General Pace, we have 360 million people in
31 nations, average age 14, malnourished. We have the tilt of
government change there that really is not in the best interest
of America--or, at least in comparison to previous governments,
are not as stable. We have a situation in Brazil where they are
challenging the entire U.S. program policy and trade, and a
situation that is a little different in Argentina; in regards
to Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, who self-described himself as the
next Castro, and he may well be; in terms of energy, in terms
of immigration, in terms of drugs, in terms of trade, in terms
of money going to terrorists. All of those things are taking
place in that part of the world. We took an awful lot of
infrastructure out and provided it to the Balkans, which then
went to Afghanistan and Iraq, and we haven't put it back. Now
we have the big issue here, in regards to Central American Free
Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which also has a lot of very strategic
ramifications.
I'm worried about the Southern Command. I'm worried about
our neighbors to the south, and every one of those issues
directly affect the daily lives and the pocketbooks of the
American people. I know that we have obligations. We all know
that. We must reach a just conclusion in regards to the Mid-
East, but I just wanted to express my concern.
General Pace. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I want to thank each of you and your families
for your very dedicated and exceptional service to our country.
General Pace, a book that has just come out, written by
Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, who,
in the first months of 2004, at the request of then-National
Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, was recruited to be a
senior advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in
Baghdad, references a memo that he wrote to Ms. Rice--now
Secretary Rice--dated April 26, 2004, in which he says, ``We
need to send significantly more troops and equipment. Perhaps
it is already too late for this, as well, but, in my weeks in
Iraq, I did not meet a single military officer who felt,
privately, that we had enough troops. Many felt we needed, and
need, tens of thousands more soldiers, and, at this point,
within the limits of the possible, at least another division or
two.''
That question has been raised by members of this committee,
going back to that time, and even before, including those who
expressed that strong view. What you said here today is what
we've been consistently told, that the theater commanders make
that recommendation or decision, and then that has been
honored.
Is this an incorrect or correct statement, that at least
many military officers then in Iraq felt that we needed more
troops? If that is a view that is prevalent, is there a
mechanism by which that view is communicated to you, as
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and, then to corroborate it, if
those in Congress hold that view? Because it doesn't seem to
have been.
General Pace. Sir, I've not had a chance to read the book,
but I will tell you what I know.
First of all, we've done more than honor the request of the
commanders. As Joint Chiefs, we have validated them. We have
looked at that. We have analyzed it. We have decided for
ourselves. I, as an individual, have agreed with the size force
that is there. So, we should take on the responsibility that we
own, which is having not only received the recommendation, but
approved and agreed with the recommendation.
As a rifle platoon leader in Vietnam, if I was in a
firefight, I didn't have enough men, no matter what the
situation was. I mean, I clearly understand lieutenants and
captains, who are fighting for their lives, who would like to
have more troops on their left or their right in the situation
that they are in at that moment. As you back up to the
battalion level, that battalion commander has 4 rifle companies
of 150 men that he can apply to that situation. If you back up
to the regiment, then the regimental commander has 3 battalions
of 700 men or so that he can apply. So, as you back up from the
instant case of the firefight, what you see is a little bit
different than the person who is right in the fight.
I can understand where individuals on the ground fighting
would want to have more assets at the time they're in that
fight. But, as I've tried to explain before, there's also a
balance that must be accommodated, or understood; that is the
balance between having enough forces to provide sufficient
security for the political governance to take place and having
too much force that presents more targets, more of what would
be viewed as oppression.
From my standpoint, sir, sitting where I sit, listening to
what I've heard, doing the analysis I've done, talking to the
leaders I've talked to, I am personally comfortable with the
size of the force we have.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
This article in the New York Times last Sunday regarding
the issue of safer vehicles for soldiers, ``A Tale of Delays
and Glitches,'' was the headline. The chairman and ranking
member, and all of the members of this committee on both sides
of the aisle, have persisted for the last, I think, close to
about 2 years now, to find out what's causing delays, why our
forces are not armored at the maximum extent possible, and
asked repeatedly what, if anything, does anyone need--
resources, authorization, whatever--to get beyond these delays
and get that there, and received assurances that resources were
available, and the problems were being overcome.
In that light, this article was very distressing, to say
the least, because, it says, ``It took months for requests made
in Iraq to filter through the Defense Department.'' Asked why
the Marine Corps is still waiting for the 498 high mobility
multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs) ordered last year, the
company spokesman acknowledges that it told the Marine Corps it
was backed up with Army orders, that it had only begun
fulfilling the Marines' request this month. The company says
the Marine Corps never asked it to rush. The Marine Corps
denies this, but acknowledges that it did not get the money to
actually place the order until this February. Officials now say
they need to buy 2,600 to replace their HMMWVs in Iraq that
still have only improvised armor. It goes on to say, ``When the
Marine Corps returned to Iraq last year, it settled on the
Cougar as the superior vehicle to perform one of its main jobs,
searching the roads for improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
The Cougar can take more than twice the explosive punch as the
armored HMMWV, and deflect 50-caliber armor-piercing bullets.
British troops had used the vehicle during the invasion. `The
Marines used a new ordering method called the Urgent Universal
Needs Statement, which allowed it to skip competitive bidding
to speed the process,' officials said. Even at that, the Marine
Corps took 2 months to complete the product study. Its records
show the contract took 2 more months to prepare. By then one of
its units in Iraq, Company E of the 1st Marine Division, was
suffering the highest casualty rate of the war. More than half
of the 21 marines killed were riding in HMMWVs with improvised
armor, or none at all. When the Cougar order was completed, in
April 2004, the Marine Corps got only enough money from the
Iraq war fund to buy 15 of the 27 Cougars it wanted. `This
start-stop game is driving everyone nuts,' an executive of the
Cougar's maker said, in a recent interview.' ''
We talk about supporting the troops. Actions speak louder
than words here and right through the whole system. If these
men and women over there are being denied the best-possible
armoring and protection, and we're told, then, subsequently,
because not enough money is available, and we've been asking
for 2 years, ``Do you have enough money? What more do you need?
What do we need to do?'' and they're told, ``We're doing
everything possible,'' and that those who are responsible are
doing everything possible, and then you find out they are not--
if this is true, it's just unconscionable and unforgivable.
I know that you know better than I, the consequences of the
lack of this protection. On behalf of those mothers and fathers
or loved ones who are serving over there, and those men and
women whose lives are on the line, I will ask again today, ``Is
there anything that you need, the Armed Forces need--money,
authority, whatever--to get this maximum protection to our
forces?''
General Pace. Sir, first, thank you for your sincere
concern for our troops in battle.
Senator Dayton. That's shared by everybody here, everybody
in this body of the Senate.
General Pace. Yes, sir. The troops know it. We all know it.
The very specific answer to your question about, ``Is there
more that we need Congress to do right now?'' The answer is,
no, sir. You have provided funding, you have provided the
authorities we need to get this job done, as far as
acquisition.
If I could take just a minute. When we had the small-arms
protective insert (SAPI) armor initiative, the SAPI plates that
go in the front of the flak jackets when this war began, that
was an experimental piece of gear that, as soon as it proved
itself in combat, we began to order, thanks to Congress'
support, in large numbers. Everyone had, when we went to war,
the older flak vests, which was state-of-the-art at the time.
The new experimental one proved itself, and Congress provided
several hundred million dollars to go out and buy the new
protective gear, which we did, and which now every soldier,
sailor, airman, marine, and DOD civilian in Iraq has right now.
Likewise, when we started this war, we had something like
200-plus up-armored HMMWVs in the entire inventory of the
United States, and they were on special missions, protecting
special types of things that we own in this country. When we
went from major combat, where we had plenty of tanks and plenty
of Bradleys, that have a lot of armor, to patrolling cities,
the tanks and the Bradleys were too heavy, and the unarmored
HMMWVs were too light. So, we began the process, with Congress'
support, of building--instead of 25 a month, now they're
building 500 a month. We've gone from almost no wheeled
vehicles in Iraq having armor to 40,000 vehicles in Iraq having
either armor that was put on them at the factory or--that's
level one--or level-two armor, which is factory-bought and
installed in theater. Level-three armor is things that are
fabricated in theater and put on. So that, as of February 2005,
the commanders on the ground were able to say there will be no
vehicles traveling outside of compounds in Iraq that did not
have armor. As we are learning which armor works best, we are
replacing it as we go.
The fact of the matter is that thicker armor can be
defeated by bigger bombs. We have had tanks, which are our best
armed vehicles, destroyed by explosive devices, as we have had
vehicles. We have troops who are walking the street without
armor protection, other than their body armor. This is
dangerous business, sir, which does not get to your point, but
it does mean we cannot put a cocoon around every single
soldier, sailor, airman, and marine. But we should give them
the best we possibly can, and Congress has been extremely
forthcoming, not only in meeting our request, but asking us
what requests we might have.
So, the straight answer to your question, sir, is, there's
nothing more we need Congress to do. We need to get on about
doing what we're doing.
Senator Dayton. Thank you. My time is expired, but I guess
this does appear to be ongoing, and I will follow up with a
written question about these Cougars and whether you're getting
those sufficiently or not.
General Moseley, my time is up, I will submit to you a
written question about the Air Force's intentions regarding the
Air National Guard, which is very prominent in Minnesota. All
of our planes are disappearing, and they don't seem to have
anything coming to replace them. We talk about recruitment and
retention. We have a lot of dedicated men and women in the
Minnesota Air National Guard, and also around the country, who
are suddenly feeling their missions are being take away from
them, when they want to continue to serve actively. So, I'll
submit that to you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Senator Sessions, thank you for allowing me to go ahead. I
appreciate it.
One, I enthusiastically support each of you. I really do
believe you're very good choices.
Let's look at the big picture about force. I understand, if
you're a lieutenant or a captain in a firefight, you want
everything you can get your hands on, and then some, but, when
you back away--one of the things that concerned me is Syria. I
think Senator McCain brought this up at the last hearing. We're
having an increase in foreign insurgents, foreign terrorists,
coming in, being suicide bombers. One of the avenues they seem
to be coming from is Syria. Would an increased coalition
presence along the Syrian border help stem that tide? What is
your opinion, General Pace, about that dynamic with Syria?
General Pace. Sir, more troops along the border could
possibly help, but that is a very long border. I can't remember
the exact number, but it's hundreds of miles. What would stop
the infiltration would be the Syrian Government stopping the
infiltration that is coming through their country. The main
route for foreigners coming into Iraq, who are going to kill
innocent Iraqis and attack our troops, is through Syria. The
Syrian Government is the one that needs to stop that, sir.
Senator Graham. Let's follow that thought process through.
The likelihood of increased violence seems to me to be great,
because the closer you get to a political solution in Iraq, the
bigger the nightmare for the terrorists. The constitution is
being written. Senator Levin is correct that we should push,
but I don't want to push to the point that we get it wrong. I
know how hard it is to write a constitution. Read our history.
It took us awhile to get there.
The bottom line is, it seems to me that the level of
violence is likely to go up to destabilize the political
processes to come. In that regard, my counsel is, if you think,
at any moment, you need a bigger military footprint to get this
right, I think you will find a lot of support on the Hill and
throughout the country, if that is what it takes to get it
right.
Now, let's talk about the military and political strategy,
right quick, the two-pronged strategy. Is this a correct
assessment, that in training the Iraqi military, here's what
lies ahead? One, you're trying to create a military loyal to
civilian elected leadership, with no history of that. That's
very difficult. Do you agree with that?
General Pace. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. There is virtually no Noncommissioned
Officer (NCO) Corps in place that buys into that concept. Is
that accurate?
General Pace. There was not. Now we are building it. But
that is right, sir.
Senator Graham. But that's the backbone of any military,
and that's going to take awhile.
General Pace. It will.
Senator Graham. You get paid, in the Iraqi military, by
cash, I believe, is that correct?
General Pace. Yes, sir
Senator Graham. That means you get your cash, and, if you
have a family, and they're in some other part of the country,
you may have to actually leave the unit to pay the bills.
That's a problem that we're working on, but a problem, is that
correct?
General Pace. It has been, yes, sir.
Senator Graham. The bottom line is, creating a military
from scratch is a very difficult task. So, I'd just counsel
patience. To get a police force loyal to the public to protect
the public's property and interest, and not the dictator, is
also a difficult task. To get a judge who is not corrupt and is
loyal to the rule of law is a difficult task in any country,
and it's very difficult to do while you're being shot at.
The only comment I would like to make is please don't
hesitate to tell us how hard this is. Let's not have
unreasonable expectations of the Iraqi people, because a 1,400-
year religious dispute is pretty hard to settle between now and
December. The Confederate flag in my State came down only 3
years ago. It takes awhile to get over things.
The bottom line is, please don't hesitate, gentlemen, to
tell us that the enormity of the task that lies ahead is real,
but the outcome is very important to our national security
interests. If you need more troops at any stage of the process,
I think, to get it right, we will answer your call.
Now, let's talk about the military aspects of that call.
Recruiting and retention is a separate issue, with separate
dynamics. The Guard and Reserve make up 40 percent of the force
in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm still a reservist, so I hear
things, just like you hear things.
There is a proposal before Congress to increase benefits
for the Guard and Reserve families and members through better
healthcare. Are you familiar with that proposal to offer to the
Guard and Reserve TRICARE eligibility, where they will pay a
premium to be part of TRICARE?
General Pace. I know of it, sir. I do not know all the
specifics.
Senator Graham. I will take some time to brief you, but I
would encourage each of you to do what we can to improve the
life of guardsmen and reservists. Here's the dynamic. Most of
them get a pay cut when they're called to Active-Duty. You know
that better than I. Twenty percent to 25 percent are ineligible
to go to the fight because of healthcare problems, because 25
to 40 percent are uninsured. So, to me, gentlemen, it's
important, from a readiness and retention point of view, that
we address the healthcare problems facing the Guard and Reserve
and their families.
I would like to talk with each of you about a proposal that
70 Senators have voted upon in the past, and we will do that
another day.
At the end of the day, could you, very briefly, tell us why
this is not Vietnam, and why it is more like World War II, if
you believe that to be correct, each of you?
General Pace. Sir, I think it's neither like Vietnam nor
like World War II, when it comes to the war, itself. First of
all, as I believe General Casey mentioned last week, in the
worst estimate of the size of the enemy, it is no more than
one-tenth of 1 percent of the Iraqi people.
Senator Graham. Can I stop you right there? How could
Zarqawi survive as long as he has without a bigger support
network than that?
General Pace. Sir, he is a very flexible, adaptive
individual. He would need no more than dozens, or hundreds, of
individuals supporting him. He operates in 4 of the 18
provinces where we're having the problems. So, it's very
possible for a individual, or individuals, in rather large
population centers, to be hidden if they don't want to be
found.
This is not ideology-based; this is hatred-based. This is
an insurgency where the leadership wants to kill Iraqis at
random to be able to subordinate them to their will so they can
control them and the rest of the world through what they are
saying is a religious basis that is nowhere near any teachings
of the Muslim faith. They do not have an ideology; they do not
have any hope or promise, other than subjugation of the people.
They do not have a following. What they have is a desire to
rule and to recapture what they wrongly took in the first
place, and want to take again.
This is not World War II, because this is not nation versus
nation, for the most part. This is going to be a war on
terrorism that is going to pit freedom-loving men and women
against those small cells supported by thieves and others who
would want to take away the way we live. As you said, sir, this
is going to be a long, tough fight for the Nation, globally, to
defend ourselves and our friends, but there is also absolutely
no doubt that this country and our friends are very capable of
doing it. It will not be easy, but, if I am confirmed, sir, I
look forward to having the opportunity to participate.
Thank you, sir.
Admiral Giambastiani. Senator Graham, I would heartily
agree with everything that General Pace has just said. I would
add a couple of things to that.
First of all, motivation. I think our troops are very
motivated. When he said all of these conflicts aren't the same,
they aren't. But I will tell you, as you can see by our
commanders who come back, in my experience these are very
highly motivated U.S. military-members, throughout. Their
determination, their ``stick-to-it-iveness'' here to this task
is remarkable. They are really a remarkable fighting force.
With regard to ideology, I don't know how they appeal,
other than by threats, intimidation, and the strength of their
weapons. There are no rules with these people. There are no
rules. They will kill anyone, they will destroy anything to get
their way. There are no Marguis of Queensberry rules. There are
no Geneva Convention rules with these folks. They are very
nasty individuals. Anything goes with them.
Thank you, sir.
General Moseley. Senator Graham, I would echo what both
General Pace and Admiral Giambastiani just said. I would also
reinforce the notion that we have a volunteer force, and they
are the most capable, the most motivated, the best trained, and
the most lethal men and women that we've fielded, as far as
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. With this force there,
our people will do okay against this very adaptive threat.
Chairman Warner. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to join in expressing my admiration for each
of you. I've had the opportunity to get to know you, and to see
you perform, as I've seen other officers in the United States
military. As I say privately, and I'll say publicly, the
officers that I see in the United States military are capable
of running the best corporations in America, being the best
lawyers, being the best doctors. They are men and women of
exceedingly great skill and ability. As you indicated, General
Moseley, they are motivated. They work incredible hours, as I
know you do--7 days a week, 12 hours a day, 15 hours a day.
They believe in what they're doing, as do the soldiers that
work with them. There is a bond in the modern military that is
unlike what we've seen before, I think. I salute you for having
helped create that.
It is different from the thousands of people that were
brought in through the draft who didn't want to be there, who
were trained and thrown into situations that they weren't
motivated effectively for--or many of them. Many were
motivated. It was a different environment, and we've reached a
higher level, and I salute you for that. I, again, express my
admiration for each of you.
General Pace, I'm a big supporter of transformation. I
think it's important that we continue it, as Secretary Rumsfeld
has determined to do, even in the midst of this conflict. I
know we have visions and goals for transformation of the entire
military. The Army has its Future Combat System, but I would
just say, we learn things in the course of this conflict, and
we see new technologies. Some work and some don't work.
I guess my question and urging to you is, let's proceed
with transformation. If something has proven a little
differently than we thought a few years ago, let's not hesitate
to come forward to Congress and say, ``Well, we thought that
might be the best approach, but now we'd like to do another
approach,'' if it's the best idea. Would you comment on that?
General Pace. Sir, thank you, I sure will. I absolutely
agree with you.
First of all, and fundamentally, if we changed no equipment
at all and simply pursued a mindset change, we will have
enormous transformation in the U.S. Armed Forces. We already
have, in the way we fight. But we can continue to think about
joint warfighting, and the things that have been working well
and the things that haven't. What really pleases me about the
prospect, if confirmed, of Admiral Giambastiani and I working
together, is the fact that as we got ready to go into this
conflict, he stood up a team to write down lessons learned.
That team has been in place, and continues to be in place. They
went through the planning process. Everything that has happened
in this war, his folks have captured the major pieces of. So,
he has already, though Joint Forces Command, been feeding to us
and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council the types of
lessons learned that can either get a quick-turn transformation
or that need to be put into the process of requirements. I'm
really looking forward to teaming with Ed Giambastiani, if
we're confirmed.
Senator Sessions. Thank you for that. I think that is the
right approach.
Another matter that I do believe we have to confront is our
long-term contracting for major weapons systems. The cost seems
to me to be continuing to rise beyond what is realistic.
There's been a good bit of discussion in recent months about
how to improve it. General Moseley mentioned that he thinks you
need more staff, DOD personnel, uniformed, maybe civilian, to
deal with the contractors who are producing these products. I
think Congress will be asking about that, because, as we move
forward with the weapons systems that are planned, I'm not sure
we're going to have the money to fund them all.
Are you prepared, General Pace--and maybe General Moseley
would comment briefly--to confront some of the tough choices
that may need to be made and to evaluate our systems as to how
we monitor contracting today?
General Pace. Sir, there are a lot of bright folks on both
sides of the river working the proper changes that may or may
not be needed to the acquisition process, that would allow us
to preclude repeating the problems we've had in the past.
Where I have been able to plug in, under my current
responsibilities as Vice Chairman, is as the Chairman of Joint
Requirements Oversight Council. What we've been able to do
there, sir, is to change our process so that earlier in the
requirements definition phase, we've been able to begin to feed
to the acquisition professionals and the acquisition community
the types of things that we are looking at as capabilities
needed in the future. So, the acquisition community and the
requirements community, sooner in the process, are talking to
each other about the future. But, correctly so, we have
maintained a boundary between those of us who stipulate what
the need is and those who determine how to fill that need. I am
anxious to continue that process, sir.
Senator Sessions. I think we're going to need progress
there.
General Moseley.
General Moseley. Senator Sessions, thank you.
If confirmed, I also look forward to working for
enhancements in the traditional process within acquisition
reform. I know in the Air Force we've made some mistakes. I
know that in the Air Force we could have done, and should have
done, things different. I know that along the way we've taken
people out of the acquisition professional corps, and for that
we've paid dearly; in the oversight of requirements, so the
requirements don't continue to creep; in the oversight of
standardization configuration, so that does not creep; and in
the oversight of the entire process, which allows more
visibility, not only for the Air Force, but for others along
the way. The traditional process has worked. Our mistake is,
we've taken people out as we've shrunk the Air Force.
I'm committed, if confirmed, to be able to work with the
Committee and with the Department to put people back in for the
oversight function.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
General Pace, just briefly with regard to the Guard and
Reserve, as a former reservist, a person who knows a lot of
guardsmen and women in Alabama who are serving exceedingly
well--and I understand at one point guardsmen were at 40
percent of our force in Iraq--what is the policy with regard to
multiple call-ups of Guard and Reserve serving in Iraq today?
General Pace. Sir, thanks for the opportunity to agree with
you wholeheartedly on the tremendous contribution that our
Guard and Reserve has been making to this war. They are
fabulous, and they bring unique skills, especially in
sustainment and stability operations, where you have folks who
have been in fire departments, and been policemen, and been
city managers, who bring that unique experience with them to
help rebuild a country like Iraq.
The policy, sir, for recall is, first, that no individual
will have more than 24 months cumulative on Active-Duty, Guard,
or Reserve. Right now, we're able to stipulate that anyone who
has already been called to Active-Duty will not be recalled.
The way we've been able to get there--because we made mistakes
early on in the way that we mobilized and trained and
equipped--the reservists we initially sent to Afghanistan and
that we initially sent to Iraq. In the process of learning
those mistakes--and I can get into that in detail, if you
want----
Senator Sessions. My time has expired.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I would like to have
you complete that answer for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
In the process of learning from those earlier mistakes, we are
using our Guard and Reserve servicemembers more effectively. Today, the
Guard and Reserve make up about 39 percent of our force in Iraq. We
expect this percentage to decline based on future requirements. Most of
the multiple call-ups to Iraq you cite are volunteers. Other examples
of multiple deployments to Iraq are caused by a specific Service's
rotation policies. For example, the Air Force has established a 120-day
rotation policy for the majority of its force, including its Reserve
components. Therefore, it is possible for an airman to serve in Iraq or
Afghanistan several times in a 24-month period, given the short-term
rotations of those members. In some cases, we have also had to
involuntarily remobilize Guard and Reserve personnel because they
occupy high-demand specialties within the total force. I want to assure
you that this is the exception and not the rule. The Department has a
rigorous process in place to ensure the judicious and prudent use of
its Guard and Reserve servicemembers.
Chairman Warner. We have another panel to which this
committee must turn to, so we have to proceed.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just concur in what my colleagues have said,
relative to the fact that we appreciate the service of you
three gentlemen to our country, and the President could not
have made a better choice for the positions for which you have
been selected to be nominated. Having worked with all three of
you in your current positions of leadership, as well as
previously, we look forward to continuing to do so.
General Pace, we had a hearing, as you well know, last
week, where we had General Abizaid and General Casey here. As a
part of that hearing there was a lot of conversation about the
fact that the war in Iraq may be losing some of its impetus
back home in some parts of the country. I'll have to say, in my
part of the world I don't hear that, and I don't think it's
because we have any greater patriots in Georgia, but we do
support our men and women. But I will have to say, you folks
are trained to fight a war, and you train your people to fight
a war. They do a great job of that. But somehow we need to get
the message back to the United States about the good things
that are happening over there. It's pretty easy to understand
why there can be some doom and gloom if all you're seeing is
carnage and blown-up vehicles and you have a loss of life, as
we had last week, of two young men from my State. Folks do get
a little bit upset when that's all they hear. I don't know just
how we do that. I have some regular ongoing e-mail
conversations with some Georgia troops over there who do tell
me about what's happening, and they're excited about what
they're seeing, relative to the conversion of the Iraqi people
and the building of infrastructure, whether it's schools,
electric power--in one case, one young captain reported
drilling a well to provide good drinking water for two
communities for the first time in 30 years. There's a lot of
good going on. General, I don't know how you do that, but
certainly it's not coming across on the media that's being
transmitted from theater back over here.
General Moseley, in your responses to the committee's
advance policy questions, you note, ``Our rapid-strike
capability is challenged by the aging of our legacy aircraft in
addition to the need for persistent stealth and precision.'' In
addition, you stated among the top three priorities is the need
to recapitalize and modernize the force. It's been stated the
position of the Air Force is, it needs 381 F/A-22s to modernize
its forces in order to maintain global air superiority. Is your
assessment of the tactical fighter aircraft requirements of the
Air Force different from the previous Air Force Chief's? Do you
foresee the ongoing QDR arriving at a much different conclusion
from either your current assessment or the stated position of
the Air Force?
General Moseley. Sir, let me answer the second part first.
We don't know what the QDR is going to tell us, because we're
in the midst of it now with the various Integrated Process
Teams (IPT) in the discussions. We still believe that we need
one squadron per Air Expeditionary Force (AEF). That's 240
combat airplanes. With the training base and with the attrition
reserve, that's the 381 number that has been stated.
Sir, the airplane is performing in a magnificent manner,
and there's no question that it will dominate. The issue that
we're working with within the QDR is to come to that number. We
still believe the one squadron per AEF is a reasonable
position. Certainly as we work our way through this, we will be
open to dialogue and discussion within the Department and,
hopefully, come to that answer soon.
Senator Chambliss. Finally, let me just say that Senator
Sessions mentioned that acquisition and procurement process and
our antiquated way in which we do business. I think there are
certain scenarios, from an acquisition/procurement process,
that have evolved over the years within the Department of
Defense. Unfortunately, if I ran my business back home, in my
business years, like we run some aspects of the Department of
Defense, we simply wouldn't last very long. We have to do a
better job of oversight. Senator McCain and I have talked about
this. As we move forward, once this appropriation process is
completed, we really need to review that and work very closely
with you folks to, hopefully, make some very needed changes in
that regard. So, I'm pleased to hear the response of you folks,
relative to that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo the words of Senator Chambliss. This is a
huge issue, this whole issue of procurement reform. We're just
pricing ourselves out of the business, and I think the entire
committee, under your and Senator Levin's leadership,
obviously, we are going to be very involved.
General Moseley, during your term as Vice Chief of the Air
Force, in your appearance before the House and Senate Armed
Services Committee, and in over 300 of your e-mails that I've
reviewed, you clearly advocated for the Boeing 767 tanker lease
deal. The tanker lease deal. After exhaustive investigations by
this Committee, the Senate Committee on Commerce, an alphabet
soup of groups--the GAO, CBO, CRS, DOD IG, etc.--we now know
that Air Force leadership--and, to some degree, DOD
leadership--failed. To quote the DOD IG, it failed ``to follow
acquisition statutes and regulations and ensure good fiduciary
stewardship of taxpayers' funds.'' In fact, the requirements of
the operational requirements document (ORD) were tailored to
the Boeing 767 instead of to the warfighter, overstated the
effects of corrosion on the KC-135 tanker fleet, and on and on
and on. If we hadn't stopped it, it would have cost the
taxpayers an additional $7 billion.
You zealously pursued the tanker lease deal. What steps
will you take to ensure that this doesn't happen again, if
you're confirmed as Chief of Staff of the Air Force?
General Moseley. Senator McCain, thank you for that
question. Sir, I believe the traditional process has served us
well. I believe, in this case, we should have conducted an AOA.
Out of an analysis of alternatives would have come a wider
range of discussions about opportunities on existing airplanes
and new airplanes. I think, putting the uniformed people back
into the acquisition process in the right places would have
provided oversight of the process, as well. So, I believe the
traditional process serves us well.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
General Pace, obviously I support your nomination, but I
must say, I continue to be disappointed at your continued
belief that somehow there was never needed any additional
troops, nor is there today. I know you're familiar with General
McCaffrey, and literally every other retired military officer
that I know, many of whom served in Iraq, all say that we
needed additional troops there after the initial success. One
of the reasons why we're facing the challenge we are today is
because we didn't have enough troops on the ground.
Today, you mentioned the Syrian border. We come in, we
attack, they leave, we leave, they come back. The obvious
answer to that--as the President so eloquently stated last
night--is expansion of the Iraqi military's capability to
handle these responsibilities. In the meantime, we do not have,
and have not had, enough troops, and we have paid a very heavy
price.
General, that's not just my opinion; that's the opinion of
every respectable retired military officer that I know--maybe
there are some that don't believe it--and military expert. I'm
disappointed in your continued comment that you're relying on
the ``commanders in the field.'' Commanders in the field never
say they need help, because of the nature of the commanders in
the field.
General McCaffrey, I thought, wrote in a piece in the Wall
Street Journal the best article that I have ever seen, where he
talks about the success that we've enjoyed, the progress we're
making, the fact that we are going to prevail over time, and
that the success of the Iraqi security forces is now real, and
appearing in great numbers. They have real equipment. We are
making significant progress. I think he states the case well.
This will continue to be hard work in Iraq. Progress will be
nonlinear, as you very appropriately have stated, but he also
goes on to say, ``We're also in a race against time. The U.S.
Army and Marines are too undermanned and under-resourced to
sustain the security policy beyond next fall. They're starting
to unravel. Congress is in denial, and must act. In addition,
the American people are losing faith in the statements of our
Defense Department leadership. The U.S. Army needs to increase
by 80,000 personnel; and the Marines, by 25,000. In addition,
serious targeted recruiting, educational, and economic
incentives are needed to be provided by Congress.''
I accept the responsibility of Congress and the fact that
we need to act, Mr. Chairman. But I--particularly in the area
of recruiting and retention of qualified men and women--I don't
know how you continue to ignore the views of people like
General McCaffrey, and a long laundry list of highly respected
people, when it's clear that we are in a tough situation and we
need to act. Part of that is supporting a strong armed
services, as the President did last night, appealing to our
patriotism, appealing to young Americans to serve their
country, and how proud we are of them. But to outright deny
that we didn't need more troops during this period, and we
don't need them now, I think, is regrettable, and I would like
to hear your response.
General Pace. Sir, thank you.
First of all, I understand exactly what your point is, and
I appreciate the opportunity to expand on mine. First of all,
it would be unfair to the commanders in the field for me to
leave with you the impression that it is their responsibility,
and solely their responsibility, to determine what the size of
the force is. What they have done is come to us with
recommendations. As I hope I have stated, but I will certainly
state again, as, a single member of the Joint Chiefs, and as a
body, we have struggled over the proper size of the U.S. Armed
Forces to be employed. I have made a conscious decision,
repeatedly, about what I believe to be the correct size of the
Armed Forces--not oblivious of great Americans like General
McCaffrey, who have a differing view, but taking that into
account.
I have never said that we don't need more totality of
forces there. In fact, I think in the past, in front of this
panel, in previous testimonies, I have said, yes, we need a
larger coalition force, but the answer to that, in Pete Pace's
opinion, was to bring the Iraqi armed forces on sooner so that
we could have the totality of forces that you correctly believe
we need, to get the job done. That, in my mind, is a balance
between how many U.S. forces are there and how many Iraqi and
other coalition forces are there.
So, I don't think there's a major disagreement among
professionals about how many troops are needed, in totality. I
do believe there's an honest professional disagreement about
what number of those should be U.S. troops and what number of
those should be Iraqi troops, sir.
Senator McCain. I thank you. My time is expired, but I
think the question is, How many American troops are needed
while the Iraqis make this transition?--which we all know is
the solution to this war, and on which we are making progress,
as the President pointed out last night--I think, in an
outstanding presentation. But I worry, and I hope you will pay
attention to General McCaffrey, and others who are retired
military officers, as well as outside experts, on this issue.
I thank the chairman, and I thank you, and I look forward
to working with the three of you in the future.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Levin and I, in consultation here, are of the view
that we complete the round here with Senator Nelson and then
Senator Thune, and then we will proceed to the second panel.
I will ask, prior to moving to the second panel, for
General Pace to give us a situation report on Afghanistan--we
suffered a tragic loss there--and your professional assessment
of that overall situation, and such details as you might be
able to provide about that loss.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, in addition, we both talked
about questions for the record being promptly answered, so we
could move on to the vote on these nominations. There will be
questions for the record.
Senator Dayton has already mentioned one very important
one, but there will be others that need to be promptly
answered.
Chairman Warner. That is correct. We urge Senators to
submit their questions.
Now, on a separate matter here, Senator McCain, I, and
other members of the committee have discussed at great length
that the committee, as well as the American public, deserve
additional information regarding the status of the training of
the Iraqi forces. Congress has virtually given the Department
of Defense unlimited funds to proceed with that very important
challenge essential to any strategy we have in the future,
essential to any contemplation of that point at which our force
level, and the coalition, can be reduced.
In an earlier hearing of this committee, there was concern
on behalf of the witnesses as to the classification of the
data, as to exactly what units are ready, or what percentage of
the forces are ready to take on independent combat activities,
what percentage are able to take on parallel activities,
working alongside U.S. units, and what units will require
embedded U.S. forces. I would like to ask you, General, to
review these questions of the previous hearing, and this
hearing, and to come back and report to this Committee as to
your assessment of what can be declassified, so that we have a
better understanding of the status today and in the immediate
future of the Iraqi forces.
Do you wish to add anything to that, Senator McCain?
Senator McCain. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've
articulated it. I think we need to know, the American people
need to know, the status of readiness of the Iraqi military,
which is improving, so that we can not only understand, but
appreciate better, the roles and missions that they're capable
of carrying out.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I think in our discussion we pointed out
the status of our own forces as a matter of public record.
General Pace. Mr. Chairman, in the advance questions the
panel did ask me for the response to that. I did submit a
classified part of the advance question. I answered that to my
complete ability, in a classified way. I will go back and see
what could be declassified for common discussion, but I have
answered the question, sir.
Chairman Warner. I was aware of the classified response,
but I think it is essential--the status of our own Armed Forces
is not a subject of that high a classification.
Senator Levin. Excuse me, if I could just ask that your
unclassified answer be made a part of the record of this
proceeding--in other words, be answered promptly, along with
our other questions--because there has been so much interest in
that issue. There have been leaks to the press that there are 2
or 3 of their battalions that are capable of operating
independently, out of a total of 80. We should have an
unclassified number, to the extent you can give it to us as a
part of this record.
General Pace. I understand, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
Only a small number of Iraqi security forces are taking on the
insurgents and terrorists by themselves. Approximately one-third of
their army battalions are capable of planning, executing, and
sustaining counterinsurgency operations with coalition support.
Approximately two-thirds of their army battalions and one-half of their
police battalions are partially capable of conducting counterinsurgency
operations in conjunction with coalition units. Approximately one-half
of their police battalions are forming and not yet capable of
conducting operations. The majority of Iraqi security forces are
engaged in operations against the insurgency with varying degrees of
cooperation and support from coalition forces. Many of these units have
performed superbly in conducting operations against the enemy, and
their operational capability is continuing to improve. I have provided
a classified graphic of this data in my responses to advance questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
Senator Nelson, to be followed by Senator Thune.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, would it be your
pleasure that you would want the General to answer your
question with regard to the status of Afghanistan?
Chairman Warner. I think we will do that as a final wrap-up
question on behalf of the whole committee.
Senator Bill Nelson. At your pleasure, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, good morning. It was clearly my privilege to
introduce General Pace.
I want to come back to this part of the world and make the
three of you aware of a battle that I had to engage in, on the
floor of the Senate over the course of the last 2 weeks to
protect a national resource which is of considerable interest
to the three of you, which is restricted airspace over the Gulf
of Mexico, off of the State of Florida.
I think, in this round of base realignment and closure
(BRAC), it is no accident that we see not only the continuation
of the military training for the new F-22 at Tyndall Air Force
Base, that in this round of BRAC we see the consolidation of
the military training for the pilots on the Joint Strike
Fighter, the F-35, will be at Eglin Air Force Base, because
they are co-located with all of that restricted airspace.
Indeed, with the closure of Vieques, Puerto Rico, as the
Atlantic fleet training site for the United States Navy, a lot
of that training has moved to the State of Florida, a good part
of that to the Panhandle of Florida, to utilize this national
asset of restricted airspace. If you look at a map, you will
see that the military restricted airspace is basically all of
the Gulf of Mexico off of the State of Florida.
[The map referred to follows:]
Now, the battle that I had to wage was that the oil
interests of this country want to drill. From my standpoint,
representing the State of Florida, we have other reasons that
we don't want drilling off of our coast, but, clearly, one of
the arguments that I used was the argument that we don't want
to interfere with this national asset, particularly when you
come in and have all of these joint exercises. Now, it's true,
the carriers will come on either coast of Florida, and they
will use Avon Park bombing range, and Pine Castle, but with
computers you can create virtual land masses out on the surface
of the Gulf of Mexico, and you have that ability.
Fortunately, Senator Martinez and I were successful over
the course of the last 2 weeks, but this battle isn't over.
It's going to continue. I had to carry this battle in the
1980s, when I was a pup Congressman representing the east coast
of Florida, and finally convinced the forces that you can't
have oil rigs where you're dropping the solid rocket boosters
from the Space Shuttle, and where you're dropping the first
stages of expendable booster rockets coming out of the Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station. But we have a battle now right in
the middle of your restricted airspace.
If this has not come to your attention, I want to bring it
to your attention, and I would like to know what you think
about protecting this resource for weapons testing and combat
training and preventing the encroachment by oil exploration and
drilling.
General Pace. If I may start, sir, and then perhaps General
Moseley and Admiral Giambastiani.
First, sir, if I could take just a second to say thank you
for the great honor you did me of introducing me today. I very
much appreciate your words, sir.
Second, sir, I do not know the specifics of the restricted
airspace in Florida. If I may, I would pass to my Air Force
colleague.
General Moseley. Senator, thank you for the opportunity to
reinforce the notion of how critical airspace is to train,
especially now, for the joint team, when you think about the
airspace from Pensacola to Panama City. Those areas are called
warning areas and restricted areas--151, 155, and 470 are the
ones that we're talking about off the Panhandle. Tyndall is
where we have the F-22 school. That's where we have the F-15
school. Eglin is where we do our tests. We have the 33rd
Fighter Wing there, which is an F-15 operational unit. The Navy
has a large flying operation at Pensacola. In the BRAC
submission, we have also proposed that we consolidate the Joint
Strike Fighter training for all of us at Eglin--Air Force,
Navy, Marine Corps, and coalition, at that one location.
Sir, the airspace that we require out there is only getting
bigger, because the aircraft have more capable sensors, they
see further, and they fly faster. The opportunity to do this in
a joint and coalition setting is equally critical for us. To be
able to partner with naval battle groups and with Marine Corps
amphibious groups as they do what they used to do at the other
places are even more critical for us when you think about the
operations that are ongoing now in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There's nothing that we do as a single Service; we do this in
complete interdependence with each other. Training ranges,
whether they are over land or over water, and training
airspace, is absolutely, fundamentally critical to the
preparation for combat and the things that we do every day.
Senator Bill Nelson. Admiral, I wish you would comment with
regard to the United States Navy, and especially with the
movement since you've had to pull out of Vieques and all of
that training that has taken place up there.
Admiral Giambastiani. If I could, Senator, just add to the
comments of General Pace and General Moseley.
First of all, in the record already, in the advance
questions, I have talked about problems with encroachment on
training ranges. I received this in a question about base
realignment and closure. Training ranges, in general, did well
with regard to the BRAC process, however, encroachment is a
significant problem, and continued encroachment is even more of
a problem.
With regard to Vieques and its closure, much of what we
could do, airspace-wise, was moved to South Florida for
compensation, if you will, for the loss of airspace that we had
in the Vieques area and in the Puerto Rican area. So, this is a
key area for us.
Number two, the joint national training capability, where
we net significant numbers of ranges together, requires places
to be able to conduct cruise-missile flights, both unmanned and
manned aircraft are required. So, I would just say to you that
restricted airspace significantly reduces the realism and the
capability for our combat forces to practice and exercise prior
to their deployment for use, such as we have going on worldwide
right now.
Senator Bill Nelson. Gentlemen, I tried to fight your
battle last week. We won it, but this crowd doesn't let up. I
had a bitter experience in the mid-1980s under one Secretary of
the Interior, and we finally fought it back. They came back 2
years later, after another Secretary of the Interior,
absolutely intent to drill off the east cast of Florida. I
never could get the Department of Defense and NASA to step up
and say what was the reasons for not drilling, because it was a
buddy-buddy club, and they were going to drill out there. I'm
hoping that you all, in light of what you have just said, are
going to stick up for your point of view about the lack of
encroachment upon this valuable national asset called
restricted airspace.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, Senator. I was on the other
side of that issue with you, not in any way trying to encroach
on the needs of our U.S. military. We have to strike a balance
between the energy needs of this country, with oil going above
$60 a barrel, to make an assessment of what might be available
offshore the United States, wherever it may be. You can put
Florida in isolation, if you wish. I won't touch it, but
there's the rest of the 49 States that are deeply concerned
about this energy crisis that we're facing. If there were the
opportunity to put a natural-gas drilling operation off some
State, I'm certain that the Department of Defense would be able
to have its voice heard if, in any way, that would jeopardize
or impair training of our forces. It's a balance of interests,
and this country, I think, regrettably, in the near future, is
going to have to make some very difficult decisions about where
it's going to go for its energy resources.
Now, Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, General, Admiral, thank you. I will associate
myself with much of what has been said earlier, and thank you
for your extraordinary service to our country and for your
willingness to re-up to an even higher level of service that
will require you probably to spend more time in front of
congressional committees. That is going to be a big part of
your job description, going forward. It may shock you all that
I'm not going to force you to answer questions about BRAC,
although I will be following up on that in later forums, but I
do want to ask a couple of questions.
There's been a lot of concern expressed by folks in the
military and at the Department of Defense about the military
buildup in China. I suppose I would direct this question more
specifically to General Moseley. With the end of the Cold War,
the Soviet Union obviously having a dramatic effect on our
force planning and realignments for the 21st century, and
acknowledging that DOD is still working on the QDR and the
mobility capability study, do you think that we may have scaled
back too much our projected needs and planning for long-range
strike capabilities, in light of that growing military--or I
guess I should say, in light of growing military powers like
China?
General Moseley. Senator, thank you for that question. That
is a topic of much discussion and much dialogue within the QDR
that is ongoing now. As a member of one of the Op ETs, that is
certainly one of the things that we are struggling with inside
the QDR. There is nothing that has changed the requirement for
range, persistence, survivability, and payload in any of the
equations, regardless of the region. The enhancements that we
see in the Chinese military does cause concern. In fact,
General Hester, I believe, last week, in a press conference,
laid that out very well. He's the Commander of our Pacific Air
Forces.
Sir, that question is being discussed at some depth inside
the QDR. It is a troublesome question of how much strike do you
need, relative to the other mission areas that we are engaged
with. Sir, I can tell you, if confirmed as the Chief of Staff
of the Air Force, that is at the top of my list, relative to
long-range strike and the ability to provide that capability
for this country.
Senator Thune. I appreciate that. I know that one of your
priorities is recapitalizing our aging fleet. That's something,
I think, that all of us here are very interested in as well. It
ties into a discussion that was held earlier with respect to
acquisition and cost. I look forward to working with you to
ensure that we are taking those steps that are necessary to get
that per-unit cost down. I think that's a growing concern, in
terms of the platforms and the needs that we're going to have,
going forward. This is particularly so in light of some of
those emerging threats and the 10- to 20-year window that,
hopefully, this QDR is going to make some judgments about.
Let me also follow up on one other point that was raised,
and that has to do with the National Guard. That has been
addressed at some length here, but in my home State of South
Dakota, we have had a lot of deployments. We have a high
proportion of people per capita involved in the Guard, and we
have excellent Guard units with excellent reputations, and
you've all noted, already, the enormous role, the important
role, that they have played in the war on terror. I've heard
the Secretary talk about rebalancing the Active-Duty and the
Guard and Reserve and the various roles they play. Rebalancing
the skill sets is going to be necessary. In light of what's
happening--and I don't want to focus this exclusively on the
Air Force--but how does that process, as it goes forward--and I
refer to the question that was raised earlier about the effects
of deployments--and, clearly, there have been a lot of Guard
units that have been deployed, and there are some which are now
getting ready for another deployment, tie-in to recruitment,
tie-in to retention, and people willing to extend their service
and keeping involved in the Guard. How do you see the role of
the Guard playing as we go forward? Perhaps you can shed a
little bit of light on just the stresses and strains that are
associated with the level of deployments that they're
experiencing today.
General Moseley. Senator, the Air Force--and I,
particularly--look at ourselves as a total force. We don't look
at ourselves as an Active Force and a Reserve Component. We
look at ourselves as a Guard, Air Force Reserve, and Active
mix. Every member, whether a guardsman or a reservist or active
or civilian, is a treasured member of the Air Force. So, as we
look at reshaping and rebalancing the force to fight not only a
global war on terrorism, but also to cover contingencies in the
future as they emerge, there are some mission areas that we can
do better at. For instance, the C-130 world has been
particularly stressed inside the Guard, because the aircraft
that are in the Guard are the newest, most-capable aircraft. We
keep those forward.
Over the last month or so, we have looked at ways to fly
more of General John Abizaid's and General George Casey's
materials to get them off of highways so we can get them away
from IEDs and potential threats, which has increased the
requirement for C-130s to do intratheater lift. That's the
right thing to do for the joint team. We have looked at
positioning the aircraft forward and rotating the crews--both
Reserve, Guard, and Active--to keep the aircraft forward, but
not disadvantaging a particularly high-stressed group of
people--in this case, the Guard.
So, sir, the new missions out there, of command-and-
control, air operations centers, and space operations, and the
new aircraft, are extremely critical for us in this Reserve,
Guard, and Active mix. In fact, today, there are guardsmen
flying the F-22 who will operate in an associate arrangement at
Langley with the 1st Wing.
Senator, we take this very seriously, this partnership and
this holistic approach to how we do business.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
General Pace, anything to add, in terms of the Army Guard?
General Pace. Sir, thanks. The Army, especially, has been
paying attention to this very closely for about the last 2
years, to include General Schoomaker's decision to convert
about 100,000 billets, that are either Active or Reserve right
now, into the other components. For example, we needed more
military police (MPs). One of the reasons we've had as much as
38-40 percent of the forces on the ground being Guard or
Reserve is because that's where the bulk of our sustainment,
our mechanics, our MPs, and the like, have been. So, not
``looking at,'' but changing the mix of the way that we have
our Guard, Reserve, and Active Force components right now--and,
additionally, going out far enough so that if we know we're
going to need to use reservists a year from now, potentially,
letting them know right now. That way we can take reservists,
who perhaps are artilleryman right now in the Reserves, and
give them the training they need to be MPs. When they're called
to Active-Duty, instead of going back repeatedly to the Guard
MPs, we have been able to expand our access to the Guard.
Primarily, getting a better mix of Active/Reserve, but also
providing long enough lead times so we can train up our
reservists in time to take the mission is key.
Senator Thune. I appreciate that. Anything you can do, I
would think, to add predictability for these folks would help.
We have had, I think, extraordinary success in South Dakota, in
terms of retention, to date, in Army and Air Guard units, but I
see the stresses and strains on the members, themselves, and
their families. Part of it is just the uncertainty and not
knowing when you're going to be called up.
Admiral Giambastiani. Senator, I might add one piece of
information for you.
Back in March 2003, when we would mobilize a reservist, for
example, who was in what we would call in combat service-
support areas, we probably gave on average, only had about 2
months' notice. Today, we're out to 8 months of notice. This is
the lead time that General Pace is talking about. With regard
to combat forces, we were about 4 months ahead of time; and now
we're out to 12 months. This is a significant difference that
affects both Active component and Reserve component, Guard and
Reserve.
Senator Thune. Thank you, sir. Thank you, gentlemen, for
your testimony. I look forward to working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Thune. We will see that
our witnesses respond to your questions on BRAC. I fully
appreciate the severity of the BRAC situation as it relates to
your distinguished state, and how hard you've worked on that
issue. Thank you.
Now, General Pace, on the subject of Afghanistan, we will
not proceed with questions on that, which we will be submitting
for the record, but it is important here this morning that you
review that area of responsibility (AOR). It has progressed
exceedingly well. We would like to have your professional
assessment of the situation today that's facing the forces, and
the immediate future.
General Pace. Senator, thank you.
First of all, as you mentioned, the tragedy of yesterday
and what appears to be a shoot-down of one of our Special
Operations helicopters, that included some very special folks
who were on a mission for this country. That's under
investigation. We think it was a rocket-propelled grenade, sir,
but are not 100 percent sure. That will come out in time, as
we're able to get to the scene and do the investigation
required. Our hearts go out to their families.
I'm very optimistic about Afghanistan, but I also know
there are challenges ahead.
First, the reasons for optimism. When you go to Kabul,
there are traffic jams; there's glass in all the windows; there
are cranes putting up new buildings; they're fixing the
potholes in the roads; there are kids, boys and girls, going to
school; and they're proud of having voted. The people are
voting with their pocketbooks, as well as their real vote. The
population, in my mind, is extremely proud of what they have
done, and extremely proud of where they're going.
In the countryside, the Provisional Reconstruction Teams,
which were at about 6 or 7 this time last year, are up above 20
this year. These are teams of 80 to 100 who are around the
country helping with the reconstruction, helping the governors
and the local leaders in those regions to rebuild their areas.
NATO's vote to expand what they are doing from the original
force that was in Kabul to sector one, which is the northern
part, and sector two, which they've just taken over, which is
the western part, with a plan next year, once the United
Kingdom (U.K.) takes command, and with Canadian help, to take
over the southern part, and then eventually the center part----
Chairman Warner. That would be sector three?
General Pace. Sector three would be the southern part.
Sector four would be the central part. So that over the next
year or so--2 years, probably, sir--you will have more and more
turnover of the day-to-day activities of helping the Afghan
Government provide security for its citizens, being NATO-led--
which, of course, includes U.S.--rather than a purely U.S.-led
effort in most of the countryside.
Chairman Warner. U.S. would principally be in sector four,
would that be correct?
General Pace. We would be a part of a NATO force in all
sectors, sir, but we would still primarily be in sector four,
which includes the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and
which includes most of the fighting that must continue against
the insurgents who use that border area as an area for safety.
The elections are coming up on September 18, an election
that will see 3,000-plus Afghan individuals standing up for
elections to include women.
All of those things are very positive.
Two things of concern, sir. One is the drug trade. Heroin
is easily grown. Poppies are easily grown. The opportunity,
because of the enormous impact of the heroin trade on the
economy, about 50 percent of the current economy is from the
drug trade. The opportunity for corruption that that breeds is
a challenge for the Afghan Government in the future.
Also a challenge is the Taliban, who suffered a severe blow
during the last election and know that the next blow to them is
coming on September 18, when the Afghans vote again. We are
probably going to see an increased attempt on the part of the
Taliban to create havoc, cause death and destruction, between
now and September 18. But they will not be able to dissuade the
Afghan people from voting and bringing into existence a
parliament-type organization that will be the first of its kind
in the 5,000 years of Afghan history, sir.
Chairman Warner. Isn't there a third concern though,
General? I've been studying, with other members of the
committee, the increased use of the IEDs--that is, the road
bombs--and also the incorporation of what appears to be some
advanced technology in their methodology of using those very
destructive weapons, which are primarily targeting vehicle
traffic.
General Pace. That is a concern, yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I hope that everything can be brought to
bear by the various task forces in the Department of Defense on
IEDs and is fully shared in that AOR. Am I assured of that?
General Pace. Yes, sir. It has been, and will continue to
be. In fact, not only are we sharing the technology-type
information, the ground tactics, techniques, and procedures,
but also the training lessons we've learned with General
Petreaus, visiting with General Eikenberry, to ensure that the
lessons we're learning in training both of those armies are
shared with each other.
Chairman Warner. Fine, thank you.
That will conclude the committee's hearing on panel one. We
will take just a few-minute recess and proceed to panel two.
[Recess.]
We welcome the nominees and their families, and I think,
before we start with the introductions, I would like to ask
Ambassador Edelman to introduce his family.
Ambassador Edelman. Thank you very much, Senator. I have
behind me, my wife Trish, who is both the daughter and mother
of a Foreign Service family. Also here is my daughter
Stephanie, my son Terrence, and my son Bob. My son, Alex, was
not able to make it today, but I hope he is watching, and my
folks, my mom and dad, I hope are watching in Shelburne,
Vermont.
Chairman Warner. Well, thank you very much, and I had the
privilege of meeting your family, and advising your wife that,
based on my own experience of over 5 years in the building,
there's no reason why you can't get home promptly at 7, because
all decisions made after 7 are usually reversed the following
morning. [Laughter.]
Would you kindly bear that in mind as you undertake this
responsibility.
Now, Mr. Stanley, if you would introduce your family.
Mr. Stanley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
introduce my wife Kay, my partner, defender, friend, and when
necessary, therapist. My brother Scott, who mentored me as only
a loving brother can. My daughter Beth, and my three
grandchildren, Nick, Jack, and Grace, were unable to make it
today because of an illness in the family. A special salute to
Second Lieutenant Daniel R. Stanley, Junior, United States
Army, who is training currently at Fort Leonard Wood, and will
be graduating in July, will be married, and then will go up on
deployment. My mother, 86 years, could not be here today,
because she is celebrating the birthday of her mother, and my
grandmother, at 106. She is in Sacramento, and so she chose
that event.
Chairman Warner. We'd better pause again to take this all
in--go over that again, she's 86, celebrating the birthday of
her mother, who's 106?
Mr. Stanley. Yes, sir. She still requires that I give her
strokes in golf, and beats me scratch. [Laughter.]
Senator Levin. Which one, the grandmother, or the great-
grandmother? [Laughter.]
Mr. Stanley. I would be embarrassed to tell you which one.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Well, that's a wonderful story. When I was
in the Department, my mother was in her 80s and she lived to be
96, so I wish you well. Thank you very much. Families are an
important part of military life, and you're undertaking
assignments to work alongside the men and women in uniform.
Your families are no less important than our affairs, and this
committee in every way tries to accommodate the families and to
express our profound gratitude for their sacrifices that they
must make, particularly the long hours you will encounter in
these troubled times in our Department of Defense.
Mr. Rispoli, you've been so quiet. Would you kindly
introduce your family?
Mr. Rispoli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have with me today
my wife of 36 years this month, Carol, behind me, and
together--she's the only family member who could be here
today--we have two children, our daughter, Christina, is
married and lives in Raleigh, North Carolina, with an infant.
She could not be here. She is a University of Virginia
graduate, I will tell you, in Engineering. Our son Joey, who is
to be married to his fiance, Mandy, in Austin, Texas, in 2
weeks, and so obviously they have other things going right now.
I hope that they, along with my sister and her family in
Arizona, are also watching the proceedings. Thank you for the
opportunity to introduce them.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. Delighted to have you
and your family here today and I so enjoyed our visits
yesterday in my office. I was very impressed with the
credentials that you bring to this important post.
Now the Chair recognizes the distinguished chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, and longtime member of this committee,
for the purpose of two introductions.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, I do have a statement of
support for Dan Stanley as a personal friend. I might add it's
the water, the genes, and the clean living in Kansas that leads
to longevity, sir, but I would prefer to yield to another
witness. In Kansas, about a decade or so ago, we declared our
former President, Dwight David Eisenhower, the Kansan of the
Century. Well, if we really look at that, and given that,
that's certainly true. The next witness, Senator Bob Dole, is
our Kansan of the last half century, at least. His leadership
and his contributions on behalf of our State and our Nation, we
certainly know and they're well-known, I think, to every
American, more especially our veterans, and rightfully
appreciated. I yield to my friend, my colleague, my mentor, my
``God--uncle'' to my public service when I used to be somebody,
Mr. Chairman, in the House of Representatives. That was because
when I said something, or I was for something, or introduced an
amendment, or if I opposed something, people automatically
thought that I was walking in step with Bob Dole, and that gave
me a big catalyst of support. I never told them that most of
the time I never talked to Bob about those things, but at any
rate, we always seemed to think alike. He has been a great
friend, and I would like to yield to him at this particular
time. Bob?
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator. I would like
to associate myself with some of the remarks--not necessarily
the latter part--of Senator Roberts. I say to you, dear friend,
Senator Levin and I are celebrating our 27th year as members of
the United States Senate, and I calculated the other day that
we have served with 241 Senators in that period of time. Not
one of those in any way surpasses the extraordinary
contribution that I and others witnessed that you made to this
Nation through your service to the Senate, and of course, prior
thereto, to the Armed Forces of the United States. I owe a
great deal to whatever modest career I've been able to achieve,
to the guidance you have given me through these many years. I
particularly cherish the last chapter that we worked together
on, and that was that World War II Memorial. You certainly
showed your respect for what is referred to as The Greatest
Generation, and I congratulate you, Sir.
Senator Levin. I would like to join in a quick welcome,
Bob, just to make sure that everyone understands just what a
love affair both parties have had with you inside the U.S.
Senate. Members of this body on both sides of the aisle have
extraordinary respect and fond memories of your being here, and
still do your work today. We had the pleasure of naming a
building in Michigan after the late Phil Hart, who represented
Michigan, Danny Inouye, who still represents Hawaii, and Bob
Dole. The three of them spent a very memorable part of their
heroic lives in the hospital in Michigan, and got to know each
other. We, several years ago, had the pleasure of having Bob
Dole there, with Danny Inouye when we named that Federal Center
after the three of them. It's a real honor in Michigan to have
your name on that building.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT DOLE, FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Senator Dole. I appreciate the comments by my former
colleagues, and I'm very honored to be here, because I know the
gentleman on my left, Dan Stanley, very well. I see so many of
my friends, I note the absence of the Senator from North
Carolina, by the way. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. She is accounted for, though.
Senator Dole. I know she's here in spirit. I used to be
here in spirit myself. [Laughter.]
Senator Dole. In any event, these are critical times for
America, and as a Republican leader throughout the Cold War,
and the first Gulf War, and the defeat of the Soviet Union, I
had the privilege to work with this committee to stand strong
for America. As I reflect on those times, I know we did
everything we could do together to ensure that America's
fighting men and women had what was necessary, both in
equipment and unity, to stand up to the threats against our
country. We stood behind them and in support of them for the
great sacrifice that America asks of them, even though
individually, we didn't always agree on how best to achieve
that important task. We had some pretty heated debates, as I
remember.
When the time for persuasion had passed, and the votes were
cast, we stood as one to defend our mutual decisions and our
country. I mention this only to sort of introduce Dan Stanley,
who served on my staff during some of the fiercest and most
important of those debates. Dan Stanley, who is before this
committee as the President's nominee for Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Legislative Affairs. There's always a tension
between the executive and legislative branch in Congress. It's
a very tough job, and because they believed our mutual love for
our country would ensure sufficient civility to overcome
divergent interests and political dyspepsia, our Founding
Fathers sort of set it up that way.
Without getting into Dan Stanley's resume, which I'm
certain is a part of the record, and which I know Senator
Roberts will comment on, I just know Dan Stanley as somebody
who gets things done. When the Governor of Kansas needed
something, he called Dan Stanley to come out and help him. When
the people of Topeka wanted something done, they elected him to
the City Council, even though he was serving in the Governor's
cabinet, and Secretary Rumsfeld called upon him with the
important task of transforming the Army. Now he's been called
upon again by the President to do a very important job, and I
can't think of a more important job than the job he's going to
have. I think it is fair to say we're all very proud of our
States. We all can point to things in Michigan, or Virginia, or
North Carolina, or Kansas that we're particularly proud of, and
we're obviously proud of our State--there's not a lot that
comes very easy in Kansas, as Pat knows, and as Dan has found
out in his life, but we are good people, solid people, and
patriotic people, and if the job requires starting at the
bottom to get it done, that's where we start.
Dan enlisted in the Navy and served aboard submarines
during the Cold War because he wanted to do his part. He rose
from Seaman Recruit to Chief Petty Officer, then through the
commissioned officer ranks and served with the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. He has served me in the Senate, and again, during
perilous times, without showboating, because that is who he is.
That's how I'll close my statement, and ask that it all be made
a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Bob Dole
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:
It is good to be here today and see so many friends and former
colleagues. Two things I note are still true since last I saw you: 1)
In my eyes none of us looks a day older, and 2) these are critical
times for America. As the Republican leader and throughout the Cold
War, the first Gulf War, and the defeat the Soviet Union, I had the
privilege to work with this committee to stand strong for America. As I
reflect on those times I know we did every thing we could do together,
to ensure that America's fighting men and women had what was
necessary--both in equipment and unity--to stand up to the threats
against our country. We stood behind them and supported them for the
great sacrifice that America asked of them. Individually we did not
always agree on how best to achieve that important task--and we had
some pretty heated debates. But, when the time for persuasion had
passed and votes were cast, we stood as one to defend our mutual
decisions and our country. I mention those days as I introduce a man
who served on my staff during some of the fiercest and most important
of those debates, Dan Stanley, who is before this committee as the
President's nominee for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs.
There is always a natural tension between the executive branch and
Congress. This is a very tough job. Because they believed our mutual
love for our country would assure sufficient civility to overcome
divergent interests and political dyspepsia, our Founding Fathers set
it up that way.
In that context let me say this about Dan. If you know him as I
have, if you look at his resume, if you talk to people who have worked
with him and those whom he has mentored and led, you will understand
what I know. It is this: when there is a tough job to do, Dan Stanley
is the person they call. I did. The Governor of Kansas did when he
needed a tough job done. The people of Topeka did when they wanted a
change and elected him to the city council even as he still served in
the cabinet. Secretary Rumsfeld called upon him to help with the
important task of transforming the Army. Now in a time of acrimony and
danger the President has called upon him once again.
From the beginning, Kansans have understood the sacrifice of
service. There isn't much that comes easy in Kansas. We like to think
we earn whatever we get, and we believe that it takes character to
outlive drought and dust and the hard times that make our State's
sunflower a metaphor for gritty optimism. If the job requires starting
at the bottom to get it done, that's where we start. We just do it. Dan
enlisted in the Navy and served aboard submarines during the Cold War
because he wanted to do his part. He rose from seaman recruit to chief
petty officer, then through the commissioned ranks to serve with the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. He served me and the Senate, again during
perilous times and without showboating, because that is who he is.
Let me say one thing more about Dan. He always has dealt with
people in the most civil, honest, and respectful manner--Republican or
Democrat, liberal or conservative. In my view, that is how the American
people want business conducted in Congress. Dan understands that. The
American people want that. I worry sometimes that this great body has
lost its balance--sense of civility and understanding that our greatest
purpose is far more important than partisanship. One thing I can assure
you is that if you confirm Dan Stanley to this position, Congress will
have someone who will work tirelessly to bridge what has seemed a
growing gap not only between the branches of government, but between
ourselves as decent and fair-minded men and women who put the country
first. He is a Kansan, so you might find that like mine his humor is a
little dry. But he is a good man and he will tell you the truth and
keep his word. He has ably served the U.S. military and the U.S. Senate
and understands and respects both. This above all: he comes here
because, like all the rest of us, he loves America more.
Senator Dole. This job requires a sense of civility and
understanding, but a great purpose is far more important than
partisanship, and one thing I can assure you is if you confirm
Dan Stanley to this position, Congress will have someone who
will work tirelessly to bridge what has been the growing gap,
not only between branches of government, but between ourselves
as fair-minded men and women. I know Dan. I know how he has
treated people in the past. I've never had a complaint when Dan
was in my office from anybody in either party saying that he
had not kept his word, or not dealt fairly with them, whether
it came as some amendment or something else, some policy
discussion. Dan is a good man, and he will tell you the truth
and keep his word, and that's about all you're going to get out
of Dan Stanley. He doesn't talk a lot, he's laid back, but he's
fair, he's objective, he's a good man, and I certainly am proud
to be here this morning to recommend his confirmation. Thank
you.
Chairman Warner. Senator, all of us are moved by the
sincerity and depth of feeling that you've provided in your
remarks, and we once again thank you for your service. I have
to pause a minute, because I knew he was in the Navy and we
talked about that--electrician was his grade--but I didn't
realize he achieved, really, the extraordinary status at a
relatively young age of Chief Petty Officer. That is the Navy's
backbone. I can't help but think, Senator, of how many times we
were reminded we had another Chief Petty Officer around here, a
man who we respected and loved, and that was John Tower.
He ordered me into his office one time when I was Secretary
of the Navy to promote him to Senior Chief Petty Office, with
the Chief of Naval Operations standing by my side at his desk,
right here in the Russell Building. So, we welcome Mr. Stanley
and his contributions.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, I do have a very short
statement.
Chairman Warner. Please, go ahead.
Senator Roberts. I would like to join Senator Dole and
associate myself with his remarks. He has introduced Dan to the
committee. Dan is a personal friend, but more important, his
qualifications really speak for themselves as the Senator has
pointed out, serving honorably as a Naval Officer, senior staff
of the United States Senate, juggling all of those important
issues that would boil up every day, in State government in our
State of Kansas--his resume reflects the important
responsibilities he has assumed and the tough jobs he has
fulfilled. I don't think any Kansan better reflects his
commitment to duty than our favorite son, Dwight Eisenhower,
who I referred to, but I just want to tell a story about Dan
and his background.
There's another connection with a former President. Dan's
office in the Pentagon is located on the E Ring in the hallway
known as the Eisenhower Corridor. It's appropriate that the
Pentagon honor the architect of D-Day with such a tribute. We
Kansans were able to put a statue of Ike in the rotunda. The
footnote in history is that Ike was not the first choice from
Kansas to attend West Point. Ike came in second in the
competition for the appointment for the Academy that year, to
Dan's grandfather, who received the highest score in the
competition for that appointment.
That unique story aside, Mr. Chairman, I truly believe that
he will, as Bob indicated, excel as the next Assistant
Secretary for Legislative Affairs. I believe this not only
because of my experiences with Dan, and as Bob said, watching
him work hard for his country over the years, but also because
of what he said when he came to me for his pre-hearing meeting
on Monday.
Now, he's been around the Pentagon. He's also been around
Congress a lot, and the meeting was barely underway before he
asked me how he could make the Legislative Affairs shop at the
Pentagon more responsive to lawmakers, and how he could make it
better for Representatives and Senators, and Committees like
this one, and staffs. So, he knows who we are, he also knows we
are the end users of the DOD's Legislative Affairs operation,
and I think he understands that certainly better than most, and
will work hard to ensure that our needs and questions are
answered.
I would just take the liberty of describing Dan as an ``oil
can man.'' If you have an itch, he will scratch it; if you have
a rash, he will treat it. If you throw a monkey wrench in the
gear box, he will try to recommend to you that you take the
monkey wrench out, or will fix the gear box. Basically, when he
sees some kind of an issue that becomes overheated, as Bob has
indicated--and a tremendous need for unity of purpose in this
Congress, more especially when we are at war--he will make it
possible for the dialogue to take place to achieve
understanding and that special unity of purpose.
Mr. Chairman, I think what we say up here from this dais
and the many comments we make from the floor of the Senate, the
many press conferences we have during these very trying times,
these challenging times, the message that we send, not only is
to our constituency, but also to our men and women in uniform
and also to our adversaries.
I just came back from Fort Riley where we had a battalion
coming back from their second tour of Iraq, and I went over to
the 12 people who received Purple Hearts, and 3 with Bronze
Stars. I said, ``On behalf of Congress, I want to congratulate
you, thank you for your service. On behalf of the committee, I
want to congratulate you.'' I spoke more especially on your
behalf, Mr. Chairman. I got to the last young man who had
received his second Purple Heart, and he said, ``Thank you for
the support in Congress. By the way, what in the hell is going
on back there?'' in terms of some of the comments, I said,
``Well, we have strong differences of opinion,'' and he said,
``Well, that's fine, Sir, but we're doing a lot of good work in
Iraq, and we're not really hearing about it.'' That really
concerns me, and I think if there's any appointment right now
that can do a better job of keeping this committee posted, and
again, being that oil can person, so that we can achieve that
unity of purpose, and achieve what the President wants and what
we all want, it is Dan Stanley.
[The prepared statement of Senator Roberts follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Pat Roberts
Mr. Chairman: It is my pleasure to introduce a fellow Kansan who is
before this committee as the nominee for Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Legislative Affairs, Dan Stanley. I consider Dan to be a personal
friend. But more important are his qualifications. He has served our
Nation honorably as a naval officer, senior staff in the United States
Senate, and in State government in our State of Kansas. Kansan's don't
shirk from the tough jobs. And Dan never has.
Mr. Chairman, Dan's resume reflects the important responsibilities
he assumed and the tough jobs he has fulfilled. No Kansan better
reflects this commitment to duty than our favorite son, Dwight D.
Eisenhower. But Dan shares another connection with the former
President. Dan's office in the Pentagon is located on the E-Ring, in
the hallway known as the Eisenhower Corridor. It is appropriate that
the Pentagon honor the architect of D-Day with such a tribute, just as
Kansas has presented his statue for display in the Capitol. The
footnote in history is that Ike was not the first choice from Kansas to
attend West Point. Ike came in second in the competition for the
appointment to the Academy that year to Dan's grandfather, who received
the highest scores in the competition for that appointment. That unique
story aside, Mr. Chairman, I truly believe Dan will excel as the next
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. I not only believe this
because of my experiences with Dan, watching him work hard for his
country over the years, but also because of what he said to me when he
came by for his pre-hearing meeting Monday. The meeting was barely
underway before Dan asked how he could make the legislative affairs
shop at the Pentagon more responsive to lawmakers, how he could make it
better for Representatives, Senators, relevant committees like this
one, and staff. He knows we are the end users of the Department of
Defense's legislative affairs operations. Dan understands that better
than most, and will work hard to ensure that our needs are met and our
questions are answered. With that, Mr. Chairman, I offer my full
recommendation that Dan Stanley be approved as the next Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator, I'm very pleased that you
mentioned that personal conversation you had with that
distinguished soldier on his return. In the hearing that we had
last week, General Abizaid, on his own initiative raised his
concern about the need from time to time to respond to similar
inquiries addressed to him as the commanding general of U.S.
Central Command (CENTCOM) from the men and women in his
command. As to ``What's all that we're hearing back home,
General? We're fighting as hard as we can. Is there any
lessening of the resolve?'' I commended General Abizaid for
that, and as a matter of fact, as recently as last night I had
the opportunity in several press appearances to express my
support for the Commander in Chief, the President's resolve. I
feel that on both sides of the aisle, it is not just on one
side, Senator, both sides of the aisle here, both Democrat and
Republican, I think our colleagues should take to heart the
comments of General Abizaid and those of yourself and possibly
my own as to the need to be very careful in how we couch our
important and very necessary views about the conflict against
terrorism. We must do it in a way that reflects great credit
upon how the forces are performing their duty and carrying out
the goals of trying to provide a measure of freedom for the
people of Iraq and elsewhere, in Afghanistan. I thank you.
Senator Roberts. I think you put that very well, Mr.
Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Warner. This committee will stand in recess. We
have two votes, and members of the committee will cast a vote
on the pending one, and then immediately cast a vote on the
second one, and then we'll resume and complete the hearing.
[Recess.]
Senator Levin [presiding]. Senator Warner has suggested
that I open up this panel, and I'm happy to do that. I welcome
our panelists. We have had a long morning. I will just really
briefly say that I know our chairman would welcome you, on
behalf of the whole committee. I would be joining him if he
were here, and I welcome each of our nominees.
Mr. Edelman is a career Foreign Service Officer who has
served in a long series of senior government positions,
including Ambassador to Turkey, Deputy Chief of Mission at the
U.S. Embassy in Prague, and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Soviet and Eastern European Affairs.
Mr. Stanley has served in a series of positions in Federal,
State, and local government, most recently serving as Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs,
and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
Mr. Rispoli spent a large part of his career in the private
sector before serving as Director of the Department of Energy's
Office of Engineering and Construction Management. I
appreciate, and I know the whole committee does, your
willingness, all of you, to serve your country. We look forward
to your testimony. The chairman has suggested that I, on his
behalf and on the committee's behalf, present the standard
questions to you. The answers to policy questions have been
entered into the record, and now the standard questions that we
ask of each nominee.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
Ambassador Edelman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stanley. Yes, I have, sir.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, I have, sir.
Senator Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Ambassador Edelman. No, Senator.
Mr. Stanley. No, sir. I have not.
Mr. Rispoli. No, Senator.
Senator Levin. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record in congressional hearings?
Ambassador Edelman. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Stanley. Yes, Senator, I will.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, I will, Senator.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Will you cooperate in providing
witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Ambassador Edelman. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Stanley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Ambassador Edelman. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Stanley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before any duly constituted committee of
the Senate?
Ambassador Edelman. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Stanley. Yes, Senator, I do.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, Senator.
Senator Levin. Do you agree to give your personal views
when asked even if those views differ from the views of the
administration?
Ambassador Edelman. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Stanley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Do you agree to provide documents, including
copies of electronic forms of communications in a timely manner
when requested by duly constituted committee, or to consult
with the committee regarding the basis for any good faith delay
or denial in providing such documents?
Ambassador Edelman. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Stanley. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, Senator.
Senator Levin. Ambassador Edelman, you are first to give us
your opening comments. Given the hour, I would appreciate it if
you could make your comments brief.
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR ERIC S. EDELMAN, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY
Ambassador Edelman. Thank you, Senator Levin, thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
I would just make some very brief comments and ask that the
full statement that I've submitted be included in the record.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before you
as the President's nominee to be the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy. I'd like to especially thank Senator Allen for
introducing me earlier this morning. I am grateful to the
President for the confidence that he's expressed by making this
nomination, and the support I've received from Secretary
Rumsfeld. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with
you on the various duties and responsibilities that would be
conferred on me.
Let me just say, I want to also thank the committee for its
bipartisan commitment to the welfare of our men and women in
uniform, their families, and the security of our country. The
committee obviously has a historic and constitutional role in
ensuring the defense of the Nation and the readiness of our
Armed Forces. I want to assure you that if I am confirmed I
will hold the well-being of our troops uppermost in my mind at
all times.
I think we confront today a broad array of security
challenges, perhaps broader than we've ever faced in the past,
and I believe as a result, that the Department of Defense must
be flexible and agile, anticipating change, influencing its
direction, and adapting our strategy and capabilities as
appropriate.
I've been fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve
our country in a number of diplomatic positions and settings,
and if confirmed, I'll make every effort to put that experience
to good use, to achieve the goals of strengthening our Nation's
alliances and partnerships, assuring our allies and friends
that the U.S. is, and will remain, a steadfast friend and
security partner.
I would hope that my recent experience in Turkey, as well
as my experience interagency, both in the Department of Defense
and in other assignments will be helpful in building extensive,
positive working relationships throughout the Government, which
I could draw on in working towards the goals that I've
mentioned, if confirmed.
I know that many of these issues will be of particular
interest to the members of the committee. If confirmed, I look
forward to consulting with you, to working closely with you to
try to respond to any concerns or questions or issues that you
have, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Edelman follows:]
Prepared Statement by Ambassador Eric S. Edelman
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, members of the committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would
like to especially thank Senator Allen for introducing me this morning.
It is indeed an honor and privilege to come before this distinguished
committee as you consider my nomination to be the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy. I am truly humbled by President Bush's decision to
nominate me to that office and welcome the opportunity he has offered
me, if confirmed, to return to the Department of Defense. I also deeply
appreciate Secretary Rumsfeld's support and am excited by the prospect
of serving under his leadership. If confirmed, I will look forward to
working closely with each one of you as I endeavor to discharge the
duties and responsibilities conferred on me.
I am profoundly aware that I come before you today during a time of
war. American forces are engaged in combat in remote parts of the
world. I honor their service to the Nation, their sacrifices and their
families, whose support and sacrifices are in every measure as
important to our national security as those of their loved ones.
I also wish to thank you for your bipartisan commitment to the
welfare of our men and women in uniform, their families, and the
security of our country. This committee plays an historic role to
ensure the defense of our Nation and the readiness of its Armed Forces.
I thank each of you for that service. I assure you that, if confirmed,
I will hold the well-being of our troops uppermost in my mind at all
times.
The need to achieve strategic victory in the global war on
terrorism is currently our country's greatest challenge. We confront a
broader array of security challenges than we faced in the past. In
addition to the continued threat of traditional military challenges
posed by nation states, the United States faces a range of
nontraditional challenges from nations and nonstate actors. These
challenges include the threat of attack by terrorists who operate from
the shadows, outside governments, and outside the rule of law.
Thus we cannot protect America solely from inside America. As the
President's commitment to the forward defense of freedom reflects, we
must--in cooperation with our partners--continue to take the fight to
the enemies of freedom, where they train and where they organize. We
must also continue to advance the cause of liberty by helping those who
do not yet enjoy it. As President Bush stated in his Inaugural speech
in January 2005, ``We are led by events and common sense to one
conclusion: the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on
the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our
world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.'' If confirmed, I
will do all I can to help achieve this goal. We live in an era marked
by strategic uncertainty. We may face, in time, a security environment
far different from what we now envision as we pursue our objectives in
the global war on terror. Accordingly, I believe that the Department of
Defense must be flexible and agile, anticipating change, influencing
its direction, and adapting our strategy and capabilities as
appropriate. Achieving the President's goals of transforming the
Department of Defense and our military forces to meet tomorrow's
challenges has never been more important than now.
The Department of Defense recently published its new National
Defense Strategy, aligning the Department's efforts with the
President's commitment to the forward defense of freedom. It
supplements the National Security Strategy adopted by the President in
2002 and complements the National Military Strategy. If confirmed, I
will work under the Secretary's leadership to provide him policy advice
aimed at achieving the great goals of the new National Defense
Strategy, in particular to:
Secure the United States from direct attack;
Secure strategic access and retain global freedom of
action;
Strengthen alliances and partnerships;
Establish favorable security conditions;
Assure allies and friends;
Dissuade potential adversaries;
Deter aggression and counter coercion; and
Defeat adversaries.
I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity of serving my
country in numerous diplomatic positions and settings. If confirmed, I
will make every effort to put my diplomatic experience to good use in
working to achieve our goals of strengthening our Nation's alliances
and partnerships, and assuring our allies and friends that the United
States is and will remain a steadfast friend and security partner.
I believe that identifying and pursuing approaches and mechanisms
that help both international and interagency partners build their
security capacity should be a primary focus of DOD's Policy
organization. If confirmed, I would intend to devote a great deal of
effort to achieving these objectives. I would hope that my recent
experience as U.S. Ambassador to Turkey will be particularly helpful in
this regard, especially in connection with NATO matters. Likewise,
during my 25 years of service in the Department of State, I have had
the opportunity to build extensive, positive working relationships
throughout the department on which I would draw in working toward these
goals, if confirmed.
Many of these initiatives will be of particular interest to this
committee and to Congress. I look forward, if confirmed, to consulting
and working closely with you and the committee's able staff on these
and other matters.
Chairman Warner [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
Edelman.
Mr. Rispoli.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. RISPOLI, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Rispoli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin,
members of the committee. In view of the hour, I would like to
just note that I did turn in a statement for the record.
Chairman Warner. Yes, I am aware of it and I have examined
it, it is a very good statement.
Mr. Rispoli. Thank you. I've also introduced my family,
thank you for that gracious opportunity earlier. I have a very
short statement, a couple of sentences.
I would like to thank the President and Secretary Bodman
for their support. I'm truly honored to be nominated to serve
in this position, I pledge to you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin,
members of the committee that if I'm confirmed to this
position, I will work closely with you and all of Congress in
addressing the many issues that we face in the Environmental
Management Program.
I intend to devote my full energy and my leadership and
management experience to deliver results for the American
people, and at the end of the statements, I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rispoli follows:]
Prepared Statement by James A. Rispoli
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and members of the
committee.
It is a privilege for me to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management at the U.S. Department of Energy. I would like to introduce
my wife, Carol, who is here with me today. Since our marriage some 36
years ago, she and our two children have supported me in my service to
our country, as I was for 26 years a career military officer, mostly as
a Civil Engineer Corps officer in the United States Navy. We moved our
household 12 times in those 26 years, and Carol held down the homefront
while I deployed as a Navy Seabee. Without the support of Carol and our
two children throughout those years, I am convinced I would not be here
before you today. I thank the President and Secretary Bodman for their
support, and I am honored to have been asked by them to serve in this
position. I pledge to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of this
committee, that if confirmed to this position, I will work closely with
you and all of Congress in addressing the many issues that we face in
the environmental management program.
My formal education is as a civil engineer, educated as such to the
Master's degree level. I also earned an advanced degree in business,
and from my earliest days of practice I have had a special interest in
environmental issues as related to engineering and construction. I have
managed facilities as the public works officer and environmental
officer at naval installations. Additionally, I have served as the
Navy's manager of environmental cleanup for all its ashore
installations, a position similar to the one for which I have been
nominated at the Department of Energy. I have first hand experience in
the Federal sector as an engineer in leadership positions, a manager of
environmental programs, and as a contracting officer. Complementing
that Governmental experience, I have served as a senior officer in two
engineering firms that specialize in environmental cleanup.
I understand that the environmental management challenges of the
Department of Energy are formidable, as I have been involved over the
past several years with the capital projects in the Environmental
Management portfolio. I recognize that the challenges of the nationwide
cleanup program are great and I welcome the opportunity to begin
working to address them. With that said, it is my view that with proper
leadership and management, the professionals who work in this program,
both Federal and contractor, can deliver success. We can do this with
the use of industry standard practices for project management such as
defining projects, with achievable targeted schedules, milestones, and
costs. In my view, by reinforcing the application of industry standard
practices in this program, we can manage it with better effectiveness
and reliability. For example, by using these industry standard
practices, we will be able to project future resource needs across the
planning horizon with greater credibility. We will be able to better
manage toward our targets to improve success in delivering on our
commitments. I look forward, if confirmed, to leading this organization
I hope the committee will find that my background qualifies me for this
position, and has given me the leadership and management tools for the
task at hand.
I am committed to safety, and in my view, safety and environmental
cleanup are inexorably joined. I believe that the cleanup of our sites
cannot be accomplished without superior safety performance in our daily
work. Only by operating safely can we achieve the goals and schedules
we have set. This is paramount, because the whole purpose of the
cleanup of these sites is for the safety and security of our citizens,
communities, and Nation. At the same time, I know that I need to learn
and understand the strengths and weaknesses of this environmental
cleanup program. I know that we have had successes and we have had
setbacks, and that the setbacks have resulted in public disappointment
and disappointment in Congress. If confirmed to the position of
Assistant Secretary, I will take this mantle of responsibility; I will
do so with a clear motivation to improve our performance to succeed, to
deliver, and to be honest with you and all the stakeholders in the
development of expectations and the execution of plans for this
program.
I know a number of people throughout the Environmental Management
organization I have great respect for them and the challenges they
face, and overcome, every day. I look forward, if confirmed, to meeting
the many more Federal and contractor employees who are engaged in these
efforts, to understand fully how they have set their targets, and how
they are managing their programs so that they will meet these targets.
I commit to you, the members of this committee, and the other
congressional committees, that if I am confirmed, I will communicate
openly with you, the States, and other stakeholders. My entire career
has been built on honesty and integrity, and I fully expect to bring an
open and forthright approach to all my dealings with the constituents
and stakeholders of this program. I intend to devote my full energies
and my leadership and management experience to deliver results for the
American people.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will be pleased to
answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Stanley, before you give your opening
remarks, I'd like to say that I and other members of the
committee have the highest regard for Powell Moore who served
in the position to which the President has nominated you, for
many years. He served through some of the most difficult years
in which major issues were facing the Department and Congress.
Through his skill and understanding of both branches of
government, executive and legislative, having served as he did
in both with great distinction, I think that we reached the
right decisions on all of those questions. I know you served as
his deputy for some period of time, and I just wanted to make
that observation as you begin your opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. STANLEY, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Powell Moore's been a mentor to me, and I've learned an
awful lot. I hope to bring some of that, within my abilities,
to this position if I'm confirmed.
Chairman Warner. I hope you have no reluctance whatsoever
to call him and to seek his advice.
Mr. Stanley. None whatsoever.
I want to thank the President, the Secretary, and this
committee for consideration of my nomination. I want to thank
Senator Dole for taking his time to be here today. It is
because of him that I have spent 16 years in public service,
and counting. He was such an inspiration to me as a younger man
that all I wanted to do was come to Washington and be like Bob
Dole.
I thank Senator Roberts, who is a friend, and by example,
also an inspiration.
Simply, I am a product of this body. I understand the
responsibilities of this committee, and of the world's greatest
deliberative body. I will keep my word, and I will always tell
you the truth. The balance of my statement I'd like to provide
for the record. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanley follows:]
Prepared Statement by Daniel R. Stanley
Mr. Chairman: I want to express deep appreciation to you and to
Senator Levin for your consideration of my nomination today. I
especially want to thank the President for his trust and confidence in
nominating me for this position, and the Secretary of Defense for
recommending me. It is a time of war with the lives of so many on the
line, this is a period of enormous importance to all of us who love
America and defend her. It is at the same time a tremendous honor and
if confirmed I will work diligently to be worthy of this committee's
endorsement.
I am especially honored by the kind words of Senator Dole who came
here to introduce me today. It is because of him that I have had the
privilege of nearly 16 years of public service. By his personal example
Bob Dole taught me and reminded the Senate and the whole of America
that public service is a noble and honorable pursuit which begins with
issues of character as simple as keeping your word. Not sometimes, not
usually, but every time. Thank you Senator Dole. I am here today
because of you.
I would also like to thank Senator Pat Roberts, another fellow
Kansan and a friend for his kind words and for his support and example
throughout the years. I am very proud to be associated with these men,
these Kansans, these patriots. I am grateful to them, to the members of
this committee and to the entire United States Senate, Republicans and
Democrats alike, for your commitment to great purpose in service to our
country. Thank you for putting America first.
I've witnessed confirmation hearings over many years and note that
it is tradition also to thank the families of those called to service.
This recognition is appropriate since these families sacrifice so much
in supporting our answer to that call. So I take this opportunity to
thank my wife, Kay, my daughter, Beth, and my grandchildren, Nick and
Jack, who don't get to see their grandfather as much as all of us would
like. I also salute my son, 2LT Daniel R. Stanley, Jr., United States
Army, for the important work upon which he is about to embark. Of
course I want to thank my dear mother, Irene, even though at 86, she
still beats me at golf. Those who love and support us make us who we
are.
Finally, I would like to reflect briefly on my life in military and
public service which began just about 32 years ago when I enlisted in
the United States Navy. I've seen the world through the eyes of a young
enlisted man and personally borne many of the burdens our enlisted
personnel bear today. The Navy gave me opportunity, not just to serve
but to grow. I worked my way up through the ranks from Seaman Recruit
to eventually become commissioned as an officer. I served as a nuclear
technician on U.S.S. Batfish, as a division officer, weapons and sonar
officer on U.S.S. Woodrow Wilson, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff as one
of the managers of the Nation's strategic communications network, and
numerous assignments in the Navy Reserve. In my brief private sector
career I was the director of strategic planning for the McDonnell
Douglas Corporation where I developed a 10 year forecast of defense
spending and future trends in critical technologies. Not many ever
correctly predict what Congress might do in any given year, let alone
over a decade, but in retrospect my forecast was remarkably accurate.
Then the call to public service came from the man who introduced me
today. I would not have given up a comfortable corporate career and
come to Washington for anyone other than Senator Bob Dole. He inspired
me as he has so many of our fellow Americans, to believe decency and
fair play are possible in government--for the decent and the fair.
Seven years on his staff, from 1987-1996, was one of the most
remarkable, instructive, and demanding periods of my life. Indeed it
was an important time in the history of our Nation and of this most
important deliberative body of the world. To watch him first hand, to
be any small part of his efforts, and to serve the United States Senate
by serving him, has made me a witness to greatness. For his part, Bob
Dole only asked that we work as hard as he did. Enough said.
I have had other opportunities worth noting. Governor Bill Graves
invited me back home to Kansas to serve in his cabinet. It is
instructive to note how different the view of Washington and the world
is from what some call ``fly over country.'' Washington is important,
it funds things, it even provides some entertainment value to the
average folks, but the government at the state and local level is
another matter entirely. While jointly serving as the Secretary of
Administration, our State's chief administrative officer, being elected
to the City Council of our capital city of Topeka, I gained an up-close
appreciation of what ``accountability'' is all about. The people,
whether they like government or not, simply want things to work. So, it
is in that spirit of getting things done that I come to you. Please
know that if confirmed I will do everything in my power, give every
effort that I have, to make the liaison between the Department of
Defense and Congress work. To do that, I will tell you the truth and
keep my word. Not sometimes, not usually, but every time.
In closing, let me reflect on a day in September nearly 4 years
ago. I had been invited to return to Washington to serve as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. One
week after my arrival and having barely settled into a new challenge of
service, the high-jacked plane struck the Pentagon just down the hall
from my new office. This heinous act of terrorism killed co-workers,
friends, and good people I had not yet had the opportunity to meet. It
struck America's soul--killing thousands here and in Pennsylvania and
New York. So, this war is personal for me just as it is for tens of
thousands of families whose loved ones are deployed in this global war
on terrorism. They trust us, and believe that how those in authority
comport themselves in this great undertaking do much to decide the
future and nature of the world we will leave our children and
generations to follow. I know what is in their hearts and minds because
I've been one of them.
They are sure of themselves. Part of this job is to make sure they
always have reason to be sure of us.
Chairman Warner. I thank you very much, that is a clear and
forthright declaration of your abilities to take on this
responsibility, and how you will fulfill those
responsibilities, and I thank you.
We'll have a brief round of questions at this time, and I'm
going to yield to my colleague as he has other commitments.
There's a slight disruption because of the votes and one thing
or another, but take all the time you want.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, as always, I appreciate your
courtesy. You are unequalled in your willingness to accommodate
your colleagues, and we're all grateful to you.
I just noticed, I think it was in Bob Dole's introduction,
Mr. Stanley, you were a local official, were you, at one time?
Mr. Stanley. Yes, Senator Levin, I was elected to the
Topeka City Council.
Senator Levin. As far as I am concerned, that is one of
your highest qualifications. I came from the City Council in
Detroit. That experience is very valuable.
Just a couple of questions for Ambassador Edelman, and then
I'm going to have to leave. On North Korea, is there any reason
why we should not be talking to the North Koreans? As much as
we dislike their policies and dislike their behavior, and I
don't mean just in the context of the multi-party talks,
although we ought to talk to them in that context too, but is
there any reason why we shouldn't just talk to them
bilaterally, if our allies, the South Koreans, and particularly
the Japanese, want us to talk to the North Koreans?
Ambassador Edelman. Senator, thank you for the question. I
think that, in my own experience as a diplomat, I've had a bias
towards working with allies and seeking multilateral solutions.
It seems to me that the issues that are presented by the
potential North Korean nuclear weapons, and the weapons
program, are issues of a regional nature, and therefore should
be resolved in a regional context. I do think that the Six
Party Talks format does provide an opportunity for bilateral
discussions. In fact, in earlier sessions of the Six Party
Talks, I think there were some bilateral discussions. There's
no reason, if the North Koreans don't come back to the table,
rather if they do come back to the table, why those kinds of
bilateral discussions can't go on within the framework of the
Six Party Talks. I would think we would want to have the other
concerned parties, who have, I think, the same interest as we
do, in not seeing a nuclear weapons capability developed in
North Korea, involved in this process.
Senator Levin. I agree with that. We want them involved.
They are involved, but if they want us to talk bilaterally with
the North Koreans, that's their conclusion and advice, why
should we not listen to our allies on that? It's not
inconsistent with talking multilaterally.
Ambassador Edelman. Well, I think there's a danger of
allowing the North Koreans to try and divide the various folks
who have an interest, and I would prefer to have the concerted
efforts of all brought to bear on them, rather than allowing
them to divide the various parties.
Senator Levin. You made reference to the danger of North
Korean nuclear weapons, and I couldn't agree with you more. We
have had a new Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment
being prepared. Admiral Jacoby has written to Senator Clinton
and myself with an assessment, but we don't have an interagency
assessment or estimate of the number of nuclear weapons that
the North Koreans have. I'm wondering whether or not, if
confirmed, you would request a new national intelligence
estimate regarding North Koreas nuclear weapon program?
Ambassador Edelman. I haven't actually thought about that,
Senator, but I haven't had a chance to get fully briefed up
since returning from Turkey on the current Intelligence
Community (IC) assessment of where the Koreans actually stand
in their nuclear efforts, so I wouldn't want to say now whether
an estimate is needed, but certainly we ought to get the best
judgment the IC has on exactly where they stand.
Senator Levin. Mr. Edelman, as you and our Chairman know, I
intend to ask questions of you for the record based on
documents which we have been unable to obtain, which have been
withheld from me, relative to the operations of the policy
office that you have been nominated to. Those documents are
highly relevant and germane to the operations of that office,
I've given a list of the requested documents that have not yet
been provided to our chairman. I would ask that a copy of that
list be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator Levin. There are a number of reasons why we are
entitled to those documents, including our general oversight
responsibilities, but one of them has to do with the
confirmation process. I have been waiting now since November
2003 for many of these documents. They have been identified.
The list has been given to the Department of Defense as to what
those documents are--many of those documents have already been
identified, and they are in. They are marked so they know
exactly what they are. They have them in their possession--
other documents would have required some searching relative to
a specific issue which we have asked that those documents be
provided relating to. We shouldn't have to wait this long, but
we have. All I can say is I am going to do everything I can to
get a hold of those documents, so that I can ask you questions
that those documents raise about the operations of the office
to which you have been nominated. I can't ask those questions
now. I don't have those documents. I have some documents, but
not all the documents which are relevant. We are going to make
a determined effort to obtain those documents so we can ask you
the questions. I have no idea what your answers will be. I
don't want to pre-judge or in any way assume your answers will
be other than adequate or assuring or whatever. I don't want
to, in any way, suggest that there is anything in those
documents that you are unwilling to comment on, and indeed,
satisfactorily comment on. There is nothing in those documents
that relate to your activities. It relates to the activities of
an office to which you have been nominated, and I have an
essential obligation, if not a right, to know what your
thoughts are about the way in which that office has been
operating relative to a number of issues. Mr. Chairman, you've
been very much aware of this, and trying to be helpful, and I
appreciate that. I do use everything, every tool I can possibly
use to get documents so I can ask relevant questions. I just
want to put everybody on notice, including you, and I think
everybody is already on notice, but in case there is anybody
within the sound of my voice who isn't, I just wanted to make
that clear, and thank the Chair, and ask that be made part of
the record.
Chairman Warner. Without objection, and before we part,
Senator Levin, again, you've been very up front with the
Chairman and others on this issue. I think the record should
reflect that I was present at the meeting, at your request,
with the acting Deputy Secretary Gordon England, as, I believe,
he gave you some assurance that he's going to personally look
into this. So I hope that this matter can be resolved.
Senator Levin. I hope so, too. It's not my intention to
hold up the nominations, it's my intention to get documents,
that's my sole intention. We thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
efforts.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. All right, gentlemen, I'd like
to resume some expanded questioning here.
First, Ambassador Edelman, I'd like to have the record
reflect, really the extraordinary portfolio of responsibilities
that your office is carrying, and subject to confirmation, that
would be your responsibility. In other words, people think of
you as responsible for foreign policy but you have a strong
voice in missile defense, Special Operation Forces, etc. I
think some recitation of that for this record would be helpful.
Ambassador Edelman. Senator, thank you. I agree that the
responsibilities that are set out not only in chapter 10, but
also in the DOD directive for the office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy are really quite daunting in the breadth
of the responsibilities. It includes by statute, responsibility
for assisting the Secretary and drafting guidance for
contingency planning for the combatant commanders. It involves
export controls and also assuring the ability to combat
terrorism by directive; it also encompasses providing the
Secretary advice and guidance on all matters of policy before
the Department, including budget, forces, and strategy. It
includes, obviously, the classic interconnection between
foreign policy and defense policy with regard to regional
defense relationships. It encompasses the arms control issues
and nuclear force posture; it includes now, by statute,
homeland defense, and as you mentioned through the Goldwater-
Nichols legislation the Special Operations and Low Intensity
Conflict responsibilities. So the range of responsibility is
enormous, and quite honestly, if confirmed, I think it will be
a humbling, challenging set of responsibilities to meet every
day.
Chairman Warner. As I've come to know you through these
years, you're up to it. I will express a high degree of
confidence in the Senate confirmation process, and I think we
as citizens are fortunate that you and your family are willing
to take on this extraordinary responsibility in these
extraordinary times. We're fortunate that your career is now
bringing you into a somewhat quasi-political environment. I'm
confident you've been there before, that you'll guide the
Department through, and make those decisions and
recommendations to the Secretary which you feel are in the best
interest of the Nation, despite politics, to the extent it
might somehow be involved. I have the privilege of having known
the Secretary since we were--comparatively speaking--young men,
both working for President Nixon. That goes back a long way. I
thoroughly enjoy working with him. There are challenges. We've
had our differences, but by and large, we sit down and we work
our way through them. He needs a very strong and experienced
individual such as yourself. I have no doubt that you have the
backbone and the tenacity to look him in the eye and say,
``Good Secretary, I think this course of action is not the
best,'' and suggest an alternative to him. He's receptive to
that. He's receptive because I would never want him to list all
of his responsibilities.
Having served in that Department, having served under three
Secretaries of Defense, and having worked with each since that
period of time, it's an extraordinary, awesome, all-
encompassing job. He needs strength in his subordinates, and
you will provide that.
I was going to cover your career, but I think Senator Levin
covered that thoroughly. I would like to have your reaction to
the status of Iran. That took a turn of events here, their
ostensibly free election, although we won't get into that,
that's past. That's going to be a challenge to deal with this
new individual. I'd like to have your views in particular as it
relates to the serious question of his early pronouncements to
go full bore on whatever nuclear options he seems to have. I
think he's still using rhetoric for power. It's difficult to
understand, given the enormity of their natural resources for
energy, but nevertheless, I'd like to have the record reflect
your views.
Ambassador Edelman. Thank you very much, Senator, both for
the question and your expression of confidence, which I really
appreciate very much. As an aside I have, throughout my foreign
service career, in a variety of different positions in a
variety of different parts of the government, always told my
bosses what I thought, for better or for worse, and I intend to
continue doing that if confirmed.
On the question of Iran, I'm not sure that the election 8
years ago of a reformist president and his re-election made
much difference in the Iranian drive to develop a nuclear
weapon. I'm not sure this election was, as you say, a totally
free and fair election, because if unelected groups can make
determinations about who's eligible to run, who can run, it's
not a free and fair election as we would consider it to be.
I think the election itself was driven not by this issue,
by some internal domestic Iranian issues. I don't think it
changes the fundamental facts that we face, which is an Iranian
program which, as you pointed out, is couched in terms of
nuclear power, but doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a
country sitting on as much oil and gas as Iran sits on.
I think the best approach we can take is to try to find a
diplomatic solution to this, as the President has said, to
support the European Union 3 (EU-3). I think the President had
some discussions with Chancellor Schroeder earlier this week
which addressed this question about urging the European Union--
French, Germans, and Brits--to continue to pursue in a very
clear way the objective of getting a complete freeze of Iran's
uranium enrichment program, and to their weapons program. I
think we ought to do everything we can to try and support them
to get that outcome. We also need to bear in mind, at some
point--I don't think we're there yet--what other steps we take
if they can't succeed. As I said, I don't think we're at that
point yet, but at some point, the question obviously presents
itself of whether to go to the United Nations Security Council
and seek sanctions.
Chairman Warner. This election may provide an impetus for
exploration of other options. I'll leave that to the President.
I think thus far, the President's approach has been quite
satisfactory from my perspective on this, but I'd just make an
observation. You don't have to reply to it, but throughout the
years, Israel has shown remarkable determination and courage,
to survive in that region and be an island of democracy, which
the whole world respects. This issue of the nuclear course of
action that Iran takes could complicate their own formulation
of how best to protect themselves, and I think, protect the
region. We'll watch that issue very closely as we go along.
I'd like to turn to Turkey. I used to attend and conduct
our daily briefings throughout the military operations in this
second conflict that we've had in the Gulf. I remember the
utter astonishment that we experienced here in the Senate when
a valued ally, that Turkey has been through these years, put
certain impediments to our carefully laid out and thought
through plans for the conflict, particularly with reference to
the 4th Infantry Division. It has left in this Senator, and I
think in other Senators, a concern about the role of Turkey as
a strong partner in trying to bring about the collective goals
of the coalition of nations for Iraq. I think it's important
that we receive your views. I commend Secretary Rumsfeld. I had
mentioned it several times publicly myself--without any
specific consultation with him, or discussions with him--he
brought up that the turn of events that we've experienced after
the fall of Baghdad and the insurgency might have been quite
different if that 4th Infantry Division had been able to
disembark as planned in the Mediterranean and come down through
that region in company with the other military actions of the
coalition forces. Maybe we would not have experienced the level
of terrorism that we have in certain regions in the path of
that planned operation of the 4th Infantry Division which then,
of course, had to go all the way around through the Suez Canal
and down and come in through the ports of the Gulf region. A
regrettable chapter. I'd like to have your views.
Ambassador Edelman. I certainly agree, Senator. It was
regrettable that we didn't get the vote on March 1. I think it
was a huge disappointment, obviously, to all of us in the U.S.
Government. I was actually not yet Ambassador to Turkey at the
time of the March 1 vote, but for all of us who had been
working on the issues and on the U.S.-Turkish relationship, it
was an enormous disappointment.
I think in fairness it's worth pointing out that we have
had very good cooperation with Turkey on a variety of other
issues since the March 1 vote, and I think the Turks do share
with us the same objectives of a stable, politically unified
Iraq, with its territorial integrity intact. I think over time
they have reoriented their policies a little bit more in the
direction that is constant with our own, which is to say not
reflecting purely their concerns about the Kurdish population
in the North, but looking at the country in a broader frame of
reference, and the need to work with a lot of other elements.
The things that they have done, first of all, helped maintain
the ground line of communication to our forces through the
Habur Gate, for which a tremendous amount of the sustainment
material for our forces flows. They've provided overflight
rights, of course, and have allowed us to use Incirlik Air Base
both for refueling missions----
Chairman Warner. Yes, they've made very valuable
contributions to the pre-invasion of our forces, coalition
forces, into Iraq, and, for which we have consistently
expressed here in Congress and elsewhere, our gratitude to
Turkey for allowing the use of Incirlik, and overflight rights.
I recognize that there is a problem. The Turkish Prime Minister
visited the United States. I was privileged to join the
leadership in meeting with him, and he expressed his concern,
and I think our President likewise expressed our concern as a
nation with such threats as they have had from these
infiltrators. You bring to bear a great deal of knowledge on
that situation, and I'm sure you'll watch it carefully. I'll
put another more expanded question into the record on that
problem.
I think it's remarkable that at NATO, we have one of the
finest men we've ever had in General Jones as the commander
there. He keeps the Senate, and I'm sure the House also, but he
keeps us informed in a time-sensitive manner of all the
decisions. He makes every effort to visit with the members of
this committee and other Senators when he's back here in the
area to bring us up-to-date, and in his most recent visit, we
discussed at length, the International Security Assistance
Force, currently led by NATO. He acknowledged with a sense of
pride and respect, that, with a French General in charge,
they've done a good job of enforcing the peace and security in
the Kabul area. As expanded, with a limited number of
provincial reconstruction teams in some of the Northern areas,
at Sector One and Sector Two--we talked about it with General
Pace--are you comfortable with the pace at which NATO is moving
towards expanding? In the future, perhaps further into Sector
Three, and then the extent to which the U.S. and other forces
work on Sector Four, they will have overall responsibility, and
the NATO Commander then, becomes the principal military
commander if all four quadrants come in in that region. Would
that be correct?
Ambassador Edelman. I have actually not had a chance to
look in detail at these developments.
Chairman Warner. Let's withdraw that as a question. It's
more of an observation.
Ambassador Edelman. I was going to say, I am aware that
General Jones and the NATO Secretary General are concerned that
we are not getting enough support from the other allies in
deploying the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), and I
think we do need to work on that.
Chairman Warner. If the new Secretary General, who is
indeed an impressive individual, and I--like other members of
the committee--have known a succession of them. Lord Robertson
was extraordinary, as his predecessor, but he's a man of strong
commitments and will. He's working on trying to get a level of
participation by a range of NATO countries, given they have
these regrettable governmental options that restrict the manner
in which those forces can be used in some way. I do hope this
overall program of eventual participation in all of the sectors
will come to pass, and I trust that you will have a heavy
involvement in that.
Ambassador Edelman. Certainly, because I think extending
the ability of the government in Kabul to have its reach go
beyond the city and into the various provinces are important.
The PRTs are a crucial element in that, and the more we can get
them out there, the better off we'll all be.
Chairman Warner. The drug trade problem is a concern here
in the Senate. At the moment, steps are being taken to try and
realistically deal with that situation. The quantity of drugs
emanating from Afghanistan has increased exponentially over the
past 18 months, and this can't be permitted. It's really
undermining so much of the good work, and some of it in the
Balkan area, which you're familiar with, that is how the drugs
proceed to traverse the geography and work their way primarily
into Europe.
Mr. Stanley, you've gotten a marvelous sendoff here by my
colleague Pat Roberts, and my dearly beloved former colleague,
Senator Dole. Again, we're fortunate that you and your family
have stepped up to take on this challenge. You've undoubtedly
listened to what I observed with regard to the Secretary of
Defense in discussing with Ambassador Edelman his credentials,
and I see in you the same set of credentials to be a firm and
staunch working partner to the Secretary. He's highly dependent
on you to interface and work with Congress and, as your
predecessor would tell you, it's a challenge, but it's one that
we have to meet and make work successfully. You too have the
courage, do you not--I'd like to have it on the record--to look
him in the eye and say you feel that some thoughts he might
have the direction the Department is moving in is not in the
best interest of the Department and perhaps the country,
wouldn't you? You can assure me of that?
Mr. Stanley. Without question, Senator.
Chairman Warner. All right, I can accept that.
A former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs testified a few years ago that he had 40 individuals on
his staff, and that by his estimate there were 300 to 400
persons throughout DOD performing legislative functions. You've
indicated that your staff is down to 32, but that the total
number of personnel throughout DOD engaged in efforts ranges
from 400 to 600. How are you going to deal with that problem?
Mr. Stanley. Mr. Chairman, clearly we have a Legislative
Affairs insurgency ongoing in the Department of Defense, and
you can appreciate that those battles are protracted. However,
it is my intent that if confirmed, I will take up a proposal,
which has been requested by the Secretary and the Deputy
Secretary, on how to reorganize Legislative Affairs in a manner
that is more cohesive. It meets the title 10 specifications; it
says the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs
is the point of contact, the central point and coordinating
function for the Department of Defense. We will organize in
this, in a rational manner--not to stifle--but to provide this
committee and Congress with the kind of service that you
deserve and should expect.
Chairman Warner. Through the years that I've had the
opportunity to work with the various post-Active-Duty
individuals who are given the legislative responsibility by the
military departments. I think we've experienced very able
individuals, successively appointed by the military
secretaries, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense.
You've noted that the post-fellowship utilization of
military officers who have been assigned as legislative fellows
has been something that needs to be examined. It's important
that they look upon this assignment as not--in any way--a
deterrent for further recognition and more challenging posts in
the military services when they return from these assignments.
By legislation and DOD regulations, however, it is required
that officers be assigned to billets that will make good use of
their experiences on Capitol Hill. I just hope that you will
take under your personal cognizance that program. There have
been some great individuals--I'll cite one who I've had some
familiarity with, and that's John McCain's father, who was in
the Legislative Affairs post and survived it during the very
difficult early days of Vietnam. He went on to be Commander in
Chief of all U.S. Forces in the Pacific (CINCPAC), and with
great skill and empathy he managed those responsibilities
during a very critical time of the Vietnam War.
I remember on my trips to Vietnam always stopping at his
home and discussing with him the plans that he was implementing
during that conflict, and as I exited, I would stop and share
with him my observation when I was returning back to the
Pentagon. But that's just one example.
I'll mention another individual--when I was Secretary of
the Navy I had the services of a Brigadier General in the
Marine Corps named Don Hittle. He was a veteran of the Iwo Jima
campaign, and had a lifelong career in the Marines. I was
taught a great deal by him of the important role of the
uniformed officers who are assigned duty working with the
Congress of the United States and the dangers of doing so. I'd
like to have your reassurance on that.
Mr. Stanley. You certainly have my assurances, Mr.
Chairman, and I'd just briefly reflect that I believe General
Jones is also a product of that program.
Chairman Warner. Oh, I remember him well. He came here as a
major, and actually got promoted, and there he is today. I'm
glad you brought that up as an example.
Mr. Stanley. The Legislative Fellowship Program offers our
officers a tremendously broadening experience, and I also
believe as fewer and fewer Members of Congress come to these
positions without military experience themselves, that it is a
two-way street, and that we should use the experience of our
men and women in uniform to present first-hand what life in the
military is all about in order to build a mutual understanding.
That Fellowship Program, I believe, is extremely important to
both the executive and the legislative branch, to bridge the
gaps in understanding.
Chairman Warner. When I came to the Senate 27 years ago, I
think close to 80 percent of the Senate had at one time or
another, served in uniform. Today, that figure, combined for
House and Senate, is somewhere around 30 percent or below. In
no way should that represent or impair on members in quickly
learning about the military, nor on their desire to be an
integral part of the work of the committees of Congress,
principally our committee and the appropriators in taking care
of the men and women of the Armed Forces. I draw on some modest
experience I had in the military--yes, it has been helpful, and
it's given me an insight--and I've often said that the military
did more for me than I ever did for them when I was in uniform.
We're all trying to do payback now for the magnificent support
those of us that served have gained by that military service,
but others on this committee are very strong in their learning
about the military. They very quickly, I think, gained the
ability to make decisions equally in every respect to myself
and others. Do watch that very carefully. I think the fellows
and the liaison officers play a vital role. We're fortunate
that when we take our trips to visit the military overseas that
they accompany us and work with us. Those trips couldn't really
achieve their measure of importance without their active
participation. Thank you, sir.
Now, Mr. Rispoli, I was so impressed when you came through
the office that I really don't need to put a lot of questions
to you. You are eminently qualified to take on this
responsibility and are very anxious to do so.
I'd ask this. This year the Department of Energy (DOE) will
spend approximately $7 billion on environmental cleanup of
former DOE sites. That is a significant amount of money. It's
needed to return those sites to areas that are compatible with
the highest of standards that were required to enable our
population to live in the proximity of those areas, and perhaps
in most instances to use these sites for other purposes
unrelated to the military.
The cleanup effort is a tremendously complex undertaking,
and many of the toughest challenges remain. In your career, you
have directed environmental cleanup programs for the Navy and
developed unique expertise in the management of large civil
works projects, you have had a distinguished career yourself as
a naval officer. You're very modest about that, some 20 plus
years.
In your view, what approaches and techniques are most
likely to assure the success in an environmental cleanup
program?
Mr. Rispoli. Chairman Warner, thank you for that question,
it's a very challenging program. Its size is very large; the
technical complexity is probably unrivaled in this Nation. I'm
told by experts that we have some of the most technically
complex projects to clean up in the entire world. Safety is
always important; it's a very vital issue, both for the workers
and for the communities that will eventually, as you mentioned,
retain use of many of these sites. I think that the area of
focus that I would look at in addition to dealing with those,
is the management approach. My management style has been proven
through the years. I believe that you have to have corporate
processes, if you will, in other words, yes, projects are
different, challenges are different, but you have to have some
corporate standard that you use as you go through this process.
We're fortunate today in that we have wonderful electronic
tools to help us keep track of things like cost, plans,
schedules, things of this nature--and then you need the people
who have the expertise, the desire, the zeal, and the knowledge
to be able to execute those plans and targets. I don't know
many of the people yet in the organization, although I've been
in the Department of Energy for 5 years. I've focused on
certain areas of the work, but I'm very confident that with the
high caliber of people, with the application of processes,
corporate processes, and taking advantage of technology, always
mindful of safety and commitments to the public, to the
regulators, to this body and Congress, that we can succeed.
Chairman Warner. I would hope that early on you might take
the initiative to reach out to the various environmental
organizations which have a special interest and a special
expertise in your complicated areas, and not wait until a
problem is brought to you by them or others. See if you can't
begin to establish a rapport and a relationship that will
enable you to work effectively with them. Certainly, I've had
my differences in the past, but I've gained, overall, a respect
for the individuals who take it upon themselves to serve in an
executive capacity or other capacity in these organizations for
the betterment of Earth and protection of our health that is so
important to our society. I hope you'll do a reach-out program
early on, if only to invite them in and have a cup of coffee,
and discuss it a little bit.
Mr. Rispoli. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that observation.
In my career, especially in environmental work, I've become
very accustomed to working with senior Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) officials, State regulators as well as non-
governmental organizations that are the stakeholders for their
communities. I must tell you that I believe if you're honest,
open, and you can convince the people in the stakeholder
community that you really are making a difference and making
things happen, that you can keep that good rapport, so yes sir,
I would intend to proactively learn about those people, learn
where they are and meet with them. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. We've had an
excellent hearing, gentleman, and I thank your families, again,
for their participation. I look forward to the early
confirmation of all three of you. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. You previously have answered the committee's policy
questions on the reforms brought about by the Goldwater-Nichols Act
(GNA) in connection with your nominations to be Commander, U.S.
Southern Command, and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS).
Has your view of the importance, implementation, and practice of
these reforms changed since you testified before the committee at your
most recent confirmation hearing on July 24, 2003?
Answer. My fundamental view of Goldwater-Nichols legislation
remains unchanged. Goldwater-Nichols has institutionalized joint
warfighting in today's generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines--our force is joint--thinks joint--and fights joint. Your Armed
Forces continue to prepare for complex future operations that require
knowledgeable, innovative and decisive leaders, capable of succeeding
in a fluid and often-chaotic environment. Educating and empowering the
joint force remains a priority.
Question. You previously have indicated in response to questions
about the need for changes to Goldwater-Nichols, that the Joint Staff
has sought to identify methods that would allow the Chairman of the JCS
and the Vice Chairman of the JCS to carry out their duties under title
10, United States Code, more effectively and efficiently. The committee
has received testimony from Secretary England, General Jones, and
Admiral Clark that changes relating to the acquisition process under
Goldwater-Nichols may be necessary.
What are your current views about the need for additional
modifications of Goldwater-Nichols in light of recently identified
problems in the Air Force acquisition process, ongoing transformation,
and JCS efforts to identify necessary modifications?
Answer. Goldwater-Nichols continues to effectively shape and
integrate unified action within the Armed Forces to meet the strategic
objectives outlined by the President in his National Security Strategy.
Goldwater-Nichols still provides relevant guidance to all our
Departmental processes, and provides us the flexibility to continue to
look at innovative ways to improve our business practices. While a
review and possible changes to our acquisition processes are warranted,
I believe what is most worth exploring is application of a ``Goldwater-
Nichols like'' framework across the United States Government (USG), to
maximize integration and effective use of interagency resources.
DUTIES
Question. Based on your experience as a combatant commander and as
Vice Chairman of the JCS, what recommendations, if any, do you have for
changes in the duties and functions of sections 152 through 155 of
title 10, United States Code, relating to the Chairman and Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the organization and
operation of the Joint Staff?
Answer. I have one recommendation. If the Homeland Security Council
is going to remain separate from the National Security Council, I
recommend the CJCS be designated as a statutory advisor to the Homeland
Security Council. The Armed Forces play a vital role in homeland
defense, and the Chairman should be included formally as principle
military advisor to the Homeland Security Council.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. Section 151(b) of title 10, United States Code, provides
that the Chairman of the JCS is the principal military adviser to the
President, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense.
Other sections of law and traditional practice establish important
relationships between the Chairman and other officials.
Please identify any changes in the relationships the Chairman and
JCS have experienced with the following officials since your last
confirmation hearing:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. I have not noticed any changes in the relationship of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense
since my last confirmation hearing.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. I have not noticed any changes in the relationship of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Deputy Secretary of
Defense since my last confirmation hearing.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. I have not noticed any changes in the relationship of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Under Secretaries of
Defense since my last confirmation hearing.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. I have not noticed any changes in the relationship of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Assistant Secretaries of
Defense since my last confirmation hearing.
Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. I have not noticed any changes in the relationship of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and my current position since my
last confirmation hearing.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. I have not noticed any changes in the relationship of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretaries of the
Military Departments since my last confirmation hearing.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. I have not noticed any changes in the relationship of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of Staff of the
Services since my last confirmation hearing.
Question. The Combatant Commanders.
Answer. I have not noticed any changes in the relationship of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders
since my last confirmation hearing.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that you
would confront if confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. There are several challenges that confront the Armed Forces
as we fight today's war and prepare for tomorrow's. We will continue
our efforts to win the war on terror and to provide a stable, secure
environment in Iraq and Afghanistan inside of which their sovereign
governments can develop and mature. We will continue to transform the
Armed Forces, taking advantage of the lessons learned over the past 3
years, as we develop a military capable of rapid adaptation to meet our
future challenges. We are in the process of completing a comprehensive
review of our Armed Forces in the Quadrennial Defense Review with the
aim of developing the future Joint Force that has the right people with
the right capabilities to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
The foundation of our success in the Armed Forces is our people--
and our focus will remain on recruiting, training and developing our
best and brightest to continue to deliver to the American people the
finest fighting force in the world. We must ensure we take care of
these incredible soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families
by ensuring we have effective programs to support their professional,
physical, and financial well-being.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. Currently the Department is conducting the Quadrennial
Defense Review directed in Title 10. The Secretary has organized this
effort to include both civilian and military leadership analyzing six
focus areas. Through this review, I will work with the Secretary and
make recommendations regarding the appropriate capabilities, policies
and resources needed to continue to transform the Armed Forces to meet
current and future security challenges.
PRIORITIES
Question. In his responses to the committee's advance policy
questions in July 2003, General Myers indicated that his priorities
included continued focus on winning the war on terrorism, improving
joint warfighting, and transforming our Nation's military to face the
dangers of the 21st century while taking care of the men and women
serving in the Armed Forces.
How would you describe progress to date in attaining these goals?
Answer. We continue to make steady gains in these three areas. Our
war on terrorism efforts, both at home and abroad, have been
successful. While we still face significant challenges, our forces have
performed superbly in defending the homeland and conducting offensive
counterterrorism operations to defeat threats closest to their source.
We have made major strides in transforming the force, from readiness
forecasting, mobilization procedures, and force management, to adapting
whole new ways of organizing, equipping, and training our forces like
the Army's modular combat brigade concept. Likewise, the commitment to
our people has enhanced their benefits and maintained high morale in an
otherwise very busy force. These successful efforts, and many others,
continue to transform our forces and enhance our joint warfighting
capabilities.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your priorities as Chairman?
Answer. Having had the opportunity to serve as Vice Chairman under
Dick Myers, I believe his focus these past 4 years has been spot on--
appropriate and in the best interests of our Nation and our Armed
Forces. My priorities will continue to focus on winning the war on
terrorism, improving joint warfighting, and continuing the
transformation of our Nation's military. We will focus on five themes:
(1) execute a comprehensive strategy to undermine and defeat
extremists, (2) strengthen our capability to prevent conflict, (3)
increase speed of adaptation of the force and the interagency process,
(4) shape and size our joint force to meet the challenges of the
future, and (5) continue to pursue quality of life initiatives.
TRANSFORMATION
Question. You previously have stressed the objective in
transformation of achieving a new ``mind set'' within DOD and
developing a generation of warfighters who are accomplished in their
service culture and strengths and equally comfortable applying that
knowledge in the joint arena.
Please describe the progress that the Department, including the JCS
and the Joint Staff, has made in transforming the Armed Forces.
Answer. We've made progress in the transformation of many concepts
and programs, to include: intelligence reform and information sharing
in global war on terrorism; Network Centric Operations and the Global
Information Grid that will provide the backbone systems for global end-
to-end communications for DOD; efficient and effective integration of
various USG agencies in the Joint Interagency Coordination Groups of
our combatant commands; new tools and ideas for future warfighting as a
result of joint experimentation, to include the way we plan,
preposition, and mobilize our current force; and finally, improvements
in our processes and the interaction of our organizations--cultural
transformation. General Schoomaker offers a tremendous example of
transforming our ``mind set.'' By simply reorganizing the same Army
assets into Brigade size units, he has created greater capacity, in a
more agile, flexible force.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your goals regarding
transformation in the future?
Answer. We will examine the near-, mid-, and long-term capabilities
the Department will require to remain the world's greatest fighting
force. We will use joint concepts and experimentation to help us make
the best decisions we can to solve today's issues while also continuing
to transform so we maintain our joint warfighting capabilities into the
future. We will continue to aggressively work on our cultural
transformation--looking at our current assets in new ways to solve the
challenges that will face us in the future.
Question. Do you believe the Joint Staff should play a larger role
in transformation? If so, in what ways?
Answer. The requirement to transform our forces will remain one of
my top priorities. We are a Nation at war, and one of our greatest
challenges is to transform while protecting the U.S. from direct
attack; fighting the global war on terror; and reducing the potential
for future conflict. If confirmed, I will do my best to ensure we
continue to invest heavily in transformation, both intellectually and
materially. It is a difficult undertaking, especially in time of war;
but it must be done.
AFGHANISTAN
Question. What is your assessment of the long-term prospects for
Afghan military forces to effectively provide a secure environment for
a democratically elected government to function?
Answer. The long-term prospects for Afghan security forces are
excellent. To date there are approximately 42,000 trained Afghan
National Police and 24,000 Afghan National Army soldiers. Currently the
Afghan security forces are conducting patrols side by side with our
coalition forces and performing well. Starting this fall units will
undergo Unit Readiness exercises to measure capability to operate
independently from coalition forces. The process of handing over
security responsibilities is a deliberate one, involving incremental
steps of training, small unit operations, and ever-increasing
responsibilities being transferred to the Afghan National Army and
Afghan National Police.
Question. What, if any, types of military assistance would you
recommend in addition to current efforts?
Answer. Our commanders on the ground continually assess their
requirements and we intend to provide the forces that they need.
Military assistance will come from U.S. and coalition forces, which in
this case includes NATO.
The fiscal year 2005 Supplemental Afghan Freedom Support
Appropriations Act provides appropriate funding to support our current
military efforts in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
included in that Act provides funding to help stand up national level
security forces in Afghanistan. Our current efforts in that regard are
going extremely well. However, as we consider ways to accelerate
training efforts of the Afghan National Army and assist the Afghan
police, we may need additional funds to support that accelerated
effort.
Question. What is the current division of labor between U.S.,
coalition partners, and the Government of Afghanistan in overall
counterdrug efforts, particularly with regard to identifying drug
traffickers, destroying drug labs, interdicting drugs and drug-related
imports and exports, and destroying opium fields?
Answer. Our goal is an Afghanistan properly controlled by the
Afghan Government, not outside forces. So it is good that the
counterdrug effort is handled principally as a law enforcement effort
of the Government of Afghanistan. The United Kingdom is the lead
coalition nation in assisting the Afghan Government. The role of U.S.
forces and our coalition partners in this effort has been to provide
the Afghans the training, intelligence, and logistics support necessary
to execute their counterdrug missions.
Specifically, coalition forces have provided Close Air Support/
Medical Evacuation, intelligence, planning and airlift on an as
available basis. The Afghan government's Central Poppy Eradication
Force, based in Kabul, is responsible for the destruction of opium
fields.
Question. How would you assess the effectiveness of this division
of labor, and what, if any, changes would you recommend?
Answer. The division of labor is appropriate and the coalition's
participation should continue to be in a supporting role as
counternarcotics is a law enforcement matter. The challenges to the
counterdrug effort include insufficient numbers of trained Police and
counterdrug forces, corrupt local officials, insufficient legal and
judicial infrastructure, and Alternative Livelihood efforts that have
not yet yielded the desired results.
STATUS OF THE ARMED FORCES
Question. Ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and worldwide in
the global war on terrorism have placed great demands on active and
Reserve military personnel and their families.
In your view, how is the overall morale of forces at the present
time, particularly with regard to those units and individuals who have
been deployed for extended periods of time and are facing the prospect
of redeployment to combat zones?
Answer. The morale of our forces continues to be strong, especially
in our deployed units. I have observed this first hand. Our marines,
soldiers, sailors, and airmen, both active and Reserve components,
recognize that while they are in a demanding fight, their efforts are
having a profound, positive impact on some very troubled areas of the
world. They see both the direct effect they are having on protecting
America and the good they are doing for people abroad. These effects
upon them are clearly reflected in their willingness to reenlist at
historically high rates.
I am also extremely proud of our military families, who bear the
burden of keeping the household running, balancing the day-to-day
details with the constant concern of their loved ones serving in harm's
way. Their courage and sacrifice equal that of our warriors in uniform,
and they deserve our continued gratitude and support. Reenlistment is
very much a family decision, and again our reenlistment rates show that
our families are equally committed.
Question. If confirmed, what plans would you implement to address
the stress that high operational tempo under combat conditions places
on our forces and their families?
Answer. The operational tempo of U.S. forces during the 3 plus
years since September 11, 2001, has been significant. My task is to
assist the Secretary of Defense in making every effort to achieve the
most efficient use of our forces and to manage those forces within
acceptable levels of stress. Accordingly, we developed with the
Secretary 47 critical tasks to reduce the stress of the force that
apply lessons learned from the global war on terrorism; expand focused
joint training; coordinate technical interoperability with coalition
forces; and reorganize force capabilities into a modular structure
supported by a minimum logistical footprint. The Department will
monitor, measure, analyze and exploit each of these areas for specific
opportunities to reduce stress on the force for both the active and
Reserve components.
Dr. Chu has the lead for the Department on this very important
endeavor and each of the Services and the Joint Staff are playing a
vital role. If confirmed I look forward to working with Dr. Chu and the
Joint Chiefs to reduce relieve stress on our forces and their families.
JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT
Question. Statutory standards for joint officer management and
joint professional military education have increasingly been the
subject of proposals for change that would afford greater latitude to
the Joint Staff and the services in the management of officers. In
section 531 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005, the Secretary of Defense is required to develop a
strategic plan for joint officer management and joint professional
military education that would link future requirements for active and
Reserve military personnel who are trained and educated in joint
matters to the resources required to develop those officers in terms of
manpower, formal education, practical experience, and other
requirements.
What do you consider to be the principal problems that should be
addressed by the strategic plan and, if confirmed, what objectives
would you hope to achieve?
Answer. Since the enactment of GNA in 1986, we have made great
strides in the joint arena. However, the current world environment and
the enemies we face on today's battlefield are radically different than
those of 20 years ago. GNA was based on our assessment of the Cold War
environment and the Department's limited experience in true joint
operations. Today's military is actively and decisively engaged in
joint operations to an extent we never imagined. We have embraced joint
operations and continue to adapt to fighting jointly.
The Joint Staff is assisting Dr. David Chu, USD (P&R), in
developing a strategic plan for joint total force development that will
be directly linked to the overall missions and goals of the department.
This new strategic plan will fully define the specific capabilities and
competencies required of our officers, senior civilians, field grade
Reserve component officers, and senior noncommissioned officers.
Additionally, the plan will address the resources, education, training,
assignments and career progression requirements needed to perform and
succeed in a joint environment.
Question. What do you consider to be the primary strengths and
weaknesses of the current requirements for joint professional military
education with respect to qualification as a joint specialty officer?
Answer. The primary strength of the current system is that it
produces outstanding, qualified joint specialists who perform at the
highest organizational levels in critical joint positions. The major
drawbacks are ``chokepoints'' within officer career paths that reduce
the opportunity of gaining joint experience and create a need for
prerequisite waivers. These chokepoints have constrained opportunities
for officers and have impacted organizations and missions.
Broader and more equitable standards for defining what constitutes
a ``fully qualified'' joint officer are required. The CJCS' new vision
of Joint Officer Development envisions multiple avenues for officers to
attain joint qualified officer (JQO) status, such as obtaining both
JPME and Joint Individual training from both resident and non-resident
paths, as well as counting experiences gained during service on a Joint
Task Force or in Service billets that have inherently joint aspects.
For example, an officer in the G3 of the 18th Airborne Corps, who is in
combat operations with a Joint or coalition force, could generate joint
credit from that assignment if it is found that most of his work is in
joint matters and that he further displays ``joint competence'' in the
performance of his duties.
The multiple paths to the JQO designation as well as service
responsibilities to track, monitor and record Joint experience, will
provide relief to the currently encumbered manpower systems and reduce
the ad hoc ``work-arounds'' regarding assignments and tour-lengths.
This broader definition of a joint qualified officer will provide
increased flexibility in the system and more effectively produce the
joint specialists needed.
Question. What is your assessment of the appropriate balance
between education and experience in achieving qualification as a joint
specialty officer?
Answer. Based on individual strengths and talents, one proscriptive
approach of x amount of education and y amount of training may not best
serve our needs to joint officer development. I believe that our system
must be flexible enough to provide selected officers a tailored mix of
joint education, training and assignment opportunities they need to
gain the experience and achieve the competency-level an organization
requires to effectively fill critical joint positions.
REBALANCING FORCES
Question. In a memorandum of July 9, 2003, the Secretary of Defense
directed action by the Services, the Joint Staff, and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense aimed at achieving better balance in the
capabilities of the active and Reserve components. The Secretary noted
that the Department ``needs to promote judicious and prudent use of the
Reserve components with force rebalancing initiatives that reduce
strain through the efficient application of manpower and technological
solution based on a disciplined force requirements process.''
What progress has been made in achieving the Secretary's vision?
Answer. The Secretary's vision encompassed three principal
objectives: rebalance the Active and Reserve Forces to reduce the need
for involuntary mobilization of the Guard and Reserve; establish a more
rigorous process for reviewing joint requirements, which ensures that
force structure is designed appropriately and requests for forces are
validated promptly to provide timely notice of mobilization; and make
the mobilization and demobilization process more efficient.
The Department continually assesses its force structure and
rebalances within and between the Active and Reserve components to move
forces from low demand to high demand specialties with the desired
result of improved readiness and deployability. These rebalancing
efforts will shift forces to critical specialties such as Civil
Affairs, Military Police, Special Forces, Psychological Operations, and
Intelligence while divesting Cold War structure to provide a more
capable and lethal force to fight the global war on terrorism.
We have instituted a new process for assignment, allocation and
apportionment of U.S. military forces to the combatant commands. The
Global Force Management Process provides comprehensive insight into the
global availability of U.S. military forces and helps us match
requirements with available forces. Sourcing solutions are developed
and then approved at a quarterly Global Force Management Board designed
to ensure the best options are selected to achieve desired effects.
Additionally, the lessons learned during Operation Iraqi Freedom
concerning Reserve mobilization and demobilization have been put into
action. Specific recommendations were made, each with potential follow-
on actions, to enhance the capability of the Department to mobilize and
deploy Reserve Forces. The Department has rewritten policies that have
been included in the Global Force Management process. As part of this
process, every Reserve deployment is reviewed for an effective
alternative source of manpower--civilian, contractor, or volunteer.
Question. What do you consider to be the biggest continuing
obstacles to achieving the goals that the Secretary of Defense has set
forth in his memorandum?
Answer. The biggest challenge to achieving the Secretary's goals is
determining the appropriate balance between the Active and Reserve
components while maintaining sufficient warfighting capability. To that
end, rebalancing of the force is an ongoing activity within the
Department. The Department is continually assessing its force structure
and rebalancing within, and between, the Active and Reserve components
with the expressed purpose of improving readiness and deployability.
IRAQ INSURGENCY
Question. We have all been concerned about the recent rise in
violence in Iraq, particularly with regard to suicide bombers. Our
current strategy is to continue to train, equip, and assist the Iraqi
security forces in their efforts to be able to take responsibility for
internal security in Iraq.
What progress has been made in training Iraqi security forces?
Answer. Iraqi security forces (ISF) are making steady progress. In
May 2003 there were no ISF. In July 2004 there were 6 newly formed
Regular Army battalions in training and over 32,000 trained police. In
June of this year, there are over 100 combat battalions in the Iraqi
Defense and Interior ministries and over 60,600 trained and equipped
police. Despite horrific terrorist attacks directed at the ISF,
security force development maintains its forward momentum: large
numbers of recruits are volunteering and being trained; the supply
system is equipping them; and the infrastructure is maturing to house
and support these units.
Question. How would you assess the current capabilities of the
Iraqi security forces?
Answer. Most Iraqi combat battalions are capable of planning,
executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations with coalition
support or in conjunction with coalition units. All are on track for
eventual independent operations and, while working toward that end, all
units are in the fight. Regular police and border forces continue to
struggle in high threat areas; however, we are working to strengthen
links to coalition forces to enhance their capabilities.
Question. What system has been developed for assessing those
capabilities?
Answer. The process for measuring MOD Iraqi security forces
capability looks at six areas of readiness. They are: Personnel,
Command and Control, Training, Equipping, Sustainment, and Leadership.
Using these measurements, battalion size units are assessed on a
readiness rating of Level 1-4. At the top end of readiness, a Level 1
unit is fully capable of planning, executing, and sustaining
independent counterinsurgency operations. At the lower end, a Level 4
unit is just forming and/or incapable of conducting counterinsurgency
operations. Iraqi commanders and coalition forces will jointly report
these assessments with parallel reporting up the chain to Multi-
National Corps-Iraq and the Iraqi Joint Headquarters/Iraqi Army
Headquarters. Minister of Interior (MOI) Special Police Battalions use
the same assessment system. Measuring the capability of other MOI
forces is challenging due to the vast number of local police stations
and border enforcement guard posts throughout Iraq. Multinational
Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) is finalizing the process for assessing the
provincial police stations along areas of readiness similar to the
Ministry of Defense forces. We expect the first iteration of readiness
reporting using this new process for MOI forces to be completed at the
end of July 2005.
Question. With U.S. assistance, the Iraqis are developing combat
and police units to conduct a variety of missions, including local
security, external defense, Reserve contingency operations, and
counterinsurgency.
What requirement has been established for the number of battalion-
size units of Iraqi security forces to be organized, trained, and
equipped specifically for counterinsurgency missions?
Answer. The current authorized number of combat battalions for the
ISF is 143. These forces include 112 battalions in the Iraqi Army, 3
battalions of Special Operations Forces within the Ministry of Defense,
and 28 battalions of Special Police Forces in the Ministry of Interior.
We anticipate the sovereign government of Iraq to, over time, modify
the size of their security forces based on internal and external
threats.
Question. How many battalions are currently capable of conducting
counterinsurgency operations with and without coalition assistance,
respectively?
Answer. The majority of Iraqi combat battalions are already
planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations with
coalition support or in conjunction with coalition units. I have
provided a separate, classified graphic that shows the specific number
of battalions currently in each category.
Question. At the current pace of training and equipping, when do
you anticipate the Iraqis will be ready to assume primary
responsibility for security in Iraq?
Answer. CENTCOM and MNF-I regularly assess the capability of the
ISF and their ability to assume primary responsibility for security in
Iraq. The pace of transition from U.S. forces to Iraqi security forces
will be driven by the capability of the Iraqi forces, the level of
insurgent activity, and the ability of the Iraqi government to provide
essential services and infrastructure in the areas of security,
governance, economic development, and communications. Iraqi security
forces are gaining valuable combat experience and continue to make
progress toward taking the lead in the counterinsurgency fight. As
conditions warrant, MNF-I will progressively transition the
counterinsurgency mission to capable Iraqi security forces at the
local, regional, and national levels, and assign coalition forces to
supporting roles with a less visible presence.
TREATMENT OF DETAINEES
Question. The Constitution, laws, and treaty obligations of the
United States prohibit the torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment of persons held in U.S. custody.
What steps, if any, do you believe the Joint Staff should take to
ensure the humane treatment of detainees in DOD custody and to ensure
that such detainees are not subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment?
Answer. The United States Government will treat all detainees
humanely and in accordance with applicable international and domestic
law. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are trained to treat all
detainees humanely from the moment they are captured--without
exception. The Joint Staff, in coordination with and support to the
combatant commands, constantly evaluates and assesses DOD policies to
ensure the appropriate treatment of all persons in DOD custody.
To date, U.S. forces have detained approximately 70,000 individuals
in the prosecution of the global war on terrorism. These efforts have
successfully prevented many of the most dangerous people on Earth from
committing further terrorist acts or criminal activities. Despite
thorough training and policies that clearly prohibit the maltreatment
of detainees, a small number of individuals have violated the law.
Those actions are totally unacceptable, and the United States has
suffered a direct and severe impact strategically as a result of them.
Humane treatment is the standard, and deviation from this standard
will not be tolerated. Credible information regarding detainee abuse
has been and will continue to be investigated, and individuals will be
held accountable if abuse is substantiated. The Joint Staff's role in
this effort, in coordination with OSD and the interagency, is to ensure
that national level policies and procedures are in place that will
continue to provide clear guidance to the combatant commanders and the
component commands on the applicable standards.
OPERATIONAL TEMPO
Question. The U.S. has approximately 138,000 troops deployed in
Iraq and another 15,000 deployed in Afghanistan, in addition to our
other overseas commitments in Korea, Japan, Europe, and elsewhere.
Sustainment of these large-scale deployments has put strains on the
force, particularly ground forces, and has required the extensive use
of Reserve component elements.
For how long is the current level of deployments sustainable?
Answer. The Armed Forces of our Nation will sustain whatever level
of operation is required. Thanks to the members of this committee and
the support of Congress, we have the force structure we need to meet
the needs of the Nation.
This is not to say we are accomplishing our many missions, both at
home and abroad, without challenges. We have a process, the Global
Force Management System, by which we seek to assign the right forces at
the right time to meet the requirements of our combatant commanders,
within acceptable risks.
One of my most important duties is to convey to the civilian
leadership of our Nation what the risks are, and provide my best
military recommendations to mitigate such risks.
Question. What initiatives are underway or being considered to
increase the level of coalition military participation in Iraq and
Afghanistan?
Answer. The primary vehicle we are using to increase coalition
participation in Afghanistan is expansion of the NATO and International
Security Assistance Force initiatives. Over the past several months,
the Italians assumed control of the formerly U.S.-led Provisional
Reconstruction Team (PRT) at Herat. As International Security
Assistance Force expands to the south, the Canadians and U.K. will
bring in a significant number of troops to assume control of two PRTs
and conduct security operations. Through frequent mil-to-mil talks with
our allies, we continually identify areas in which coalition forces can
provide greater assistance. Through our State Department we make formal
requests to other governments.
Question. Under what conditions can U.S. troop levels in Iraq and
Afghanistan be reduced?
Answer. U.S. troop levels can be reduced when Afghan security
forces are capable of operating independently, when NATO/ISAF expansion
is complete, and when the insurgency is reduced to a level manageable
by Afghan security forces. The conditions for U.S. troop reductions in
Iraq will be driven by the capability of the Iraqi forces, the level of
insurgent activity, and the ability of the Iraqi government to provide
essential services and infrastructure in the areas of security,
governance, economic development, and communications. In each case,
troop reductions in Afghanistan and Iraq will be event-driven, not
based on timelines.
Question. The Marine Corps currently conducts 7-month deployments
to Iraq and Afghanistan, while the Army conducts 12-month deployments.
What are the operational reasons for this difference?
Answer. The Service Rotation Policies are based upon the Service
Chiefs' assessments of how they can best execute their Title 10
responsibilities to organize, train and equip the force. The Marine
Corps requested that they be allowed to meet their deployment
requirements and still maintain as close to their normal 6-month
deployments as possible. It is the Marine Corps' view that the 7-month
deployments allow them to meet the CENTCOM requirements, and to
maintain a high state of readiness in worldwide deploying and deployed
units.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the approach
taken by either Service?
Answer. I do not anticipate any changes. The Service Rotation
Policies are based upon the Service Chiefs' assessments of how they can
best execute their Title 10 responsibilities to organize, train and
equip the force. These policies are the product of significant amounts
of time and effort by the Service Staffs. With these policies each
Service is bearing its fair share of the requirements based upon their
core competencies.
U.S. FORCES IN KOREA
Question. In April 2005, the Government of the Republic of Korea
(ROK) announced it would cut back by 8.9 percent on its financial
contribution to the U.S. military presence in that nation, citing U.S.
plans to reduce the number of its deployed troops. As a result, the
number of locally hired South Korean workers has been reduced by United
States Forces Korea (USFK).
In your view, do the planned reductions in the number of U.S.
troops in South Korea and the funding response by the ROK place in
jeopardy the goals of the Korea Land Partnership Plan, specifically,
relocation of Army headquarters from Seoul to Camp Humphrey and other
locations south of the capital?
Answer. No. The moves within Korea will continue on schedule. USFK
is adjusting for the reduction in the Korean financial contribution,
and it will not affect the Land Partnership Plan. Relocation of the
Army headquarters from Yongsan is funded separately from the ROK
financial contribution to the U.S. military presence.
Question. Increases in pay for U.S. soldiers stationed in the ROK
as a result of the Army's use of assignment incentive pay and higher
overseas cost-of-living allowance have made extended tours of duty in
Korea more attractive.
Question. Do you support increased numbers of accompanied tours for
U.S. military personnel assigned duty in the ROK?
Answer. Yes. We are moving toward the reorganization of 95
installations across the peninsula into 12 ``enclaves'' that will
provide for more centralized planning, execution, and coordination of
our valuable resources. After the construction of these new facilities,
we anticipate that 25 percent of the U.S. troops serving in South Korea
will be able to bring their families with them, compared with the
current level of 10 percent. This new opportunity will not only enhance
mission capability but will improve the quality of life for troops
assigned to the Korean peninsula.
GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Question. The Department of Defense has instituted a new process
for allocating U.S. military forces among and between the U.S.
combatant commands.
Why has the Global Force Management System been instituted, how
does it achieve the goal of efficiently allocating forces, and how is
it different from past practice?
Answer. The Global Force Management process provides a structured
means to allocate forces from a global, rather than a regional
perspective. This process provides the strategic flexibility needed to
address emerging as well as rotational troop requirements while
constantly assessing general risks. It provides a more comprehensive
capability to accurately assess the impact of risks of proposed changes
in force assignment.
INTEGRATED GLOBAL PRESENCE AND BASING STRATEGY
Question. The President announced plans in August 2004 to implement
an Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) to emphasize
the expeditionary posture of U.S. forces overseas. This strategy will
result in the redeployment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops to the
United States.
As a result of IGPBS, what adjustments to mobility assets and force
modernization investments will be required to continue to meet the
operational requirements of the combatant commanders?
Answer. The transition from the Cold War's containment strategy to
a new international security environment has produced formidable
challenges. The new global posture strategy promotes the expansion of
allied roles and encourages new partnerships. The strategy relies on a
tailored force construct to engage in regional security, which
ultimately prevents war.
Transformation initiatives utilizing lighter platforms, such as the
Stryker, U.S. Army modularity, and network-centric operations,
augmented with prepositioned equipment, should greatly ease the
stresses placed on our mobility lift requirements. Our ongoing study of
mobility requirements will give us a better understanding of future
requirements.
The new strategy will allow the U.S. to ``transform in stride''
while taking better advantage of technology and innovative warfighting
concepts, improving our ability to meet our alliance commitments and
global responsibilities.
STABILITY AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
Question. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have underscored the
importance of planning and training for post-conflict stability
operations. Increased emphasis has been placed on stability and support
operations in DOD planning and guidance in order to achieve the goal of
full integration across all DOD activities.
What is your assessment of the Department's current emphasis on
planning for post-conflict scenarios?
Answer. The Department has placed considerable emphasis on post-
conflict planning. The most critical step in improving our post-
conflict planning is the establishment and integration of a counterpart
civilian planning capability. Therefore:
We strongly support the establishment of the office of
the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS)
within the Department of State.
We have assisted S/CRS in building their own planning
processes while integrating them into our own deliberate and
crisis planning processes, here in Washington and with the
combatant commanders.
We have worked with S/CRS to integrate stabilization
and reconstruction operations into our Combatant Commander's
Operational Plans and Theater Exercises.
We are developing a DOD directive concerning stability operations.
We envision a policy where stability operations are a core capability--
one U.S. military forces should be prepared to undertake. As such,
stability operations will have the attention and priority comparable to
other combat operations.
S/CRS is participating in the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review,
which emphasizes the need for post-conflict planning as we reassess our
force structure requirements, to ensure we have the right mix of forces
for the right missions, including stabilization and reconstruction
operations.
Question. What role should the Joint Staff play in the area of
post-conflict planning and the conduct of stability and support
operations?
Answer. The Joint Staff is a key member of the various interagency
committees and working groups that develop plans and policies.
Importantly, the Joint Staff facilitates coordination between the
governmental agencies, such as S/CRS, and the combatant commanders and
their staffs.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate relationship
between DOD and other Federal agencies in the planning and conduct of
stability and support operations in a post-conflict environment?
Answer. I believe stabilization and reconstruction operations need
to become core competencies of all departments of our government. Our
experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere have made it clear that
interagency and international ``jointness'' are important, and can be
crucial, to success.
It is essential to maintain clear accountability and responsibility
for any mission. Therefore, the military is accustomed to designating
lead and supporting responsibilities during contingencies.
DOD should be the lead agency while combat operations are ongoing.
However, once combat operations have ceased, and stabilization and
reconstruction operations are underway, there will be a time when
another agency such the Department of State takes the policy lead in a
stabilization and reconstruction operation with DOD in a supporting
role.
S/CRS and the other government agencies, including DOD, have put
considerable thought and effort into how they would exercise command
and control during stabilization and reconstruction operations. In
particular, S/CRS has formulated three echelons of deployable teams to
plug in with our combatant commanders, Joint Task Force Commanders, and
then down to the division or brigade level. These teams would be key to
the transition to another agency's control once combat operations are
complete.
The military chain of command would remain in place, even under
another agency's command and control. If a Joint Task Force or
combatant commander felt he could not comply with direction from his
civilian counterpart, he could always bring that matter up through the
chain of command, up to and including the Secretary of Defense.
Similarly, the civilian in charge could take issues up to the Secretary
of State. At that point, the Secretaries could resolve the matter.
Question. What lessons do you believe the Department has learned
from the experience of planning and training for post-conflict
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. The experiences of our forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and
other contingencies have taught us several key lessons. They include:
(1) A focused, integrated U.S. Government approach to
stabilization and reconstruction operations is essential to
bring all the Nation's elements of power to bear in a
contingency.
(2) Such an integrated approach requires that our civilian
and military planning be fully coordinated, both here in
Washington and with the combatant commanders.
(3) We need a strong, standing civilian management capacity
to ensure personnel, programs, and resources for stabilization
and reconstruction operations are coordinated.
(4) That civilian management must have a surge capacity to
rapidly mobilize and deploy personnel prior to or during a
contingency.
(5) Building and maintaining the civilian capacity to plan,
mobilize, deploy, and execute stabilization and reconstruction
operations requires a robust interagency training and exercise
effort.
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Question. At her confirmation hearing in January 2005, Secretary of
State Rice expressed the administration's strong support for the U.N.
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Officials of the Department of
Defense, including the Chief of Naval Operations, have advocated for
accession to the Convention.
Do you support U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea?
Answer. Yes. The Convention has useful provisions regarding freedom
of navigation.
Question. How would you answer the critics of the Convention who
assert that accession is not in the national security interests of the
United States?
Answer. On balance, the Convention would serve the national
security interests of the United States.
CHINESE MILITARY
Question. In early June 2005, Secretary Rumsfeld criticized China's
military buildup, noting that China's investment in missiles and modern
military technology posed a risk not only to Taiwan and American
interests, but also to nations across Asia.
What do you believe are the objectives of the Chinese military
modernization program?
Answer. Chinese leaders judge they must modernize to protect their
vital national interests.
Question. What do you believe are the Chinese global political-
military objectives and specifically its objectives regarding Taiwan
and the Asia-Pacific region?
Answer. The Chinese have developed worldwide economic and
commercial interests and presence. Thus, they also seek to be
consequential in all decisions involving international security issues,
especially in the Asia-Pacific Region.
Their stated objective for Taiwan is that Taiwan is part of the
Chinese homeland and, as shown by the law enacted earlier this year,
they cannot permit an independent Taiwan.
Question. How do you believe the United States should respond to
the Chinese military modernization program?
Answer. U.S.-China relations should be considered within the larger
context of bilateral and multilateral relations of the region. Much of
the peace and stability in Asia has been built on U.S. presence and our
strong and enduring alliances with Japan, Australia, South Korea,
Thailand and the Philippines. We will continue to work with our allies
and friends to ensure that the Asia-Pacific region remains a stable
environment for continued peaceful development.
China's concentrated deployments of missiles and conventional
weapons near Taiwan are a cause for concern, and the passage of anti-
secession legislation authorizing the use of non-peaceful means is
destabilizing. We must continue to communicate U.S. resolve to maintain
peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, and urge PRC restraint
in cross-Strait relations. At the same time we should continue
development of a stable and constructive military relationship with
China that contributes to cooperation in overall bilateral relations.
Question. U.S. military-to-military relations with the Chinese have
been described by defense officials as ``modest.''
What changes, if any, do you believe that DOD should make in the
quality or quantity of military-to-military relations with China, and
why?
Answer. It is important for us to continue to develop constructive
and stable military relations with China to allow for better
understanding between our two nations. While generally satisfied with
continued positive developments in U.S.-China military-to-military
relations, I would like to see greater transparency, which serves to
reduce suspicions and lower the risk of miscalculation between our two
militaries. Additionally, our military-to-military relations would
benefit from the expansion of our military education exchanges,
especially cadet and student exchanges between our academies and senior
service colleges. As we strive to achieve this goal, our interactions
will continue to be guided by the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2000.
FUTURE OF NATO
Question. Over the past several years, NATO has experienced great
changes. NATO has enlarged with the addition of seven new members from
Eastern Europe and the Baltics, and has taken on an ambitious
stabilization mission in Afghanistan, as well as a training mission in
Iraq.
In your view, what are the greatest opportunities and challenges
that you foresee for NATO over the next 5 years?
Answer. The opportunities available to NATO over the next 5 years
are significant. I predict that the Alliance will complete their
expansion plans for Afghanistan, leading to a unified military command;
transition the Kosovo mission to a smaller, more responsive force; and
enlarge NATO support of the training mission for the Government of
Iraq.
NATO is also advancing democracy and defense reform in Europe,
Central Asia and the broader Middle East region while developing closer
cooperation with the Nations in those regions on issues such as
counterterrorism and counterproliferation.
The greatest challenge for NATO is to finish the transformation
process started in 2002 when the work to develop an expeditionary force
was begun. While NATO has been successful in creating a new military
command structure and deploying effective forces, we now need to turn
the Alliance's attention on reforming the budget process, streamlining
management functions, and developing new modalities for funding
operations.
Question. Do you envision further enlargement of NATO within the
next 5 years?
Answer. Further enlargement of the Alliance is a decision for the
President and the other 25 Allied Heads of State and Government.
Question. What progress are the NATO member nations, particularly
the new member nations, making with respect to transforming their
militaries, acquiring advanced capabilities, and enhancing their
interoperability with the U.S. and other NATO member nations?
Answer. The progress, especially in regards to the new members, is
mixed. While all members of the Alliance agree on the need to
modernize, acquire advanced capabilities, and enhance interoperability,
most nations face a very austere budgetary climate marked with years of
underinvestment. We continue to press our allies to make the changes
needed to bring their nations in line with NATO investment targets.
EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENSE POLICY
Question. A potential challenge facing the U.S. and NATO in the
months and years ahead is 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. I support a close cooperative relationship between the EU
and NATO. The Berlin Plus agreement should be implemented to support
EU-led operations. Proposals that duplicate existing NATO structures
are unhelpful. In this time of limited defense resources we should
recognize and build on the strategic partnership between the EU and
NATO.
COLOMBIA
Question. U.S. military personnel have been involved in the
training and equipping of Colombian military forces involved in
counter-narcoterrorism operations. U.S. military personnel, however, do
not participate in or accompany Colombian counterdrug or
counterinsurgency forces on field operations in Colombia.
What changes, if any, would you recommend for the role of the U.S.
military in Colombia?
Answer. The most appropriate role for the U.S. military is to
continue to address systemic deficiencies in the training and
employment of the Colombian armed forces. Under the leadership of
President Uribe, Colombia has made important strides towards defeating
the narcoterrorists. There is no question that the Government of
Colombia and the Colombian Armed Forces have primary responsibility for
bringing security and the rule-of-law to their sovereign nation.
The Colombian security forces and state intelligence services are
best suited to sift through the complex maze of local allegiances. They
are also best equipped to leverage the cooperation of local
communities.
Question. What is your assessment of the progress achieved by the
Colombian armed forces in confronting the threat of narcoterrorism?
Answer. The Colombian armed forces have progressed well over the
last few years. U.S. training and equipment have contributed
significantly to this progress. The Colombian military's (COLMIL) Plan
Patriota offensive, the largest in the Nation's history, continues to
pressure FARC in its base areas. The COLMIL has captured key nodes and
dominates mobility corridors, denying FARC access to support and
population. A number of FARC, ELN, and AUC high value targets have been
killed or captured. Colombian police are now present in all 1,098
municipalities. Colombia's 2005 defense budget is 7 percent higher than
2004 and 13.3 percent higher than 2003. In 2005, 16,000 more troops
will be recruited, for a total increase of 95,000 since President Uribe
took office. Finally, units of the United Self-Defense Groups of
Colombia (AUC) are currently negotiating demobilization with the GOC,
with as many as 9,000 personnel to be demobilized by the end of year.
This is all good cause for tempered optimism. The COLMIL has made
significant progress fighting narcoterrorists, but it still has a long
way to go. The GOC needs to restore government services to the
countryside. While the COLMIL is more ``forward-leaning'' than ever,
their mettle will be tested in future offensive operations. Despite
COLMIL successes, the FARC is not close to being defeated. Only
sustained efforts against them will eventually win the peace.
EXCESS INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. How high a priority do you place on the closure of excess
Department of Defense installations and why?
Answer. Closure of excess installations deserves very high
priority. We must convert excess capacity into warfighting capability
and enhance our ability to operate as a joint team.
Question. How do you respond to arguments that initiation of a new
round of base realignment and closure should be postponed until
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have concluded and the requirements
of the global war on terrorism come into better focus?
Answer. The department's footprint is in need of change and
adjustment. The current arrangements, designed for the Cold War, must
give way to new demands of the war on terrorism and other evolving
challenges in the world. We face an unconventional enemy that is
dispersed throughout the world, has no territory to defend, no
permanent bases to safeguard, and is constantly adapting. We must
constantly adapt as well. Closure of excess installations frees up
resources to apply to the war on terror and transformation.
HEALTH CARE BENEFITS
Question. In April 2005, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs testified that health benefits are ``out of step'' with
trends in health care and may not be sustainable for the long term.
Expansion of TRICARE coverage and rising health care costs nation-wide
have contributed to the prediction that health care will grow to 10 to
12 percent of the DOD's outlays in the next 10 years.
What recommendations, if any, would you offer to address the
rapidly escalating cost of personnel benefits?
Answer. I support the Department's efforts to find efficiencies in
the current system and to pursue cost effective methods for Health Care
delivery in the future. I believe the Department's performance-based
budgeting initiative and restructuring of cost-effective pharmacy
programs will help to gain those efficiencies. However, as we pursue
these cost-cutting measures, we should proceed with caution and ensure
that the reductions are not made at the expense of our troops, their
families, and retirees who deserve the best health care system
possible.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you anticipate playing in
any shaping or rethinking of health care benefits for military
personnel?
Answer. We are focusing our current efforts on improvements for our
Reserve Component members and their families who will continue to be
instrumental in fighting the global war on terrorism. I thank you for
the legislation that was passed in NDAAs 2004 and 2005 and believe that
the 2006 budget initiatives will go a long way in making the health
care system fair and equitable to both our Active and Reserve component
servicemembers. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing our efforts
with Congress and the Department of Defense to ensure military
personnel can serve their nation with the knowledge that their health
care benefits are secure.
Question. How would you assess the impact of such benefits and
changes on recruitment and retention of military personnel?
Answer. When we discuss benefits associated with military service,
it is my view that a reasonable-cost health care system is an important
cornerstone of the entire compensation package that we offer. The
current recruiting environment presents us challenges, and although our
current retention numbers are strong--we can't take that for granted.
Our health care benefits package favorably impacts our ability to
attract recruits and retain a quality force.
SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY
Question. In response to a congressional requirement for
formulation of a comprehensive policy related to sexual assaults in the
Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense has promulgated guidance aimed
at more effectively preventing sexual assaults, investigating incidents
of sexual assault, and responding to the needs of victims of sexual
assault.
What role, if any, has the Joint Staff played in monitoring
progress within the military services and the combatant command's areas
of responsibility in order to ensure enforcement of a ``zero
tolerance'' policy relating to sexual assaults?
Answer. We continue to work closely with the Joint Task Force
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (JTFSAPR) team and the Services
as DOD develops policy, procedures, and regulatory guidance. This
ensures that the policy is executable in the joint and multinational
operational environment.
The Joint Staff provides a monthly report to the JTFSAPR on Service
progress in completing investigations of sexual assaults that occur in
the U.S. Central Command area of operations. We are also providing
assistance to combatant commanders during the development of their
internal procedures; serving as a liaison staff to address Service
policy issues that might impact a commander's ability to conduct
investigations; and providing support to victims in the joint
environment.
PERMANENT FORWARD DEPLOYMENT OF NAVAL FORCES
Question. For many years, a carrier strike group and an
expeditionary strike group have been permanently forward deployed in
Japan.
How important, in your judgment, is the permanent forward
deployment of these two naval forces in the United States Pacific
Command's area of responsibility?
Answer. I view the continued forward basing of a carrier strike
group and an expeditionary strike group in Japan as extremely important
components of our National Security Strategy in the Pacific. Recent
events in the Pacific, such as the Tsunami, as well as our ability to
rapidly respond to a range of military and humanitarian contingencies
emphasize the importance of forward deployed naval forces. Our
commitment to the peace and security of the Pacific region, especially
to Japan and the Republic of Korea, underscores the continuing
relevance of credible and sovereign combat power. The presence of our
military forces, and in particular naval forces, in this strategic
location provides significant capability, deters aggression, and
imparts tangible reassurance to our allies.
JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL
Question. As Vice Chairman, you have served as the Chairman of the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). Over that time, as the
services' transformation initiatives have matured, some have been
approved for system development and demonstration even though it
appears that certain programs lacked the technical maturity required to
transition into system development and demonstration.
How would you assess the effectiveness of the JROC in the
acquisition process?
Answer. The JROC has increased its effectiveness over the past few
years. We have been operating under the new Joint Capabilities
Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process for a relatively
short 2 years, and already have seen improvements in support to the
joint warfighter through better identification of capability gaps and
redundancies. JCIDS is a much more inclusive process. We take advantage
of the vast expertise and experience in the acquisition community by
engaging them earlier in the process. This helps ensure we are on the
right path in providing effective military advice to the acquisition
process. As programs mature and approach the next acquisition decision,
they come back to the JROC to validate changes. Capability documents
are submitted into the JCIDS process and fully vetted by the combatant
commanders, the Joint Staff, the Services and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
Question. Do you believe that the role of the JROC in the
acquisition process should be expanded? If not, why not? If so, what
areas or roles would you recommend for expansion?
Answer. I do not believe the role of the JROC in the acquisition
process should be expanded. The JROC provides appropriate validation
and approval of the capabilities and the key performance parameters for
any systems designed to provide those capabilities. The Service
Acquisition Executives incorporate that joint military advice into
their decision process.
Question. In your view, are the requirements of combatant
commanders adequately addressed by the JROC?
Answer. The combatant commanders are tightly integrated into the
capabilities development process that supports the JROC. Combatant
commanders have an open invitation to attend JROC meetings. They
participate in writing the Joint Concepts that guide future
capabilities development, they comment on capability needs documents
being developed by the Services, and they are members in each of the
Functional Capabilities Boards that support the JROC. Members of the
JROC or the Joint Capabilities Board travel to the combatant commands
semi-annually to discuss their issues and other ongoing challenges and
initiatives. The combatant commanders have an opportunity to submit
their most critical capability needs to the Department through the
annual Integrated Priority List (IPL) process. Beginning with the
fiscal years 2006-2011 IPL submission, the JROC took ownership of the
IPL assessment process and endorsed Functional Capabilities Board-
developed courses of action to address IPL needs. IPL inputs have also
informed discussions on many of the issues brought to the JROC for
review. Close, continual involvement of the combatant commanders will
remain a key part of JROC deliberations.
CONTRACTORS ON THE BATTLEFIELD
Question. DOD's maintenance and support functions have been
increasingly outsourced resulting in a greater deployment and
employment of civilian contractors in combat areas.
What issues have emerged for DOD as a result of an increased number
of contractors on the battlefield?
Answer. Contractors provide invaluable services in support of
military and reconstruction operations worldwide. Our challenge is how
to balance the increased capabilities brought by contractors with the
added challenges of integrating contractors into operational planning,
maintaining visibility and accountability, and providing appropriate
government support to ensure continuation of essential services.
Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to
address these issues?
Answer. We are helping to develop comprehensive DOD policy on
contractors that is expected to be released in the coming weeks. The
policy captures lessons from recent operations and addresses the
contractor challenges from the planning phase to the actual employment
across the spectrum of military operations. The policy addresses all
issues raised by Congress in Section 1205 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005: integrating contractors into
operational planning; maintaining overall visibility of contractor
personnel and contract capability in a database; deploying and
redeploying contractors; providing force protection to contractor
personnel; contractor security services; and other government support
requirements including protective equipment, medical and mortuary
coverage. After approval, DOD will implement the policy in doctrine,
training, and appropriate contracts.
Question. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that U.S.
forces could save money in peacetime and increase operational control
in wartime by utilizing contractors with sponsored Reserve affiliation.
Some of our allies have already experimented with this approach.
What is your view of the feasibility of a sponsored Reserve
approach to provide logistics support for deployed forces?
Answer. The Department is examining a variety of force structure
initiatives including the sponsored Reserve concept being explored by
some of our coalition partners. We are watching an ongoing Air Force
initiative to explore the concept and examine the operational
effectiveness and potential changes required in U.S. law and policy.
INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE
Question. As Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you
witnessed the working relationship between the Chairman's legal
advisor, the Department of Defense General Counsel, and the Judge
Advocates General of the Services in providing legal advice to the
Chairman.
What is your view about the responsibility of the Chairman's legal
advisor to provide independent legal advice to you, other members of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and to the Joint Staff?
Answer. As noted previously, title 10, section 151(b) makes the
CJCS the principal military adviser to the President, the National
Security Council, and the SECDEF. If confirmed, I will take very
seriously my responsibility to provide independent military advice to
each of those individuals or entities. Title 10 also provides for an
independently organized Joint Staff, operated under the authority,
direction and control of the Chairman, to support the Chairman in
fulfillment of his statutory duties. I believe it is absolutely
essential that the Joint Staff--and in particular the Chairman's Legal
Counsel--be exclusively dedicated to support the CJCS in fulfilling his
responsibility to provide independent, apolitical, military advice.
Question. What is your view about the responsibility of staff judge
advocates within the Services and joint commands to provide independent
legal advice to military commanders?
Answer. Similarly, Service and joint commanders have a
responsibility to the civilian leadership to provide their independent
and candid military advice. Receiving independent legal advice from
their respective Staff Judge Advocates is an indispensable aspect of
those commanders' ability to effectively fulfill their
responsibilities.
INTERAGENCY REFORMS
Question. You have spoken publicly about the need for Goldwater-
Nichols-like legislation for the interagency that would involve, for
example, requiring service in another department or agency as a
condition for advancement to senior executive service (SES) rank and
requiring civilian employees to accept temporary assignments to
countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, in which combat is taking
place.
Can you provide more details of your proposal and explain why you
believe such legislation would be necessary?
Answer. Goldwater-Nichols was significant legislation that
continues to shape and integrate unified action within the Armed
Forces. I believe that Goldwater-Nichols legislation serves as a good
example for a similar move to jointness in the interagency community.
Currently the NSC offers a great process for teeing up issues for
decision by the President. Yet once the President makes a decision, the
different agencies return to their ``stovepipes'' to plan and operate
with no individual below the President responsible for ensuring that
decision/mission is accomplished. While the agencies are collaborative
in their efforts, the process is not responsive or agile enough to
support the current warfight. The new National Counter Terrorism Center
is potentially a large step in the right direction.
A Goldwater-Nichols like approach to the interagency would allow
all instruments of national power to be effectively integrated to
achieve enduring results that exploit the strengths of our government.
Just as the military did following Goldwater-Nichols, the interagency
can greatly benefit from cross-pollination of agencies--a requirement
to do a tour in an agency other than your own would form greater trust
and understanding between the various agencies. This ``joint''
requirement could be a prerequisite to senior level promotions in the
civil service career paths, properly grandfathered for those who came
in under different rules.
Another qualifier for senior promotion could be an agreement to
accept orders to wherever needed for a set period of time (6 months to
1 year.) Currently, there is little rapidly deployable capacity outside
the Armed Forces. Other agencies rely on volunteers to fill critical
billets overseas. Arguably, sometimes the best qualified are not the
ones who volunteer. To further complicate the matter, volunteers often
stay for a short period of time, which offers little continuity and
overall understanding of the mission in complex environments like Iraq.
Today dedicated civil servants, foreign service officers and
military professionals are working together through the strength of
their own dedication and personal commitment to excellence. We need to
institutionalize and professionalize a wider range of National Security
personnel throughout the government similar to the way that Goldwater-
Nichols developed a cadre of professional joint officers in the Armed
Forces. Initiatives for the interagency could include mechanisms to
strengthen integration and trust at the strategic, operational and
tactical levels, create more responsiveness within the supporting
agencies, and build operational capacity in non-DOD agencies.
Any proposal to reform our interagency process will involve a
number of other changes, to include professional level education, and
the requirement to increase the civilian work force enough to allow the
``overhead'' for out-of-agency tours, schools, and other requirements.
It is important to devote intellectual resources to continued dialogue
on this topic.
WOMEN IN COMBAT
Question. The issue of the appropriate role of women in the Armed
Forces is a matter of continuing interest to Congress and the American
public.
What is your assessment of the performance of women in the armed
forces, particularly given the combat experiences of our military,
since the last major review of the assignment policy for women in 1994?
Answer. Today, more than 333,000 women serve in the U.S. Armed
Forces around the world and they are performing magnificently and with
distinction. From crewmembers, technicians and commanders, to pilots,
and military police, women will continue to play a critical role in the
defense of our Nation as officer and enlisted functional experts in a
variety of specialties.
Question. Given the nature of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and
the Army's ongoing effort to reorganize to become a more modular,
flexible, combat force, is the time right to conduct a comprehensive
review of the policy, regulations, and law pertaining to the assignment
of women in the Armed Forces?
Answer. I support the current DOD assignment policy for women and
therefore do not believe a comprehensive study of policy, regulations
and law is necessary.
Question. Does the Department of Defense have sufficient
flexibility under current law to make changes to the assignment policy
for women when needed?
Answer. Current law provides adequate flexibility to make changes
to DOD assignment policy for women. The law recognizes that DOD and the
Services will need to constantly assess the role of women and the
dynamics of the constantly changing battlefield. The law and DOD policy
also allows the Services to impose additional restrictions based on
Service unique mission requirements.
Question. Do you believe any changes in the current policy are
needed?
Answer. The current DOD policy recognizes that women are an
integral part of our Armed Forces and provides the flexibility needed
to address changes to the operational environment; no policy changes
are needed at this time.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
Question. As a result of Program Budget Decision 753, funding for
the Missile Defense Agency was reduced by $5 billion over years fiscal
year 2006 to 2011. In restructuring the missile defense program, the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency sought to strike a balance
between developing and fielding near-term capabilities and continuing
the development of more advanced capabilities for the longer term. The
Committees on Armed Services of the House and Senate, while supportive
of administration missile defense efforts, have made it clear in their
respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 that priority should be given to more rigorous testing
and fielding of near-term operational capabilities over future block
research and developmental efforts.
What is your assessment of the Missile Defense Agency's current
balance between near-term fielding and future development of missile
defense capabilities?
Answer. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) program provides the right
balance between near-term fielding and future development. As MDA
proves systems in testing, near-term capabilities are enhanced and
fielded to the warfighter. This early fielding of elements will address
the near-term threat while continuing the steady improvements needed to
keep pace as that threat evolves.
Question. Is MDA's approach consistent with the nature of the
ballistic missile threat as you understand it, or should more priority
be given to fielding near-term operational capabilities?
Answer. I believe the MDA program has been structured appropriately
to address the near-term threat while continuing the steady
improvements needed to keep pace as that threat evolves.
Question. The Independent Review Team chartered by the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency to review the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
testing program found that the BMD program needs to make test and
mission success the primary objective.
Do you agree with this recommendation?
Answer. The Independent Review Team is correct that test and
mission success must be a primary program objective. I am confident
that MDA will appropriately implement the recommendations to improve
flight mission performance and reliability.
Question. Do you believe the Missile Defense Agency has in place a
plan for operationally realistic testing--consistent with the
recommendations of the Independent Review Team--that will provide an
appropriate level of confidence over time that the ballistic missile
defense system will work reliably under operational conditions?
Answer. I am confident that the MDA will appropriately implement
the recommendations of the Independent Review Team to improve flight
mission performance and reliability. The Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation (DOT&E) and MDA are partnering on the test and
evaluation master plan to add operational realism to developmental
testing and ensure the tests are as realistic as 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, 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 John Warner
IED COUNTERMEASURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
1. Senator Warner. General Pace, the acting Deputy Secretary of
Defense recently issued a directive granting full authority and
responsibility to the Joint Improvised Explosive (IED) Device Defeat
Task Force to lead the Department's efforts in fighting the IED threat.
Are you satisfied with the Department's process for addressing the
combatant commander's requirements for the fielding of IED
countermeasures?
General Pace. I am satisfied with the process but we should
continue to press for speed of delivery inside that process. For
example, we are awaiting the counter-radio-controlled electronic
warfare (CREW) system program managers' delivery schedule for increased
jammer production on 15 July. Once their analysis is complete, we can
aggressively pursue getting these systems in the field.
2. Senator Warner. General Pace, if not, what else can be done to
get this critical capability to the warfighters?
General Pace. This requires sustained attention by all involved to
include our quick notification to Congress of any funding support
requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
IRAQ
3. Senator McCain. General Pace, a fundamental element of
counterinsurgency strategy is to secure a base and expand from there. I
am concerned that we are clearing insurgent sanctuaries, only to draw
down our presence from those areas over time--giving the insurgents the
opportunity to return to the sanctuaries. I continue to be concerned
that this strategy requires us to retake ground over and over. Would
you comment on our strategy?
General Pace. Your concerns are valid. We should not retake ground.
We should turn over former sanctuaries to Iraqi security forces (ISF).
This strategy of turning over to the ISF has been well received by the
Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people. Iraqi citizens are reporting
insurgent presence and activity at unprecedented levels, especially to
their own security forces. We must continue to turn over territory
previously occupied by Coalition Forces to the ISF.
4. Senator McCain. General Pace, it seems to me that instead of
sweep and leave, we should clear and stay. Do we have the resources and
manpower necessary to do this? If not, shouldn't we get it?
General Pace. The total U.S., coalition, and Iraqi security forces
are at present not sufficient to do this everywhere simultaneously. We
must press forward with training the Iraqi Army to have sufficient
Iraqi forces to do this across the country. Increasingly, the Iraqi
security forces remain in control of areas we have helped them clear.
This is illustrated exceptionally well in the Haifa Street area in
Baghdad. Once one of the most dangerous places in the city, it is now
one of the safest and most stable due to the efforts of the Iraqi
security forces and the support they are receiving from the Iraqi
people.
5. Senator McCain. General Pace, according to a news report, during
a 1-week period this month, 19 service men and women were killed by
IEDs, this out of 25 total who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is an extremely high percentage lost to IEDs. We have been at this
war for over 3 years. With all your efforts at combating IEDs, what is
our hope to eliminate or at least minimize this threat?
General Pace. We continue to combat the threat with a multi-faceted
approach. Our tactics, techniques, and procedures have improved
significantly over the last 3 years, to detect and avoid the threat, or
prevent its detonation. We also rely on our jammers to disrupt the
timing of detonation and upon our armor to protect our forces when
detonation does occur. Our progress in these endeavors is evidenced
over the last 8 months. During that time the number of attacks has
increased over 100 percent, while the resultant casualties are down 36
percent. Thanks to protective equipment, over 70 percent of the wounded
are returned to duty within 72 hours. Still, this is the most effective
enemy weapon and we must continue to seek solutions throughout the
entire IED production chain to include eliminating bomb makers,
destroying production facilities and materials, identifying and
neutralizing IEDs on location, modifying tactics/techniques/procedures,
and improving armor protection.
6. Senator McCain. General Pace, do we in Congress need to buy more
jammers or any other equipment? Is technology actually capable of
effectively combating an IED?
General Pace. It is critical that we have the funding to minimize
this threat. As earlier discussed, we anticipate the production and
delivery analysis to be complete on 15 July, after which we must
aggressively execute the plan. We will promptly notify Congress of any
funding requests. I should note however that technology can help us
minimize, not eliminate, this threat. Even our main battle tanks are
subject to destruction by a large IED.
RECRUITING
7. Senator McCain. General Pace, as a total force, recruitment
numbers have been down. The Army has missed their recruitment goals by
nearly 8,500. The Marine Corps are still struggling. Guard and Reserve
numbers are off by 15,000. What are your plans as Chairman to try and
rectify these recruiting difficulties?
General Pace. I am concerned with the recruiting challenges that
both the Active and Reserve components face--especially the Army and
Marine Corps. I believe the efforts each of the components has executed
in recent months (substantially increasing the number of recruiters in
the field, enhancing incentive bonuses and refocusing marketing
strategies not only on potential recruits--but on the influencers
(parents, teachers, etc.) who play an important role in our overall
effort) will yield dividends this year. June recruiting successes are
encouraging. However, as important as incentives are, this is more
about message than money. If confirmed I will focus my efforts to
highlight the value of service to country and to ensure we respect that
service in the way we manage and employ the force.
8. Senator McCain. General Pace, the National Call to Service Plan
authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2003 allows men
and women to enlist for a shorter period of time. The Department
currently has 2,400 members serving under this plan. Do you believe
that you and the Joint Chiefs should speak out more publicly on
national service?
General Pace. Yes--as a senior military leader, I have an
obligation to mentor and educate young men and women about the value of
national service and the benefit it provides to them and to our
country. Therefore, I believe that anything the Joint Chiefs and I can
do to enhance interest in programs like the National Call to Service
and to influence young Americans to become members of our Armed Forces
is worthy of our collective time and effort.
9. Senator McCain. General Pace, in what way do you plan to use
this tool to increase the ranks?
General Pace. The National Call to Service Plan is another useful
program that we have in our toolkit to generate recruits and I thank
you and Congressman Skelton for sponsoring this initiative. As you are
aware, the Army recently instituted the plan nationwide and it has
already sparked interest. We are encouraged that the shorter enlistment
period combined with either the bonus, repayment on qualifying student
loans, or entitlement to educational assistance will attract young
Americans to serve our Nation and we are expecting to see good results.
OVERSEAS BASING
10. Senator McCain. General Pace, the Overseas Basing Commission
yesterday expressed concern that the Department is moving too quickly
in its plans to move 70,000 troops stationed abroad back to domestic
military installations. What steps has the Department taken in
conjunction with the Department of State to ensure that our agreements
and treaties with our allies overseas will continue to be met?
General Pace. Our Global Posture initiatives are in line with the
President's National Security Strategy and emphasize our national
commitment to foster relationships among U.S. allies, partners and
friends. The new global posture plan will allow the U.S. to take better
advantage of technology and innovative warfighting concepts, improving
our ability to meet our alliance commitments and global
responsibilities. Global posture emphasizes utilizing continental
United States (CONUS)-basing which offers predictability of access and
deployability of those forces anywhere in the world. Blended with our
improved global capabilities of persistent ISR and strike, we will be
able to use the right capabilities at the right time and place. This
advantage will assure our allies as we increase their trust and
confidence and will dissuade potential enemies. There is no set
timetable for implementing our global posture changes. The speed at
which these transformations will occur depends on the bilateral and
multilateral arrangements we make with affected countries. To that end,
representatives of the Departments of Defense and State have been
actively involved in consulting with our friends and allies to
determine the best way ahead.
11. Senator McCain. General Pace, when these forces return to the
United States, what efforts has the Department undertaken to ensure
minimal quality of life impact on the service men and women and their
families?
General Pace. Quality of life for our military forces and their
families was one of the driving factors behind both our posture review
and other initiatives being carried out by the Services, such as the
Army's modularity and unit rotation concepts and the Navy's Fleet
Response Concept. These initiatives will facilitate personnel
management, provide flexibility in scheduling, and offer more stability
at home. Part of the problem stems from our legacy Cold War posture,
which often featured accompanied tours designed in an era of static
deployments. Unlike historic patterns, servicemembers now deploy more
frequently from their forward stations, more like their CONUS-based
counterparts, which has become more of a hardship for families.
Accompanying dependents often find themselves separated both from the
servicemember overseas, and from their loved ones and extended support
networks back in the United States. Additionally, dependents are often
unable to work in the local economy due to host-nation restrictions.
Global posture changes are expected to have a positive effect on our
military forces and families. Rotations of our military forces and
capabilities into forward areas will be balanced by more stability at
home, with fewer overseas moves, the possibility of longer average tour
lengths and less disruption for families. CONUS-based families will
also enjoy benefits such as the potential for home-ownership, expanded
employment, and education opportunities and proximity to extended
families.
12. Senator McCain. General Pace, is our planned base
infrastructure actually ready to receive them?
General Pace. The Global Posture changes will be implemented over
several years as determined by our negotiations with friends and allies
as indicated above. The Integrated Global Posture and Basing Strategy
planning informed the BRAC process, and the needs of our troops and
their families have been accounted for in the infrastructure plans.
Additionally, plans for overseas receiving locations have been under
discussion with host nations to ensure our forces will have the
facilities they need upon arrival.
13. Senator McCain. General Pace, do the Secretary of Defense's
recommendations account for this influx of troops?
General Pace. Yes. The Integrated Global Posture and Basing
Strategy considerations informed the BRAC process throughout planning
and development of the Secretary's recommendations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
INSURGENTS
14. Senator Levin. General Pace, I was surprised by your statements
during today's hearing to the effect that the insurgents are not
ideologically driven. Aren't the jihadists crossing the borders into
Iraq very much ideologically driven--the ideology being a fanatic
extreme belief that the Islamic world must be defended from the
destructive culture of the west through the use of terror tactics
against civilians?
General Pace. I should have chosen my words more precisely. I
should have said the insurgency is, by and large, not ideologically
driven. There are three main motivators for insurgents in Iraq. First,
the vast majority of insurgent violence is driven by former regime
elements who resent losing the power they held in Iraq for 30 years.
They cynically wish to reassert their grip on power over the people of
Iraq over the long term. Second, a much smaller portion of the
insurgency is driven by nationalistic sentiments. This portion is
motivated largely by the distress caused by a foreign military
occupation of one's country and the unemployment and disruption of
services perceived to be caused by that occupation. Finally, the
ideological portion of the insurgency, the smallest albeit the most
spectacularly destructive and headline grabbing, is composed mostly of
foreign religious extremists who have entered Iraq and temporarily
allied themselves to some degree with other groups in order to further
the jihad in hopes of reestablishing a global Islamic caliphate.
LEVIN/COLLINS LETTER
15. Senator Levin. General Pace, at this morning's hearing you
declined to comment on the letter that Senator Collins and I sent to
the President earlier this week as you didn't have the letter before
you and hadn't had time to consider it. I am attaching a copy of that
letter and ask that you provide your comment on it for the record.
General Pace. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
letter. I agree with you on the inadvisability of setting a timetable
for troop withdrawals. I also agree with you on the importance of
staying on schedule for developing the new constitution, referendum,
and elections of the new government. Our commanders report most Iraqis
want us to leave Iraq, but that they also qualify when they want that
to occur. Some want us to leave when the Iraqi security forces are
capable of assuming responsibility for the security of the country,
others when the newly elected government is seated, still others when
the constitution is produced. We must find an appropriate balance
between assuring the Iraqis that they should support the emerging Iraqi
government because we will not allow the old regime to re-emerge or
jihadists to take over, and making it clear that our military will
leave as soon as we can. Any delay to the political schedule increases
risk to the security situation.
INTERROGATION ISSUES
16. Senator Levin. General Pace, when you and I met last week, I
asked you about the failure of the Defense Department to develop an
interrogation policy for Afghanistan, which Vice Admiral Church in his
report called a ``missed opportunity.'' Yet, the Church report, citing
a statement by you [General Pace], describes how in April 2003 the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, determined that
interrogation techniques in use in Afghanistan were ``inconsistent''
with the more narrowly-tailored policy which Secretary Rumsfeld had
just approved that month for Guantanamo. As a result, Chairman Myers
sent up a memo to the Secretary of Defense in May 2003 recommending
that the same interrogation guidelines be issued for Afghanistan as had
been approved for Guantanamo, but Secretary Rumsfeld never responded to
the Chairman's recommendation. In a letter you provided me on Monday of
this week, General Pace, you confirmed these events and said that you
had ``no personal knowledge'' of how the Chairman's recommendation was
staffed within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. How were
interrogation techniques in use in Afghanistan ``inconsistent'' with
those approved by Secretary Rumsfeld for Guantanamo in April 2003?
General Pace. The letter you refer to stated that the Joint Staff
received and staffed a USCENTCOM request for approval of specific
interrogation techniques for Bagram, Afghanistan; that the CJCS
determined the request was inconsistent with guidance provided to
USSOUTHCOM; and that the CJCS forwarded a memorandum to the Secretary
of Defense recommending that the same guidelines issued to USSOUTHCOM
be issued to USCENTCOM. The intent of the CJCS memorandum was to
achieve consistency with respect to strategic interrogations of enemy
combatants. As you state, I have no personal knowledge regarding the
staffing of the request once the OSD staff received it, or any further
information on this matter.
17. Senator Levin. General Pace, were techniques being used that
were more aggressive than those approved for Guantanamo?
General Pace. I understand that a comparison of interrogation
techniques is contained in the reports that document the findings of
Department of Defense investigations into detainee abuse,
interrogations and operations. I do not have personal knowledge upon
which to base a comparison of the detailed interrogation techniques
that were employed. As stated during my office call with you on 21
June, the Chairman, with my agreement, made a conscious decision to
exclude me from direct involvement in substantive discussions and
decisionmaking concerning issues pertaining to detainees, including
interrogations. This was to ensure, that should an issue on detainees
arise, I would be able to provide an unbiased assessment, having been
removed from day-to-day discussions.
18. Senator Levin. General Pace, do you know if any guidance,
either in writing or oral, was provided to Central Command by the
Secretary or anyone in the Office of the Secretary of Defense? If so,
what was that guidance?
General Pace. I am unaware of any guidance promulgated by either
the Secretary or the Office of the Secretary of Defense regarding
interrogation techniques for Afghanistan after receipt of the USCENTCOM
request.
19. Senator Levin. General Pace, if no such guidance was provided,
was the result that interrogation policies that were more aggressive
than those approved for Guantanamo continued to be used in Afghanistan?
General Pace. Please see my response to question 17.
20. Senator Levin. General Pace, as Chairman, how would you handle
the situation like this in which the Secretary has failed to respond to
one of your recommendations?
General Pace. A close relationship between the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense is critical to the
proper functioning of the Department as a whole. If confirmed, I will
maintain frequent and frank communications with the Secretary regarding
all important issues.
IRAQI SECURITY FORCES
21. Senator Levin. General Pace, can you provide unclassified
information as to how many of the roughly 160,000 members of the Iraqi
security forces are capable of taking on the insurgents without
assistance from coalition forces?
General Pace. Only a small number of Iraqi security forces are
taking on the insurgents and terrorists by themselves. Approximately
one-third of their army battalions are capable of planning, executing
and sustaining counterinsurgency operations with coalition support.
Approximately two-thirds of their army battalions and one half of their
police battalions are partially capable of conducting counterinsurgency
operations in conjunction with coalition units. Approximately one half
of their police battalions are forming and not yet capable of
conducting operations. The majority of Iraqi security forces are
engaged in operations against the insurgency with varying degrees of
cooperation and support from coalition forces. Many of these units have
performed superbly in conducting operations against the enemy, and
their operational capability is continuing to improve. I have provided
a classified graphic of this data in my responses to advance questions.
22. Senator Levin. General Pace, can you provide unclassified
information with respect to how many Iraqi Army and police battalions
are capable of taking on the insurgents without assistance from
coalition forces; how many with support of coalition forces; and how
many are not capable of taking on the insurgents?
General Pace. Please see my consolidated response at question #21.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Dayton
COUGAR VEHICLES
23. Senator Dayton. General Pace, a recent New York Times article
states that the Marine Corps recently ``settled on the Cougar as a
superior vehicle'' (to the HMMWV), providing ``more than twice'' the
protection from an explosive device. The article also reported that in
2002, then-Assistant Army Secretary Claude M. Bolton, Jr. wrote to
Congress that the decision by the Army to purchase HMMWVs rather than
other better armored and more expensive vehicles ``is based on budget
priorities.'' Why did the Army and, initially the Marine Corps, choose
to buy new HMMWVs, which reportedly provided inferior protection for
its occupants, rather than as Congress to fund the purchases of more
expensive and better protected vehicles?
General Pace. The Army and Marine Corps have not selected vehicles
with ``inferior protection'' rather than ask Congress to fund purchases
of more expensive vehicles. The Army and Marine Corps selected the Up-
Armored High Mobility Multiple Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (UAH) because of
its mobility, ability to be reconfigured for different uses (cargo/
troop transport, weapons carrier, ambulance, and convoy escort),
durability, and protection (perimeter, roof and underbody armor). The
Army began purchasing the UAH in mid-2003 and is operating over 8,000
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today we are producing 550 vehicles per month
and have a total requirement of over 10,000.
The Cougar, unlike the UAB, is a unique, single-purpose Explosive
Ordnance Disposal (EOD) response vehicle that is used by engineer units
for their unique mission. Procurement of the Cougar began in April
2004.
24. Senator Dayton. General Pace, is the article correct that when
the Marine Corps completed its initial order of Cougar vehicles in
April 2004, it ``got only enough money from the Iraq war fund to buy 15
of the 27 Cougars it wanted?'' If so, why was the Senate Armed Services
Committee being assured that sufficient funds had been appropriated for
all necessary armoring and up-armoring acquisitions?
General Pace. The article is incorrect. The Marine Corps requested
and received full funding for 12 Cougars from the fiscal year 2005
supplemental. An additional 15 Cougars were funded internally by Marine
Corps procurement funds.
25. Senator Dayton. General Pace, is there anything presently
needed by any branch, whether additional funds, acquisition authority,
approval for expedited contract procedures, or any other, in order to
purchase and acquire the protective vehicles and equipment of the
highest quality?
General Pace. I am not aware of any additional funding, authority
or expedited contract procedures required to purchase protective
vehicles or equipment.
I very much appreciate the funding support of Congress as we
prosecute the war on terrorism.
______
[The nomination reference of Gen. Peter Pace, USMC,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 25, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment as Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and appointment in the United States Marine Corps
to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and
responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., sections 601 and 152:
To be General
Gen. Peter Pace, 0000.
______
[The biographical sketch of Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
resume of career service of gen. peter pace, usmc
Date of rank: November 1, 2000.
Date of birth: November 5, 1945.
Date commissioned: June 7, 1967.
MRD: November 1, 2007.
Education/qualifications:
U.S. Naval Academy, BS, 1967.
George Washington University, MS, 1972.
The Basic School, 1968.
Infantry Officers' Advanced Course, 1972.
Marine Corps Command and Staff College, 1980.
National War College, 1986.
Capstone, 1992.
Harvard Program for Senior Executives in National and International
Security, 1993.
Harvard Executive Program, 1999.
Infantry Officer.
Joint Specialty Officer.
Language(s): None.
Commands:
Commander, U. S. Marine Corps Forces Atlantic (LtGen: Nov. 97-Aug.
00).
President, Marine Corps University (BGen: June 92-June 93).
Assistant Division Commander, 2d Marine Division (Col/BGen: Feb.
92-June 92).
Commanding Officer, Marine Barracks, Washington, DC (LtCol/Col:
July 88-July 91).
Commanding Officer, 2d Battalion, 1st Marines, 1st Marine Division
(LtCol: May 83-June 85).
Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Recruiting Station Buffalo, NY
(Maj/LtCol: June 80-May 83).
Joint Assignments;
Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command (Gen: Sep. 00-Sep. 01).
Director of Operations, J-3, Joint Staff (LtGen: Aug. 96-0ct. 97).
Deputy Commander, Joint Task Force Somalia (BGen: Oct. 93-Jan. 94).
Deputy Commander, U.S. Forces Japan (BGen: July 93-June 94).
Chief, Operations Division; Executive Officer, C/J-3, UNC/CFC/USFK
(LtCol: June 86-June 88).
Service Staff Assignments:
Chief of Staff, 2d Marine Division (Col: July 91-Feb. 92).
______
[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:
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
3. Date of nomination:
25 April 2005.
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, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Lynne Holden.
7. Names and ages of children:
Peter, 28; Tiffany, 26.
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.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Marine Corps--Law Enforcement Foundation.
Marine Corps Association.
Military Officers Assocation of America.
Veterans of Foreign Wars.
American Legion.
Marine Corps League.
Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels.
Naval Academy Alumni Association.
National War College Alumni Association.
11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals 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
thos 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.
Peter Pace.
This 14th day of June 2005.
[The nomination of Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, was reported to
the Senate by Chairman Warner on July 13, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 15, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to ADM Edmund P.
Giambastiani, Jr., USN, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing
with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. You previously have answered the committee's policy
questions on the reforms brought about by the Goldwater-Nichols Act in
connection with your nomination to be Commander, U.S. Joint Forces
Command.
Has your view of the importance, implementation, and practice of
these reforms changed since you testified before the committee at your
most recent confirmation hearing on July 26, 2002?
Answer. No. The Goldwater-Nichols Act was one of the two most
transformational events in the Department during my military career,
the other being the creation of the All-Volunteer Force. Overall, the
Goldwater-Nichols reforms have clearly strengthened the warfighting and
operational capabilities of our combatant commands and our Nation. The
importance of these reforms has not diminished with time.
Question. Do you foresee the need for modifications of Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment? If so, what areas do you
believe it might be appropriate to address in these modifications?
Answer. While we have made great progress in the joint arena since
the enactment of Goldwater-Nichols, the current world environment and
the challenges we face today are radically different than those of 20
years ago. We therefore need to build on the successes of Goldwater-
Nichols. One area I believe has ample room for improvement is Joint
Command and Control. I feel we may need a single agency/activity
focused on joint acquisition and programming that answers to the
combatant commanders' joint requirements and has specific Joint
authority to resource these developments. I have provided this input to
the Center for Strategic and International Studies ``Beyond Goldwater-
Nichols Project'' as a basis for building on the Goldwater-Nichols
legacy.
DUTIES
Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in
the duties and functions of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff as set forth in section 154 of title 10, United States Code, and
in regulations of the Department of Defense pertaining to functions of
the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. None at this time.
Question. Based on your experience as Commander, U.S. Joint Forces
Command, and Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, what
recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in chapter 6 of title
10, United States Code, as it pertains to the powers and duties of
combatant commanders generally, and specifically regarding section 167a
and the acquisition authority of U.S. Joint Forces Command?
Answer. The section you mention deals specifically with the
congressionally-granted Limited Acquisition Authority (LAA). I support
any legislation that allows us to more quickly provide the combatant
commanders with needed capabilities--especially in areas as important
as Joint Command and Control, Communications and Intelligence. This
statute is due to expire in fiscal year 2006. I urge Congress to extend
this authority and consider tying appropriate resources to the
authority in order to make it fully effective.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. 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 ceases. These duties include serving as the principal
military adviser to the Secretary of Defense, the National Security
Council, and the President.
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.
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
has been delegated full power and authority to act for the Secretary of
Defense on any matters upon 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 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
prescribed by the Chairman with the approval of the Secretary of
Defense. When there is a vacancy in the office of Chairman, or during
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. If confirmed, I look
forward to building a close and effective working relationship with the
next Chairman.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, and current Department of
Defense (DOD) directives establish the Under Secretaries of Defense as
the principal staff assistants and advisers to the Secretary regarding
matters related to their functional areas. Within their areas, Under
Secretaries exercise policy and oversight functions. They may issue
instructions and directive type memoranda that implement policy
approved by the Secretary. These instructions and directives are
applicable to all DOD components. In carrying out their
responsibilities, and when directed by the President and Secretary of
Defense, communications from the Under Secretaries to commanders of the
unified and specified commands 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 Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, Intelligence Oversight, and
for Networks & Information Integration, all Assistant Secretaries of
Defense are subordinate to one of the Under Secretaries of Defense. In
carrying out their responsibilities, and when directed by the President
and Secretary of Defense, communications from the Under Secretaries to
commanders of the unified and specified commands are transmitted
through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If confirmed, I will
work closely with the Assistant Secretaries in a manner similar to that
described above for the Under Secretaries.
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.
Of particular interest is that since 2003, the Under Secretary of
the Air Force acts as the Executive Agent for Space Program
procurement, which is especially important to the Vice Chairman in the
role as Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. Although
this authority temporarily resides with the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition while awaiting confirmation of a new Under Secretary of
the Air Force, if confirmed, I recognize the importance of working
closely with this senior official on vitally important space programs.
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.
However, this does not diminish their importance with respect to Title
10 responsibilities, and among other things, they serve two significant
roles. First and foremost, they are responsible for the organization,
training, and equipping of their respective Services. Without the full
support and cooperation of the Service Chiefs, no combatant commander
can be ensured of the preparedness of his assigned forces for missions
directed by the Secretary of Defense and the President.
Second, as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chiefs are
advisers to the Chairman and the Secretary of Defense as the senior
uniformed leaders of their respective Services. In this function, they
play a critically important role in shaping military advice and
transforming our joint capabilities. If confirmed, I will work closely
with the Service Chiefs and their Vice Chiefs to fulfill warfighting
and operational requirements.
Question. The combatant commanders.
Answer. The combatant commanders fight our wars and conduct
military operations around the world. 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 link between the combatant commanders
and other elements of the Department of Defense, and as directed by the
President, may serve as the means of communication between the
combatant commanders and the President or Secretary of Defense. When
the Vice Chairman is performing the Chairman's duties in the latter's
absence, he relates to the combatant commanders as if he were the
Chairman.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that you
would face if confirmed as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. I see four overarching challenges. First, we must
successfully fight the global war on terrorism. A concerted effort
within this first challenge needs to be focused on harnessing our
Nation's vast capabilities to combat Improvised Explosive Devices
(IEDs). These ``weapons of mass precision'' are not only claiming the
lives of our young men and women in current operations, but will likely
be employed against our forces and our partners in the years to come.
Second, we must continue transforming our joint force for the future
while deeply engaged in an ongoing global war on terrorism campaign and
in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Third, we need to
work to adapt and further align requirements and acquisition processes
for the 21st century. Finally, we need to work to institutionalize a
joint organize, train, and equip role in the Department of Defense.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the global war on
terror is coherently prosecuted and is appropriately resourced. I will
also assist the Chairman in working with the Secretary of Defense, the
Service Chiefs, and the combatant commanders to ensure we use concept
development, experimentation and lessons learned from ongoing
operations to transform our joint capabilities. Along these lines, I
will work to improve the linkage between our requirements process and
our acquisitions processes. Finally, I will work with the Services,
Congress, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense to ensure all
available resources are devoted towards combating IEDs. Our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines deserve nothing less.
TRANSFORMATION
Question. In your view, what progress have OSD, the Joint Staff,
and U.S. Joint Forces Command made in transforming the Armed Forces?
Answer. Working together, the DOD has made significant progress in
transforming how we fight and operate, how we work with partners and
how we conduct the business side of national defense. I will speak to
the progress in military transformation that I have the most experience
with as Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command.
First of all, we have established the right authorities and
resources to empower the agents of joint transformation within the
Department of Defense. The President's Unified Command Plans of 2002
and 2004, the Transformation Planning Guidance and other direction by
the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense have provided Joint
Forces Command with the authorities necessary to help lead the U.S.
military transformation endeavor. In addition, Congress has provided
significant new resources that have allowed Joint Forces Command to
execute these authorities rapidly and effectively.
In several key areas, significant transformation progress has been
made.
We have significantly expanded the scope of joint
concept development and experimentation, working with the
Services, combatant commanders, and allies. Every major DOD
wargame since May 2003 has been run as a Joint game cosponsored
by a Service and Joint Forces Command, working on a common set
of issues within a common joint context. This has resulted in
the further development of the ``common joint context'' which
further informs all Joint and Service concept development work.
This is the first key step in producing capabilities that are
``born joint,'' and as resulted in four Joint Operating
Concepts: Major Combat Operations, Homeland Defense, Strategic
Deterrence, and Stability Operations.
We have created a robust, dynamic, and real-time
lessons learned capability which provides immediate support for
the combatant commanders and insights into capability gaps
which need immediate action. Based on our lessons learned work
to date, we have submitted a number of packages of change
recommendations to immediately address capability shortfalls.
We have focused joint training on preparing the Joint
Task Force Commander and his staff to execute real world joint
operations, with a special emphasis on mission rehearsal
exercises for commanders preparing for command in Operations
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Additionally, we are
assisting in the training of the majority of Joint Task Forces
around the world and conduct staff assist visits to help
current joint commanders accomplish their missions. In this
effort, the establishment of the Joint National Training
Capability (JNTC) has been a significant milestone in training
transformation which will provide increased training fidelity,
efficiency and ubiquity with reduced overall training cost. A
perfect example of this is the recently completed combined
exercise called Joint Red Flag/Roving Sands 2005. This exercise
was comparable in size and scope to Millennium Challenge 2002.
Yet what took 2 years of planning and approximately $250
million for Millennium Challenge 2002 was done in 1 year for
about $25 million for Joint Red Flag/Roving Sands 2005. The
JNTC program is a great example of leveraging the Services
existing investments in training along commercial technology to
the benefit of the joint operator.
We have increased the training of new flag and general
officers in an expanded Capstone Joint Operations Module (JOM).
In addition we have created new Joint Task Force Headquarters
training courses for 2- and 3-star officers and senior enlisted
leaders.
We have worked to significantly improve our processes
to source the capability requirements of the combatant
commanders. Working closely with the combatant commanders and
the Joint Staff to execute Joint Forces Command's Primary Joint
Force Provider Mission, we are developing better tools to track
worldwide force availability, gaining better insight into
Reserve component readiness, mitigating stress on the force
while meeting the needs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
Freedom and experimenting with new methods of planning and
executing Joint Deployments for the future.
We have continued to work on joint interoperability,
with a particular focus on Joint Command and Control. Using our
Joint Battle Management Command and Control authorities as
directed by Deputy Secretary of Defense, we have worked with
the Services and combatant commands to improve all aspects of
Joint Command and Control, issued a detailed Roadmap, and are
executing our first program--the Deployable Joint Command and
Control. We also created the Joint Systems Integration Command
(JSIC).
We have drastically increased our work with allies,
most visibly demonstrated by the growth in Foreign Liaison
Officers assigned to Joint Forces Command. Just 2 years ago, we
had 11 Foreign Liaison Officers from 5 countries, and now there
are 55 officers from 33 countries.
In all of our efforts at joint transformation, we are motivated by
the manifest need to define and execute a ``Joint Organize, Train, and
Equip'' mission. At Joint Forces Command, we have focused this mission
on organizing, training and equipping the Joint Task Force Headquarters
to meet the operational needs of the regional combatant commanders.
This unifying theme to our many efforts has paid significant dividends
in joint transformation.
Question. Do you believe the Joint Staff should play a larger role
in transformation? If so, in what ways?
Answer. The Joint Staff plays an important role is assisting the
Chairman in formulating advice on transformation.
Question. What progress has been made in devising performance
metrics for joint experimentation and transformation?
Answer. Transformation is a process--not an end-state. If we had a
defined and static end-state, performance ``metrics'' would be an
appropriate term to describe a means to measure our progress toward
that end-state. Because our vision of how we want to operate in the
future is constantly evolving as we learn more through experimentation,
exercises and operations, we can measure only our relative performance
against previous standards of collaboration and cultural adaptation.
Therefore we apply what analysts call measures of performance.
In our quest to move from coordinated operations among Service
forces to coherently integrated and interdependent operations among
multinational Service and interagency forces, the measures of
performance we've derived naturally focus on the ability to achieve
collaboration and a unified effort in the planning, execution, and
assessment of operations. We use experimentation to accelerate and
advance the process of transformation. We create a vision of how we
want to operate, derive concepts to achieve that vision, refine those
concepts (and the vision) through experimentation and lessons derived
from real-world operations and exercises, link the capabilities
described in the concepts to the research, development, test and
evaluation process, develop and acquire the capabilities. Fundamental
to this transformation effort is adapting the culture of all the
participants to support the vision. In all these measures of increasing
collaboration and adapting cultures, we have advanced considerably in
the last 3 years, though we still have much work to do.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your future goals regarding
transformation in the future?
Answer. The first--and overriding--goal is to continue transforming
our Armed Forces while the Nation is at war. I believe the best time to
undertake transformation is when you are engaged in challenging
operations.
Along these lines, my primary goal will be to ensure that the
lessons we learn in operations, experiments and concept development
work are translated into rational resource and requirement decisions.
Three key joint processes need to be aligned for this to happen:
The Joint Concept Development and Experimentation
process
The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development
System
The Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
System
When we align these processes and make them as agile and responsive
as possible, we will be able to translate lessons learned and operating
concepts into an acquisition strategy, which is a key priority of the
Department of Defense.
JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT
Question. Statutory standards for joint officer management and
joint professional military education have increasingly been the
subject of administration proposals for change that would afford
greater latitude to the Joint Staff and the Services in the management
of officers. Pursuant to section 531 of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, the Secretary of
Defense is required to develop a strategic plan for joint officer
management and joint professional military education that would link
future requirements for active and Reserve military personnel who are
trained and educated in joint matters to the resources required to
develop those officers in terms of manpower, formal education,
practical experience, and other requirements.
What do you consider to be the primary strengths and weaknesses of
the current requirements for joint professional military education with
respect to qualification as a joint specialty officer?
Answer. While the intent of the JOM portion of the Goldwater-
Nichols Act remains valid, the process for certifying Joint Specialty
Officers (JSOs) should reflect the changes in the way our military
conducts joint operations. The strength of the current system is that
it produces officers with a solid level of education, training, and
joint staff experience to be certified as joint specialty experts.
However, there are two main areas that we need to improve: providing
credit for all relevant joint operational experience--especially in
operational Joint Task Force headquarters--and developing a system to
track this cumulative experience across the officer corps.
Question. What is your assessment of the appropriate balance
between education and experience in achieving qualification as a joint
specialty officer?
Answer. In my opinion, there are three components to developing a
Joint Specialty Officer: education, training, and experience. While the
education and training components are reasonably well developed, we
currently do not provide the appropriate joint credit for officers
serving on operational Joint Task Force Headquarters. This real-world
joint operational experience--the most valuable kind of joint
experience in my view--reinforces education and training with practical
application of learned skills, thus more fully preparing officers to
lead and manage in the joint environment.
Question. What is your personal view of the operational value and
importance, in terms of performance, of officers achieving
qualification as joint specialty officers?
Answer. In my view, there are two kinds of joint experience--joint
staff experience and joint operational experience. Obviously both of
these types of experience are relevant to qualification as joint
specialty officers, but I believe nothing can replace joint operational
experience. I think we need to provide joint credit for operational
joint experience and develop a system to track officers with this type
of experience. The value of qualified joint specialty officers has been
further reinforced for me while serving as Commander, Joint Forces
Command and Supreme Allied Commander, Transformation.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend in the
development, education, management, assignment, and qualifying
processes for officers in a transformed and fully joint U.S. military?
Answer. We must focus on producing leaders who are fully qualified,
inherently joint officers, critical thinkers, and most importantly,
skilled war fighters and operators. We have made significant process in
this area, especially with our senior leaders. We have expanded the
Capstone training program for our new flag/general officers and we
created Pinnacle and Keystone to train our senior flag/general officers
and enlisted personnel on how to command and operate within an
operational Joint Task Force. Next step is to create a system to track
operational joint experience and more easily provide joint duty credit
for those officers who serve on an operational Joint Task Force.
TRAINING OF SENIOR LEADERS IN JOINT OPERATIONS
Question. U.S. Joint Forces Command has taken several initiatives
to train senior leaders how to operate in joint environments. Capstone
and Pinnacle are intensive courses that provide general and flag
officers with an understanding of what is expected of them as joint
task force commanders and what it takes to make a joint task force work
effectively. Keystone provides senior enlisted leaders with an
understanding of their role in joint operations.
How has Capstone changed since its inception, and what currently
are its principal strengths and weaknesses?
Answer. As Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command, I am only
responsible for the JOM portion of the Capstone, Pinnacle, and Keystone
programs. As an integral part of each of these courses, Joint Forces
Command's Joint Warfighting Center receives extensive feedback from
each attendee and uses that to improve the content of each course.
Also, each and every program course is adjusted to reflect 3 items: the
current best practices in the field, recent joint lessons learned
(observed), and emerging joint concepts. Overall, I am very satisfied
with these three programs in training our senior leaders for joint
operations.
When I attended Capstone just over a decade ago, the U.S. Joint
Forces Command portion was primarily an introductory program for new
flag and general officers to demonstrate service-specific capabilities,
focusing primarily on weapons systems. It lasted about 4 hours. Today,
the Joint Warfighting Center hosts a 4-day Joint Operations Module as
part of the Capstone program. We have completely changed the focus to
how to operate successfully in a Joint Task Force operating in an
Allied, coalition and interagency environment. The emphasis is now on
how to command and control a joint task force headquarters in the 21st
century.
I believe the Joint Operations Module portion of Capstone has four
main strengths. First is the senior mentor program headed by Gary Luck,
General U.S. Army (retired), whom I consider a ``national treasure.''
He maintains a cadre of hand-picked former 3- and 4-star officers and
Ambassadors who provide exceptional mentorship to the Capstone fellows
in small group settings. Second, our Joint Warfighting Center brings
current, practical knowledge of command and control issues at the Joint
Task Force (JTF) and Functional Component level, and links in Video
Teleconferences with current JTF commanders serving in operational
commands. These JTF commanders always lead a frank and open discussion
with the fellows that is consistently rated as one of the most helpful
portions of Capstone. Third, the Joint Warfighting Center does an
excellent job of incorporating the results of the most current `lessons
learned' process into the Joint Operations Module. Finally, the
personal relationships developed between the fellows themselves have
consistently proven their utility during joint operations.
Capstone has been improved by increasing the attendance from other
government agencies. Today's joint operations are increasingly
conducted in an interagency and multinational environment, and
additional interaction with individuals with these backgrounds is
required.
Question. How would you assess the training provided at Pinnacle,
and what recommendations for improving this course would you offer?
Answer. As with Capstone, U.S. Joint Forces Command is responsible
for the Joint Operations Module portion of Pinnacle. So far, we have
hosted two Joint Operations Modules at Joint Forces Command and in both
courses, I spent 3\1/2\ of the 4 days of the Joint Operations Module
with the participants. Based on my personal experience, Pinnacle is
fulfilling its purpose. We knew we were missing something in preparing
our flag and general officers to command a joint task force
headquarters and Pinnacle has filled that gap.
Finally, and in order to continue to improve Pinnacle, we need to
establish a comprehensive assessment of the program centered on
feedback from former graduates approximately 1 year after they
completed the training--and incorporate this feedback into the
curriculum.
Question. In your view, are the Services effectively utilizing the
senior enlisted personnel who attend the Keystone course, and what
improvements to this course, if any, are needed?
Answer. My Command Senior Enlisted Leader, CSM Mark Ripka, U.S.
Army, has been very involved with the design, implementation and
conduct of the Keystone program. His initial assessment of the
placement of Keystone graduates indicates the Services are utilizing
the graduates effectively. The Keystone program was designed to mirror
Capstone and we have held true to that goal. The senior enlisted
personnel that attend Keystone receive almost the identical curriculum
as their Capstone counterparts. Overall, I am satisfied with the
progress of Keystone. The only issue outstanding is to ensure that
National Defense University is fully funded for the entire 10-day
Keystone program.
JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL
Question. If confirmed as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, you would be the chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council (JROC). The Joint Requirements Oversight Council has the
responsibility to validate Service requirements. As the Services
transformation initiatives have matured, some have been approved for
system development and demonstration (SDD) even though it appears that
some programs lacked the technical maturity the programs require to
transition into SDD.
How would you assess the effectiveness of the JROC in the DOD
acquisition process?
Answer. I believe the JROC's participation in the Defense
Department acquisition process has improved, particularly as a result
of the evolving changes in the JROC and acquisition processes over the
past few years. In my view, however, more can be done to improve the
alignment and interaction between the requirements generation and
acquisition process. We can also work to make our acquisition processes
more agile and responsive to emerging requirements from the combatant
commanders.
Question. What is your vision for the role and priorities of the
JROC?
Answer. The JROC plays an important role in helping ensure that
major programs are ``born joint.'' Since its inception, the JROC has
driven ``jointness'' into military requirements generation, defense
acquisition programs, and the Chairman's programmatic advice and
recommendations. In 2000, the Chairman initiated efforts to enhance
JROC influence in requirements integration through development of joint
operational concepts, integrating joint experimentation efforts, and
adding a focus on future joint warfighting requirements--while still
addressing combatant commander's current priorities. A lot has been
accomplished; but much more needs to be done. There needs to be a
better linkage between the requirements generation and the acquisition
processes. We need to work hard to turn our joint operating concepts
into an acquisition strategy. We need to be able to respond in an agile
fashion to emerging requirements from our combatant commanders. If
confirmed, I look forward to further examination of how this process
can be improved, and to ensuring all statuary and reporting
requirements relating to the JROC are met.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend in the
membership of the JROC?
Answer. I would like to reserve judgment on specific changes
pending confirmation and an opportunity to further review the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council organization, process, and function.
Question. Do you believe the current JROC process has been able to
adjust satisfactorily to a capabilities-based, vice threat-based,
approach in determining requirements?
Answer. The JROC has taken several steps to make the JROC process
focused on delivering capabilities that are strategy driven and ``born-
joint.'' On the positive side, I can tell you from personal experience
that the results of joint experimentation and joint lessons learned are
beginning to influence our concepts of operations and our acquisitions,
especially in the joint command and control arena. However, we need to
improve the link between the Joint Capabilities and Integration
Development System (JCIDS) and the Joint Concept Development and
Experimentation process. Aligning and integrated these processes will
allow our collaboratively derived, capabilities-based joint operating
concepts to drive our acquisition strategy. I also believe we need to
do even more work to ensure the interoperability of systems in our
legacy force is enhanced.
Question. Do you believe that quantity of items required is
appropriately addressed in the JROC process, so that the capability
delivered by the item is present in appropriate numbers?
Answer. I do not know, but if confirmed, I will study this issue
and respond.
joint forces command limited acquisition authority
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004 provided the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) commander with the
authority to develop and acquire equipment for battle management
command, control, communications, and intelligence and any other
equipment that JFCOM determines necessary for facilitating the use of
joint forces in military operations or enhancing the interoperability
of equipment used by the various components of joint forces. The
authority limits spending to $10 million for research and development
and $50 million for procurement, and, unless renewed, will expire on
September 30, 2006.
What is your assessment of the efficacy of this limited acquisition
authority for JFCOM?
Answer. LAA has proven to be a useful and flexible tool for U.S.
Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) in support of other combatant commands.
Based on warfighting shortfalls validated by combatant commanders, it
has allowed us to field mature technologies quickly. This equipment,
available in industry today, directly improves areas such as Joint
Battle Management Command and Control, Intelligence, Communications,
operations of joint forces, and the interoperability of joint force
components. LAA allows us to get the new or improved capability to the
warfighters in the regional combatant commands more rapidly than the
normal DOD acquisition process.
Since 2004 USJFCOM's implementation of LAA in support of combatant
commands has been used to fund/provide several improvements to the
joint warfighter:
The Joint Precision Air Drop System 2000 pound
capability allows precision delivery of logistic support to
forces in remote operating areas or behind enemy lines.
Expected delivery--July 2005.
The Change Detection Work Station (CDWS) is a
capability to map and detect Improvised Explosive Devices along
troop/convoy routes. CDWS deployed to U.S. Central Command in
January 2005.
The Joint Task Force Commander Executive Command and
Control Capability (JTF CDR EC2) is an information technology
solution that provides connectivity to a Commander while
remotely located from the headquarters element. Four of these
systems were delivered to CENTCOM/EUCOM Combined Joint Task
Forces (CJTF) in fiscal year 2004 and a fifth is under
development for delivery to CJTF-76 later this year.
Joint Translator/Forwarder/Joint Blue Force Tracker/
Rapid Attack Info Dissemination Execution Relay--Joint
Translator Forward is a universal translator/data forwarder for
disparate data sources/data links; Joint Blue Force Situational
Awareness provides blue force system integration; Rapid Attack
Info Dissemination Execution Relay provides Time Sensitive
Target attack data/authorization to multiple aircraft en route
targets. This capability is currently in development under
Limited Acquisition Authority for fielding in fiscal year 2005
and fiscal year 2006.
USJFCOM is also evaluating five additional capabilities for
fielding under Limited Acquisition Authority.
Joint Extended Collaborative Environment--would expand
the ability of units and commanders to plan and remain
connected en route to the mission area
Command and Control On The Move--access to all
headquarters Communications, Intelligence & Command and Control
systems while on the move.
Simultaneous, two-way voice translation between
American English and Arabic dialects.
Data Mining and Digital Translation Technology to
improve the mission capability of intelligence collection from
open source information.
Question. Do you believe this authority should be extended beyond
September 30, 2006? If so, what changes, if any, would you recommend to
improve the authority?
Answer. Yes. I believe that extension of LAA beyond fiscal year
2006 will continue to provide needed capabilities to the regional
combatant commanders; especially in command and control functions,
communications, intelligence, operations, and interoperability. I
strongly urge Congress to extend the authority.
While Limited Acquisition Authority projects are bringing some
much-needed improvements to the joint warfighter, the LAA is not
without significant challenges. Finding adequate resources to support
LAA projects is often more challenging than defining, developing or
fielding the capability. While these authorities have provided
opportunities to partner with Services and Defense Agencies to field
these tools, developing funding agreements takes time, slowing the
development and delivery of capabilities to the troops--the very
problem that LAA was designed to address.
The ability to sustain/maintain these projects during transition to
programs of record or replacement also continues to present challenges.
If the Limited Acquisition Authority were to expire as scheduled on 30
September 2006, we would lose an excellent--and rapidly improving--
method to provide emerging capabilities to our combatant commanders
with no replacement program on the horizon.
Limited Acquisition Authority can be improved by adding
appropriated funding commensurate to the authority and by allowing the
use of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds for sustainment of LAA-
acquired capabilities until transition to an existing program of
record, absorption of the sustainment into the recipient's O&M budget,
or termination of the requirement for each specific capability.
Question. Do you believe similar acquisition authority should be
extended to other combatant commands, and, if so, which commands and
why?
Answer. I support any process or authority that will accelerate
getting warfighting capabilities into the hands of the joint
warfighter. Limited Acquisition Authority was delegated to USJFCOM as a
test case to determine if DOD could, for specific joint requirements,
acquire capabilities outside the normal acquisition process. In my
opinion, this experiment has been a success. Our experience has shown
that the current LAA statute, while narrowly defined, should be
extended beyond fiscal year 2006 and should also be resourced to both
deliver a capability and sustain it once in place.
I would like to reserve judgment on extension of this authority to
other combatant commands pending consultation with the combatant
commanders and pending further experience from Joint Forces Command
with Limited Acquisition Authority.
DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
Question. The Department's Science and Technology (S&T) programs
are designed to support defense transformation goals and objectives.
These programs should ensure that warfighters of today and tomorrow
have superior and affordable technology to support their missions and
to give them revolutionary war-winning capabilities.
Do you believe there is an adequate investment in innovative
defense science to develop the capabilities the Department will need in
2020?
Answer. I believe so. In my capacity as Commander, U.S. Joint
Forces Command, I have been satisfied with the investment resources at
my disposal to find innovative solutions to Joint problems. I cannot
speak to the Department of Defense's investment resources, though I
expect to be involved in this issue should I be confirmed as Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Question. Do you believe the Department's investment strategy for
science and technology is correctly balanced between near-term and
long-term needs?
Answer. In my capacity as Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command, I
have not been involved in the department's overall investment strategy
for science and technology. I would like to Reserve judgment until I
have time to study this issue.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
Question. The DOD efforts to quickly transition technologies to the
warfighter have yielded important results in the last few years.
Challenges remain to institutionalizing the transition of new
technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons systems
and platforms.
What are your views on the success of the Department's technology
transition programs in spiraling emerging technologies into use to
confront evolving threats and to meet warfighter needs?
Answer. The Technology Transition Initiative, Quick Reaction Fund,
and Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations have each had limited
success. Each has provided new technology to the warfighter but
generally only those programs with technologies that have Service buy-
in and Service priority have transitioned into programs of record. We
need to do a better job identifying the importance of technologies that
contribute to the Joint Warfighter and determining how these can be
better transitioned into programs of record. However on a limited
basis, we have used Chairman's Initiative Funds (CIF) to satisfy near-
term technology insertions. We have also used LAA which was delegated
to Joint Forces Command as an experiment to determine if DOD could, for
specific, joint requirements, acquire capabilities outside the normal
acquisition process. In my opinion, this experiment has been a success.
Question. What more can be done to transition critical technologies
quickly to warfighters?
Answer. At the most general level, the acquisition system needs to
be more responsive to emerging combatant commanders' requirements. Some
newly established programs are beginning to show promise in alleviating
this problem--such as the Chairman's Initiative Fund, the Joint Rapid
Acquisition Cell, and Limited Acquisition Authority--but there is ample
room for improvement.
One possibility is to consider increasing the CIF resources.
Additionally, my experience with LAA has taught me to believe that the
current LAA statute, while narrowly defined, should be extended beyond
fiscal year 2006 and should also be expanded to include resources to
both deliver capability and sustain it once in place.
Further, the recently created Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell should
be given the necessary set of waivers and exemptions from regulations
that impede responsive acquisition. Most importantly, rapid acquisition
processes need to be endorsed and put on a firm financial basis similar
to Limited Acquisition Authority. Urgent requirements will be met much
faster if they can be resourced without taking funds from existing
programs. Both of these processes would meet the most urgent
requirements of the joint warfighter while guaranteeing the most
efficient use of public funds.
END STRENGTH OF ACTIVE DUTY FORCES
Question. In light of the manpower demands of Operations Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, what level of Active-Duty personnel (by
Service) do you believe is required for current and anticipated
missions?
Answer. I have not conducted an analysis of force levels (by
Service). However, based on the request-for-forces (RFF) from the
regional combatant commanders sourced through U.S. Joint Forces
Command, we have sufficient forces to meet current and anticipated
missions with varying degrees of risk.
Question. How do you assess the progress made to date by the
services in finding ways to reduce the numbers of military personnel
performing support functions that can better be performed by civilian
employees or contractors?
Answer. The Services and defense agencies continue to make good
progress in identifying functions requiring military skills, and those
jobs that might be performed by civilian defense employees or defense
contractors. Approximately 45,000 military-to-civilian conversions are
planned. These conversions will free up military billets and help to
reduce stress on the force.
Question. What manpower savings can be achieved through reductions
in overseas presence, application of technology, and changes in roles
and missions?
Answer. I believe the department will realize significant manpower
and fiscal savings as it continues to reduce overseas troop presence
and transforms to a Total Force that is focused on refined missions and
core competencies. These issues will be refined with the results of the
Quadrennial Defense Review, the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission, and further progress in Overseas Basing Initiatives. Since
these reviews are still progressing, I do not have any projections on
manpower savings at this point in time.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Question. The ability of the Armed Forces to recruit highly
qualified young men and women and to retain experienced, highly
motivated commissioned and non-commissioned officers is influenced by
many factors, and is critical to the success of the All Volunteer
Force. While retention in all the services has remained strong,
recruiting data in 2005 have shown increasing difficulty for the Army,
Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Marine Corps, Marine Corps Reserve,
and Naval Reserve in meeting monthly recruiting goals.
What do you consider to be the most important elements of
successful recruiting?
Answer. As a former Navy recruiter, I think the following elements
are common to any successful recruiting program: tapping the reservoir
of patriotism by providing the opportunity to serve the Nation;
offering the chance to serve in a proud and respected profession;
possessing a properly resourced cadre of highly motivated and trained
recruiters; having complete access to the recruiting pool; offering a
competitive compensation and benefits package; and providing the
opportunity to achieve skills, education, and experience.
Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have to improve
recruiting for the ground forces?
Answer. Successful recruiting is a result of finding the proper mix
of successful recruiting elements. The Army and Marine Corps have good
recruiting programs and dedicated recruiters performing the mission.
Each of the ground force components is increasing the number of
recruiters in the field; they have and are further enhancing their
incentive bonuses for new recruits; they have increased their
advertising budget; and, they have focused their marketing strategy not
only on potential recruits but also on the influencers (parents,
teachers, etc.) who play an important role in any decision to pursue a
military career. These new initiatives and incentives plus increases in
the number of recruiters and advertising budget will bring improved
results.
Question. What is your assessment of the value of so called ``blue
to green'' recruiting programs which aim to facilitate transfer of
sailors and airmen to the ground forces?
Answer. The ``Blue to Green'' program is a win/win situation. As
the Navy and Air Force continue their rightsizing programs, ``blue to
green'' not only offers the Army qualified and experienced
professionals, it provides those trained and experienced servicemembers
an opportunity to continue their careers. The real value of programs
like this is that we retain trained professionals, avoiding the cost of
recruiting, attrition and training their reliefs. This program,
although the numbers are small, is a force multiplier.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important components
in the success of all the services in retaining experienced junior
officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers?
Answer. Our military has been successful because of its tradition
of service, its strong leadership at all levels and its support by the
Nation. There is also an old saying in the military that ``you recruit
an individual, but you retain a family.'' I find this to be true.
Therefore, the most important components of retaining our professional
force are: (1) Feeling that the Nation values your service and your
family's sacrifice, (2) Strong leadership and mentorship, (3) Personal/
professional development opportunities, (4) Opportunities to lead and
grow at every level throughout their careers, and (5) Competitive
compensation, benefits and incentive packages that rewards their
service and provides a good quality of life for their families.
Question. In your opinion, what impact is the current recruiting
environment likely to have on our ability to sustain an All-Volunteer
Force?
Answer. We are committed to the enormous return on investment that
our Nation receives through an All-Volunteer Force. The All-Volunteer
Force is an order of magnitude better than the system I lived in as a
young officer. We simply must continue to make the All-Volunteer Force
work. Although we are currently facing short-term recruiting
challenges, I believe we have the knowledge and ability to successfully
manage this problem. We are aggressively addressing this issue by
increasing the number of recruiters in the field, enhancing incentive
programs, increasing advertising budgets, and re-focusing our marketing
strategy.
JOINT REQUIREMENTS
Question. With the establishment of U.S. Joint Forces Command, it
was envisioned that the Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command, would
represent and advocate for requirements and interests of combatant
commander in the overall defense requirements and acquisition process.
Has U.S. Joint Forces Command been able to satisfactorily represent
the requirements and needs of combatant commanders to the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council and the military services?
Answer. As Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command I, and senior
members of my staff have had excellent interaction with the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when
required, in the exercise of my responsibilities under Title 10 U.S.
Code and the President's Unified Command Plan. If confirmed, I look
forward to continue working with all those involved to make the system
even more responsive to near-term combatant commander needs.
Question. Are combatant commanders able to identify critical joint
warfighting requirements and quickly acquire needed capabilities?
Answer. The combatant commanders are often able to identify joint
warfighting requirements and capability gaps. However, their ability to
quickly acquire needed capabilities is less than optimal. The Joint
Requirements Oversight Council process is designed to impact mid- to
far-term capabilities and funding (3 years and beyond). The process has
less flexibility to respond to emerging requirements within the
Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process in the
near-term budget years (1-2 years). Currently, there are limited pools
of funding available to address this systemic problem. Therefore,
combatant commanders still have difficulty rapidly acquiring some
capabilities. If confirmed, I look forward to exploring ways to improve
the combatant commanders' ability to quickly acquire needed
capabilities.
Question. What suggestions, if any, do you have for improving the
requirements and acquisition process to ensure that combatant
commanders are able to quickly acquire needed joint warfighting
capabilities?
Answer. In my view, we must ``operationalize'' the JROC and
acquisition processes to respond with agility when immediate and
pressing needs are presented and validated. Currently, the JCIDS is
designed to impact mid- to far-term capabilities and funding (3 years
and beyond). The process has less flexibility to quickly respond to
emerging requirements within the PPBE process in the near-term budget
years (1-2 years).
A variety of ad hoc measures have been used to address this
challenge. Congress has helped by providing new authorities such as
LAA. One near-term solution is to dedicate appropriate resources--tied
to Limited Acquisition Authority--in order to have funds available to
ensure combatant commanders are able to quickly acquire joint
warfighting capabilities. In the long-term, the JCIDS process needs to
change to fall more in line with the demands and pace of today's
operations. If confirmed, I look forward to helping to develop a
systemic way to address these concerns in the future.
RELIANCE ON RESERVE COMPONENT
Question. The men and women of the Reserve component have performed
superbly in meeting the diverse challenges of the global war on
terrorism. Such a heavy use of the Reserve components, however could
have potential adverse effects on recruiting, retention, and morale of
continuing mobilization of Guard and Reserve personnel.
What is your assessment of the impact of continuing Guard and
Reserve deployments on the readiness and attractiveness of service in
the Guard and Reserve?
Answer. The men and women of our Active and Reserve Force are
performing superbly in the global war on terrorism. However, the
prolonged demand on certain capabilities resident in the Guard and
Reserve is a serious concern, and we are working hard to deal with this
issue. Of note, the highest retention percentages in the Reserve
components come from units that have deployed for Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom--clearly, these servicemembers
understand the importance of their service and are volunteering again
to continue to serve their country. We must continue to ensure our
personnel receive strong support from their civilian employers, provide
support for their families, and we must also continue to closely
monitor recruiting and retention.
To decrease demand on the Reserve component, the Department has
several initiatives underway which help alleviate additional burden on
the Guard and Reserve including: (1) rebalancing of forces, (2)
modularization for a better deployment rotation base, (3) new training
and certification procedures for our Army Guard and Reserves prior to
mobilization to maximize their utility while minimizing their total
time away from home, and (4) temporary increases in the Active
component.
An important point to re-emphasize is that the impact on the Guard
and Reserve varies significantly from unit to unit and among the
different specialties/capabilities in the Guard and Reserve.
Question. What missions do you consider appropriate for permanent
assignment to the Reserve component?
Answer. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is currently examining
the roles and missions of the Services and their Reserve components.
This assessment will produce recommendations regarding which
capabilities should reside in the Active and Reserve components. These
recommendations will also address how those capabilities should be
apportioned and resourced between the components. In addition to the
QDR, each Service is conducting their own assessment to balance the
capabilities between respective components. I would like to reserve
final judgment on this question until after having the opportunity to
review the results of these assessments.
SECURITY COOPERATION
Question. One of the central pillars of our recent national
security strategy has been security cooperation as a means of building
relationships around the world. Military-to-military contacts, Joint
Combined Exchange Training exercises, combatant commander exercises,
humanitarian demining operations, and similar activities are used to
achieve this goal.
If confirmed, would you support such continued engagement
activities of the U.S. military?
Answer. Yes. I strongly support these types of engagements. As
Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command, I have aggressively sought to
expand our interaction with Allies and partners. Foreign Liaison
Officers (FLO) have grown from 11 officers representing 5 countries in
2003 to 55 Foreign Liaison Officers representing 33 countries today,
with more officers and nations on the way. U.S. Joint Forces Command
has a vigorous multinational concept development and experimentation
program. My experience as a NATO Strategic Commander further reinforces
in my mind the value of these programs. Security Cooperation activities
exchanges, exercises, and operations are essential, and if confirmed, I
will continue to emphasize the need to foster these international
relationships to improve regional and global security while developing
our defense partnerships for the future.
Question. In your view, how do these activities contribute to U.S.
national security?
Answer. U.S. Forces participating in training, exercises and
education programs with our international partners develop trust and
confidence within the international community. Engagements such as
these also improve coalition interoperability and support
transformation. Cumulatively, these actions reduce the potential for
conflict and encourage other nations to participate in cooperative
efforts to ensure peace and stability. My personal experience suggests
that the personal relationships developed through these engagements
build a level of trust and confidence between U.S. officers and their
allied and coalition partners that would not exist otherwise. The
ability to pick up the phone and talk to your allied or coalition
partner from a position of respect and trust based on previous shared
experiences is an invaluable contribution to our national security.
STABILITY AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
Question. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have underscored the
importance of planning and training for post-conflict stability and
support operations. Increased emphasis has been placed on stability and
support operations in DOD planning and guidance in order to achieve the
goal of full integration across all DOD activities.
What is your assessment of the Department's current emphasis on
planning for post-conflict scenarios?
Answer. The Department has invested considerable emphasis on post-
conflict planning. Of the four Joint Operating Concepts (JOC) approved
by the Secretary of Defense, one of the two primarily authored by Joint
Forces Command is dedicated to Stability Operations. I believe the most
critical step in improving our post-conflict planning is the
establishment and integration with a counterpart civilian planning
capability in an interagency forum. I have strongly supported the
establishment and the strengthening of the Office for the Coordinator
for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) within the Department of
State. I know the Department of Defense has assisted S/CRS in building
their own planning processes as well as integrate them into the Defense
Department's deliberate and crisis planning processes. These efforts,
in Washington as well as with the combatant commanders, have worked to
integrate stabilization and reconstruction operations into our
operational plans and theater exercises. U.S. Joint Forces Command, in
particular, has provided expertise to S/CRS and has partnered with it
in concept development and experimentation events to develop their
planning capacity and help elaborate their operational concepts.
I know the department is developing a directive concerning
stability operations which will help integrate stability, security,
transition, and reconstruction operations into our overall campaign
planning efforts. The ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review, in which S/
CRS is participating, is just one way we are reassessing our
requirements to ensure we have the right mix of forces for the right
missions, including security, stability, reconstruction and transition
operations.
Question. What role should the Joint Staff play in implementing any
new directives in the area of post-conflict planning and the conduct of
stability and support operations?
Answer. The Joint Staff plays an important role on various
interagency committees and working groups that develop plans and
policies that impact stability and support operations. The Joint Staff
should help facilitate coordination between governmental agencies, such
as the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization
(S/CRS), and the combatant commanders and their staffs.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate relationship
between DOD and other Federal agencies in the planning and conduct of
stability and support operations in a post-conflict environment?
Answer. Security, stability, transition, and reconstruction
operations require the coherent application of diplomatic, information,
military and economic power. Clearly, the military has a role to play
in conjunction with partners inside the U.S. Government as well as
allies, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations.
The proper relationship between the DOD and other Federal agencies in
planning and executing these operations vary with conditions on the
ground. Several principles need to be considered and I have found
several concepts helpful in thinking through this problem. First, the
command and control arrangements need to be clear and understood by all
parties. Second, the pragmatic application of the supported and
supporting commander concept and the Lead Federal Agency concept can be
helpful. Finally, any relationship between DOD and other Federal
agencies will require leaders who understand the capabilities each
agency can bring to bear. For this reason, U.S. Joint Forces Command
has incorporated interagency topics and participants--as both fellows
and presenters--in the Capstone and Pinnacle courses designed to
prepare flag and general officers to lead Joint Task Forces in the
execution of security, stability, transition and reconstruction
operations.
Question. What lessons do you believe the Department has learned
from the experience of planning and training for post-conflict
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. U.S. Joint Forces Command has undertaken a robust and
dynamic lessons learned mission to actively work on the lessons--at the
joint operational level--from our ongoing operations. This has resulted
in an extremely rich set of insights, observations and analyses. We
have provided many of these products to Congress in previous testimony
and briefings to congressional staff members. I believe detailed
briefings such as these would be useful to provide the necessary
context and detail which these issues require.
Based on my experience at Joint Forces Command, we have learned
several key lessons about security, stability, transition and
reconstruction operations. First, the value of detailed, adaptive and
collaborative planning is essential. Our successes were enabled by
detailed planning; our shortcomings usually occurred in areas where
planning efforts or expertise was lacking. Second, our military
commanders need money they can immediately spend as much--or more--than
they need bullets and guns as a key tool to jump start reconstruction
efforts. Third, we need to ensure the right balance of capabilities
(such as Civil Affairs units) between Active and Reserve components
because their immediate engagement and long-term sustainment are
critical. Fourth, collaborating with allies is essential and requires
considerable effort. Fifth, our ability to communicate with the
civilian population--the center of gravity in these operations--needs
to be enabled with linguists, communications, media, and an effective
strategic communications capability. These are some of the many lessons
we have learned, and are acting on, in our execution of stability,
security, transition, and reconstruction operations. I would offer more
detailed briefings as requested by Congress.
DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES
Question. The global war on terrorism has placed extraordinary
demands upon commanders and their legal advisers to rapidly respond to
complex legal issues at a time when the number of military judge
advocates on Active Duty has been substantially reduced. Providing
qualified, fully trained legal advisers to commanders of combatant
commands and joint task forces presents serious challenges to DOD and
the Services.
What steps, if any, has U.S. Joint Forces Command taken to ensure
legal advisers are available to combatant commanders and commanders of
joint task forces?
Answer. As the Primary Joint Force Provider, as designated by the
Secretary of Defense in his Global Force Management Guidance of 4 May
2005, U.S. Joint Forces Command is working to ensure that Joint Task
Force headquarters are designed to include appropriate judge advocate
support to the Joint Task Force commander; that the staff is properly
trained for their mission; and that each Joint Task Force, as it is
stood up, is properly manned. My Staff Judge Advocate is working with
the combatant commands, my component commanders, the Service Judge
Advocates General, and the Joint Staff to ensure this important
capability is appropriately resourced.
As a matter of general practice to date, legal advisers to
combatant commanders and to joint task forces have been provided by the
Services, through each Service's office of the judge advocate general.
U.S. Joint Forces Command had no direct role in that process. In fact,
the responsibility is assigned by law under Article 6 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice to each service Judge Advocate General, and
for marines, to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Under that statute,
``The assignment for duty of judge advocates of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Coast Guard shall be made upon recommendation of the Judge
Advocate General of the armed force of which they are members. The
assignment for duty of judge advocates of the Marine Corps shall be
made by direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.'' Under this
statutory construct, assignment of judge advocates, even to joint force
headquarters, remains a service responsibility.
Question. What is your view of the need for the legal adviser to
the Chairman to provide independent legal advice to the Chairman and
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. Title 10, section 151(b), makes the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) the principal military adviser to the President,
the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. I take
very seriously the responsibility of the Chairman and the Vice
Chairman, in the Chairman's absence, to provide independent military
advice to each of those individuals or entities. Title 10 also provides
for an independently organized Joint Staff, operated under the
authority, direction and control of the Chairman, to support the
Chairman in fulfillment of his statutory duties. I believe it is
essential that the Chairman's Legal Counsel--manned by an experienced
military judge advocate and staff--be exclusively dedicated to support
the Chairman and Vice Chairman in fulfilling their statutory
responsibilities.
Question. What is your view of the need for the Judge Advocates
General of the Services to provide independent legal advice to the
Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. The duty of the service Judge Advocates General and of the
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps to provide
independent legal advice to the Chiefs of Staff appears to me to be
established by law (title 10, at sections 3037, 5046, 5148. and 8037)
and I am in full agreement with this statutory requirement.
Question. What is your view of the responsibility of staff judge
advocates within the Services and joint commands to provide independent
legal advice to military commanders?
Answer. My view is that staff judge advocates should, as
established by law, communicate directly with military commanders, and
provide their best professional, independent judgment and advice.
NATO TRANSFORMATION
Question. In your role as Supreme Allied Commander Transformation,
you have acted as NATO's ``forcing agent for change.'' In your
responses to the advance policy questions forwarded by the committee in
June 2003, you stated your priorities for Allied Command
Transformation, including, among others, the development of Joint
Warfighting Center/Joint Training Center functionality and ensuring
that the Command is properly resourced and manned. You have stated
elsewhere that additional authorities are needed from NATO for you to
execute your mission and achieve long term success.
What success did you achieve in meeting the goals you established
for Allied Command Transformation 2 years ago?
Answer. While we continue to build to Full Operational Capability
(FOC) by 30 June 2006, we have made significant advances in joint
training, defence planning, concept development and experimentation,
and strategy. We stood up the Joint Warfare Center (JWC) in Stavanger,
Norway, inaugurated the Joint Force Training Center in Bydgoszcz,
Poland and refocused the Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Centre in
Lisbon, Portugal on support to NATO operations around the world.
In the delivery of products to the Alliance, ACT has a solid record
of achievement:
With 60 percent manning, the JWC and its subordinate
Joint Force Training Center provided joint battle staff
training to NATO's Joint Forces Commands and conducted mission
rehearsal exercises for the three successive International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters staffs, supported
certification of the NATO Response Force (NRF) and provided
training to key Iraqi Leaders in support of the NATO Training
Mission Iraq. This has improved NATO's mission performance by
training Commanders and their Staffs, enabling them to deal
with situations they will actually find in today's operational
environment.
In Defence Planning, ACT developed Military
Assessments for 24 nations, assessing for the first time
nations' progress on transformational goals. This month we
completed the Defence Requirements Review 2005, the most
comprehensive ever.
Together with Allied Command Operations (ACO), ACT
delivered the Bi-Strategic Command Strategic Vision in August
2004, laying the foundation for NATO's future concepts and
capabilities development. Other major conceptual goals were met
with the delivery of the `Intelligence Transformation Advice
NATO' and the NATO Networked Enabled Capability (NNEC)
Foundation document.
In experimentation, ACT's program is in full stride
with an array of experiments ranging from political-military
level decision making to multinational and interagency
engagements.
In development of the NATO Response Force (NRF), ACT
has sponsored two exercise-seminars for prospective NRF
commanders where the operational challenges the NRF will face
have been explored. Additionally, ACT is working with Allied
Command Operations to develop training and certification
standards for NRF headquarters and assigned units.
ACT is beginning to tackle security, stability,
transition, and reconstruction operations. The ACT Seminar
2005, for NATO ambassadors and military representatives, was
dedicated to this theme, as were symposia co-sponsored with Old
Dominion University and the Royal United Services Institute.
The insights from these events will inform ACT efforts to
deliver improved capabilities in this area to NATO.
ACT also established a growing number of valuable
partnerships with Partner Nations, Industry, an expanding
Centers-of-Excellence Network, academia, International
Organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations. ACT has also
been working closely with the U.S. Joint Forces Command to
leverage their knowledge and Lessons Learned.
On the resources side, ACT's manning levels are generally on track
to Full Operational Capability. While NATO has recurring funding
challenges, ACT has an adequate level of funding to execute its
mission, with some risk if support for unplanned contingency operations
is required.
In the light of changing requirements and emerging demands over the
last 2 years, ACT has met its goals and has established a proven track
record.
Question. What is your assessment today of the progress of NATO's
transformation and of Allied Command Transformation's success in
leading that effort?
Answer. In light of the military transformation efforts underway in
almost all NATO nations, Alliance transformation is progressing well.
Major challenges such as increasing the usability and deployability of
NATO's forces are being seriously pursued. The Alliance is implementing
the most significant command structure change in nearly 50 years,
including two new Strategic Commands, Allied Command Operations and
Allied Command Transformation. An in-depth review of NATO agencies is
being led by the Deputy Secretary General. The military committee is
engaged in an extensive functional review of its organization and its
supporting International Military Staff. Finally, the Secretary General
has launched an overarching NATO Review, led by distinguished
diplomats, to propose reforms in NATO headquarters organizations and
procedures.
Over the last 2 years, ACT has played a significant role in the
Alliance's military transformation. Through concept development,
Defense Planning and Capability Development efforts, operational level
battle staff training and a broad array of complementary efforts, ACT
is establishing itself as the hub of military transformation in the
Alliance. Additionally, ACT responded to emerging operational demands
such as NATO Training Mission-Iraq by providing key support to Allied
Command Operations. A clear demonstration of ACT's leading role has
been the request of several Nations for ACT to review their national
Defence Plans and Reform efforts. These ACT reviews were very
successful and much appreciated.
ACT is also now leading the effort to longer term NATO and national
capability development. However, capability development is particularly
challenging when most allies are not meeting NATO's defense spending
goal of 2 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
With full support by NATO's Secretary-General and Allied Command
Operations, these achievements have laid a solid foundation for ACT's
future in leading the alliance's military transformation effort.
Question. What authorities and resources are lacking that you
consider most necessary for NATO's transformation success?
Answer. In my Terms of Reference as Supreme Allied Commander
Transformation (ACT) and in the NATO documents establishing the new
NATO Command Structure, Allied Command Transformation has the
authorities it needs to undertake its mission of military
transformation. To be fully successful, of course, ACT's proposals need
to be adopted by the Nations in the various decisionmaking bodies of
the alliance. As a result, ACT is contributing to the Secretary
General's NATO Review and to the Functional Review of the International
Military Staff.
On the resources side, sufficient manning to achieve FOC by 30 June
2006 remains a principal concern. ACT is broadly on track in this area
and we are working closely with the Nations to achieve this key
milestone.
Additionally, the authority to deploy ACT Staff fully in line with
the Command's mission and tasks is crucial. National caveats limiting
the deployability of NATO assigned Staff Officers need to be eliminated
to ensure ACT mission accomplishment.
Equally challenging is the establishment of an accurate baseline
budget, necessary to fund a still developing command with new--and
often unique--roles and responsibilities. ACT's resource needs have yet
to solidify in the short to medium term as the organization continues
to evolve with an ever-growing demand for its transformational
products. In my view, funding levels to date meet about 90 percent of
the level of ambition envisioned for ACT.
Question. What do you view as the critical priorities for NATO
transformation efforts in the future?
Answer. The NATO Response Force (NRF) is NATO's principal
operational organization for military transformation. Many nations
contribute significantly to this force, based on a concept agreed by
all NATO nations during the Prague Summit. This new force is on the
road to Full Operational Capability by October 2006 as a high-
readiness, fully joint expeditionary force, capable of executing
missions across the military spectrum. A key priority is to actually
employ this new NATO capability. Only by actually employing the NRF
will the alliance will be able to develop national and NATO
capabilities through experimentation, lessons learned, and real world
deployment and sustainment. This will not only reenergize the NRF, but
will also enhance the alliance's credibility and capability.
NATO headquarters reform is the second key enabler for continuing
NATO transformation. The new NATO command structure, with two new
Strategic Commands and the subordinate command structures, have
undergone profound changes. Further NATO transformation requires the
alliance to streamline its political and military structures, as well
as its funding, resourcing, and decisionmaking processes. The heads of
State and Government have recognized this imperative task at the
Istanbul Summit and have directed the Secretary General to undertake a
wide-ranging NATO review.
TRAINING
Question. In your current position as the Commander of Joint Forces
Command (JFCOM), you are responsible for the joint training of our
military forces.
Based on your experience, do you believe that the Department of
Defense has the resources and base structure needed to properly train
our Armed Forces?
Answer. From my perspective as Commander, U.S. Joint Forces
Command, we are in good overall shape with respect to the joint
training mission. We are working towards Full Operational Capability
(FOC) for our Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) in 2009, which
ties all our Service ranges together so that units can train in a
common joint environment while still accomplishing their Service-
required training. However, building out the JNTC is a significant
challenge, and we are still at the beginning stages. A major hurdle we
will face over the coming years is resourcing the training centers
required for emerging types of joint operations such as information
operations, urban operations, and security, stability transition and
reconstruction operations.
There will always be challenges with keeping training ranges and
capabilities up to date. The Department has placed significant focus on
encroachment over the past several years and has challenges in
maintenance and modernization at many of the major training centers.
Question. If not, what additional resources and/or base structure
are needed?
Answer. Fully funding joint training as submitted in the
President's budget for the last 2 years will help allow the Department
of Defense to keep its training resources up to par.
Question. Do you believe that the Department's 2005 base closure
recommendations preserve an adequate base structure to support future
training needs?
Answer. Yes, however significant encroachment issues remain. While
new weapons-systems capabilities will require infrastructure investment
and innovative approaches to training and exercising given their
performance characteristics. So, although I think training capability
fared very well in BRAC, there are significant challenges ahead which
would have existed even in the absence of BRAC.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS COUNCIL
Question. If confirmed as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, you will serve as a member of the Nuclear Weapons Council.
What would your priorities be for the Nuclear Weapons Council?
Answer. I have spent the last 3 years working with our conventional
forces. However, as a former nuclear submarine commander and as a
commander of a nuclear Task Force Commander with U.S. Strategic Command
in the late 1990s, I am familiar with the principles of nuclear weapons
command and control, safety, and security. If confirmed, I will work
hard to get smarter on the Nuclear Weapons Council and its
responsibilities.
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:]
Question Submitted by Senator John McCain
JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL
1. Senator McCain. Admiral Giambastiani, the Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff is the Chairman of the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC). Reports have described the Boeing 767 tanker
deal as the most corrupt acquisition deal in more than 35 years. A key
finding in the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG)
report was that the JROC process failed to recognize that an Air Force
officer (LTCOL Lepanta) lied to the JROC (a $30 billion
misrepresentation) on whether the tanker operational requirements
document (ORD) was tailored to the Boeing 767. This officer's action
makes a mockery of the Joint requirements process and highlights the
importance of the JROC process to be above reproach. Is this knowledge
troubling to you and what steps are you prepared to take to ensure that
this does not happen again?
Admiral Giambastiani. The Boeing 767 tanker leasing
misrepresentation issue, or any misrepresentations of program
information, is of great concern to me. In this case, more alarming
than the delay in fielding a suitable tanker replacement platform is
the erosion of trust and confidence resulting from the manner in which
this acquisition program was handled.
Following the Boeing 767 tanker deal, revisions to the Chairman's
Instructions governing the Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System (JCIDS) were made that should help prevent similar
situations from being repeated. The latest version of the instruction
specifies the migration of programs from a Joint Capabilities Document
to an Initial Capabilities Document, Capability Development Document,
and Capability Production Document. Imbedded in this process are
Functional Needs Analysis, Functional Solutions Analysis, Joint
Doctrine, organizational, training, material, leadership, personnel and
facilities (DOTMLPF) Change Recommendations, and significantly an
Analysis of Alternatives. This revised process, with multiple analyses
and reviews, entails much greater oversight and visibility into program
issues and would have either averted or uncovered the Boeing 767 tanker
leasing misrepresentations brought to light by the DOD Inspector
General. My previous experience tells me that in particular, an
analysis of alternatives in this portion of the process is a must.
If confirmed as Vice Chairman, I will insist on adherence to
established procedures to ensure the validity of data being presented
to decisionmakers. Additionally, ensuring independent cost analyses are
conducted and available, like the traditional reports from the Cost
Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG), are absolutely essential to ensure
the integrity and confidence of the process and prevent malfeasance.
Finally, I also believe further acquisition reforms may be necessary.
If confirmed, I look forward to pursuing efforts in this area as well
as pledging to provide the necessary oversight to ensure the Joint
Forces are adequately and appropriately equipped to meet the threats
that face our Nation while protecting the concerns of the taxpayers.
Trust and confidence in this process, in order to produce the best
programs for our Nation, is absolutely mandatory.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
INSURGENTS
2. Senator Levin. Admiral Giambastiani, I was surprised by your
statements during today's hearing to the effect that the insurgents are
not ideologically driven. Aren't the jihadists crossing the borders
into Iraq very much ideologically driven--the ideology being a fanatic
extreme belief that the Islamic world must be defended from the
destructive culture of the west through the use of terror tactics
against civilians?
Admiral Giambastiani. The insurgency in Iraq is a complex dynamic.
It is, by and large, not ideologically driven with a common theme or
purpose. Today, there are three main motivators for insurgents in Iraq
in addition to smaller and peripheral activity. First, the vast
majority of insurgent violence is driven by former regime elements that
resent losing the power they held in Iraq for 30 years and cynically
wish to reassert their grip on power. Second, a much smaller portion of
the insurgency is driven by nationalistic sentiments motivated largely
by the distress caused by a foreign military presence and the
unemployment and disruption of services perceived to be caused by that
presence. Finally, the smallest portion of the three main elements of
the insurgency, and the most spectacularly destructive and visible, is
composed mostly of foreign religious extremists, who have entered Iraq
and temporarily allied themselves to some degree with other groups in
order to further the jihad against western values in hopes of
reestablishing a global Islamic caliphate. This third portion, the
jihadists, is very clearly ideologically driven as you point out.
Although not part of the insurgent groups listed above, criminal
activity also adds to the overall level of violence and kidnappings in
Iraq.
ACTIVE DUTY END STRENGTH LEVELS
3. Senator Levin. Admiral Giambastiani, in your response to the
advance written question on whether our active end strength is
sufficient, you responded that ``we have sufficient forces to meet
current and anticipated missions with varying degrees of risk''. But
you did not go on to characterize that risk. In your view, if we
maintain the Army at a permanent level of 482,000, is that risk low,
moderate, or high? Is that risk acceptable?
Admiral Giambastiani. With an Army permanent level of 482,400, and
the temporary authorities we have in place to increase end strength
over that limit, we have sufficient forces to accomplish our missions
in Iraq and Afghanistan with acceptable risk. The varying degrees of
risk I referred to are situationally dependent, principally on other
contingency operations. We continually assess risk and use various
measures to mitigate that risk as appropriate--there is no one set risk
level.
With regard to assessing those varying levels of risk, we use a
variety of analytical processes, including a key one I have had
significant experience with at Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), the Joint
Quarterly Readiness Review (JQRR). The JQRR provides a macro assessment
of our ability to operate across the spectrum of war and an assessment
of projected readiness to execute the National Military Strategy. I can
also unequivocally tell you the JQRR does not just focus on past or
even current readiness. The JQRR assesses future readiness for the next
12 months against a series of specific contingencies. JFCOM and its
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps components actively use this
report to develop strategies to mitigate future readiness risks, both
in Iraq and Afghanistan and in regard to other potential contingencies.
I have personally participated in every JFCOM JQRR since October 2002
and feel confident that our overall joint warfighting capabilities--
including capability contributions from all of the Services--are able
to meet the requirements of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom and
potential future contingencies.
The Chairman is required to assess risk annually, and General Myers
recently provided his 2005 classified assessment. There is no one set
risk level in these assessments; characterizations can run from low to
moderate to high and extreme. If a risk is characterized as high or
extreme, the Secretary provides a plan for mitigating that risk.
If at any time I found our analysis showed the risk levels to be
too high, even with our temporary end strength and risk mitigation
measures in place, I would not hesitate to recommend an increase in
permanent end strength levels for any Service as appropriate.
______
[The nomination reference of ADM Edmund P. Giambastiani,
Jr., USN, follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 25, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment as Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and 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., sections 601 and 154:
To be Admiral
ADM Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., 0000.
______
[The biographical sketch of ADM Edmund P. Giambastiani,
Jr., USN, which was transmitted to the committee at the time
the nomination was referred, follows:]
Transcript of Naval Service for ADM Edmund Peter Giambastiani, Jr., USN
04 MAY 1948 Born in Canastota, New York
29 JUN 1966 Midshipman, U.S. Naval
Academy
03 JUN 1970 Ensign
03 SEP 1971 Lieutenant (Junior Grade)
01 JUL 1974 Lieutenant
01 SEP 1978 Lieutenant Commander
01 OCT 1983 Commander
01 SEP 1989 Captain
DEC 1994 Selected for Promotion to
Rear Admiral (Lower Half)
01 OCT 1995 Rear Admiral (Lower Half)
01 AUG 1997 Rear Admiral
06 MAY 1998 Designated Vice Admiral
while serving in billets
commensurate with that
grade
01 AUG 1998 Vice Admiral
02 OCT 2002 Admiral, Service continuous
to date
Assignments and duties:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Reserve Training Center, Whitestone, NY... JUL 1970 OCT 1970
(Executive Officer, Blue and Gold Recruiting
Officer) (Temporary Duty)
Naval Nuclear Power School, Bainbridge, MD...... OCT 1970 APR 1971
(Duty Under Instruction)
Nuclear Power Training Unit, Schenectady, NY.... APR 1971 NOV 1971
(Duty Under Instruction)
Naval Submarine School, Groton, CT.............. NOV 1971 DEC 1971
(Duty Under Instruction)
U.S.S. Puffer (SSN 652)......................... DEC 1971 JUN 1975
(Weapons, Assistant Weapons, Main Propulsion
Assistant)
Headquarters, Navy Recruiting Command........... JUN 1975 SEP 1977
(Program Manager for Nuclear Field & 6 Year
Obligor Enlisted Recruiting)
Submarine Officers Advanced Course, Groton, CT.. SEP 1977 MAR 1978
(Duty Under Instruction)
U.S.S. Francis Scott Key (SSBN 657) (Blue)...... APR 1978 MAY 1981
(Engineer Officer)
Naval Reactors, Department of Energy............ JUL 1981 OCT 1981
(Duty Under Instruction)
Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. OCT 1981 DEC 1981
(Duty Under Instruction--Prospective
Commanding Officer Course)
Submarine NR-1.................................. JAN 1982 APR 1982
(Prospective Officer in Charge)
Submarine NR-1.................................. MAY 1982 APR 1985
(Officer in Charge)
Office of the CNO (OP-213C, OPNAV).............. APR 1985 SEP 1986
(Head, Operations Security Section)
Central Intelligence Agency..................... MAY 1985 SEP 1986
(Special Assistant to Deputy Director for
Intelligence)
Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet.. SEP 1986 DEC 1986
(Duty Under Instruction--Prospective
Commanding Officer Course)
Naval Reactors, Department of Energy............ JAN 1987 JAN 1987
(Duty Under Instruction)
U.S.S. Richard B. Russell (SSN 687)............. FEB 1987 JUN 1987
(Prospective Commanding Officer)
U.S.S. Richard B. Russell (SSN 687)............. JUL 1987 MAY 1990
(Commanding Officer)
Naval War College, Newport--CNO Strategic JUL 1990 JUN 1991
Studies Group..................................
(Fellow)
Submarine Development Squadron Twelve........... JUN 1991 JUN 1993
(Commander)
Naval Doctrine Command (N8)..................... JUNE 1993 AUG 1994
(Director, Strategy and Concepts)
U.S. Pacific Fleet (N8)......................... SEP 1994 FEB 1996
(Deputy Chief of Staff for Resources, Warfare
Requirements and Assessments)
Office of the CNO (N87, OPNAV).................. FEB 1996 MAY 1998
(Director, Submarine Warfare Division)
Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (CTF-42/82/ JUN 1998 JUL 2000
144)//Submarine Allied Command, Atlantic//Anti-
Submarine and Reconnaissance Forces, Atlantic
(CTF-84).......................................
(Commander)
Office of the CNO (N8, OPNAV)................... AUG 2000 MAY 2001
(Deputy CNO for Resources, Warfare
Requirements, and Assessments)
Office of the Secretary of Defense.............. MAY 2001 SEP 2002
(Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense)
U.S. Joint Forces Command....................... OCT 2002 Present
(Commander)
Allied Command Transformation................... JUN 2003 Present
(Supreme Allied Commander)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medals and awards:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Navy Distinguished Service Medal (w/Four Gold Stars)
Legion of Merit (w/Three Gold Stars)
Meritorious Service Medal (w/Two Gold Stars)
Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (w/One Gold Star)
Joint Meritorious Unit Award
Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon (w/Four Bronze Stars)
Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon (w/Four Bronze Stars)
Marksmanship Pistol Ribbon
Navy ``E'' Ribbon (w/One Wreathed ``E'' for 8 Awards)
Navy Expeditionary Medal (w/One Bronze Star)
National Defense Service Medal (w/Two Bronze Stars)
Vietnam Service Medal (w/One Bronze Star)
Global War on Terrorism (Service) Medal
Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (w/Three Bronze Stars)
Navy Recruiting Service Ribbon
Expert Rifleman Medal
Pending awards:
French Legion D'Honneur (Legion of Honor)--Presented: 28 February
2005 in Paris, France by General Henri Bentegeat French Chief of
Defense--Package with Navy Department Board of Decorations and Medals
for acceptance to wear.
Special qualifications/miscellaneous:
Naval Academy Athletic Association Cup, June 1970.
Stewart White Hannah Memorial Trophy, June 1970.
Forrestal Award, June 1970.
Bachelor of Science, U.S. Naval Academy, 1970, w/Leadership
Distinction.
Qualified in Submarines, April 1973.
Pacific Fleet Submarine Shiphandling Winner, 1974.
Strategic Deterrent Patrol Pin, June 1978.
Qualified for Command of Submarines, February 1981.
Deep Submergence Insignia, April 1983.
Designated Joint Specialty Officer, 1988.
Honorary Master Chief Petty Officer, June 2000.
Office of the Secretary of Defense Identification Badge, May 2002.
Honorary Doctor of Engineering Technology, Wentworth Institute of
Technology, August 2003.
General Douglas MacArthur Meritorious Service Award, Virginia
Peninsula Chapter, April 2004.
David Sarnoff Award, The Armed Forces Communications and
Electronics Association (AFCEA) International, 31 May 2005.
Personal data:
Wife: Cynthia Ann Johnson of McLean, Virginia.
Son: LT Edmund P. Giambastiani III, U.S. Navy.
Daughter: Ms. Catherine A. Giambastiani, Graduate--School of Law,
American University--Central Intelligence Agency (Sep 2005).
Summary of joint duty assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment Dates Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy Director for MAY 1985-SEP 1986 CDR
Intelligence, Central
Intelligence Agency (Special
Assistant).
Commander, Task Force 144--U.S. JUN 1998-JUL 2000 VADM
Strategic Command/Commander,
Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic
Fleet.
Office of the Secretary of MAY 2001-SEP 2002 VADM
Defense (Senior Military
Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense).
Commander, U.S. Joint Forces OCT 2002-Present ADM
Command.
Supreme Allied Commander, JUN 2003-Present ADM
Transformation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
[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 Edmund P.
Giambastiani, Jr., 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.)
Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., (Ed).
2. Position to which nominated:
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
3. Date of nomination:
25 April 2005.
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:
4 May 1948; Canastota, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Cynthia Ann Giambastiani (maiden name: Johnson).
7. Names and ages of children:
LT Edmund Peter Giambastiani III, 27; Catherine Ann Giambastiani,
24.
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 currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Life Member - U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association.
Life Member - U.S. Naval Institute.
Life Member - Naval Submarine League.
Member - The Reserve Officers Association (TROA).
Member - Military Order of the Caraboa.
Member - AARP.
Member - American Radio Relay League (ARRL).
Member - Train Collectors Association.
11. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognition's 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.
______
[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.
E.P. Giambastiani.
This 28th day of April 2005.
[The nomination of ADM Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN,
was reported to the Senate by Chairman Warner on July 13, 2005,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on July 15, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Gen. T. Michael Moseley,
USAF, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost two decades 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 these reforms, particularly in your
assignments in the Directorate for Strategic Plans and Policy on the
Joint Staff, as Commander, 9th Air Force and U.S. Central Command Air
Forces, and as Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Absolutely.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented, particularly in the U.S. Air Force?
Answer. OIF provides an excellent example of how far the reforms
have come. During major combat operations, I had an excellent
relationship with Special Operations, ground and sea based forces as
the air component commander. I witnessed first hand how the Services
shared information and supported one another to create a whole that was
greater than the sum of its parts. Almost everything the Air Force does
is done in a joint manner now, and I believe we have effectively
changed our culture to thinking in terms of the joint fight.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. Goldwater-Nichols has moved our military from a mindset of
deconfliction to a mindset of interdependence. This has enabled the
combatant commanders to strike our enemies faster, harder, and save
more American lives.
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. Completely.
Question. Do you believe 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 do not have any specific recommendations to amend
Goldwater-Nichols. We have been on the right path for the last 20
years. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of Defense,
Secretary of the Air Force, and Congress on any changes that might be
needed.
Question. Twenty years ago, the Packard Commission recommended the
establishment of a streamlined acquisition organization, under which
Program Managers would report to Program Executive Officers, who would
report to Service Acquisition Executives and an Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition. This change established unambiguous authority
for acquisition policy and execution and a clear chain of command for
program managers. It also removed the service chiefs from the chain of
command for acquisition programs.What is your view of the
recommendations of the Packard Commission and the manner in which they
have been implemented?
Answer. Our Service experience with the Packard Commission
recommendations such as removing ambiguous lines of authority for
execution and involving operators in early test activities, has been
largely favorable. After nearly 20 years of implementation though, it
is clear that more remains to be done. In fact, a special study is now
underway on behalf of the Department to improve the acquisition system
and processes. I look forward to working with the Department and
members of Congress to facilitate this most critical effort.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. Section 8033 of title 10, United States Code, discusses
the responsibilities and authority of the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force. Section 151 of title 10, United States Code, discusses the
composition and functions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including the
authority of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, as a member of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit advice and opinions to the President,
the National Security Council, or the Secretary of Defense. Other
sections of law and traditional practice, also establish important
relationships outside the chain of command. Please describe your
understanding of the relationship of the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force to the following officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Secretary of Defense is the principal assistant to the
President in all Department of Defense matters. As a Service Chief and
member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I will work closely with the other
members of the Joint Chiefs to provide the best possible military
advice to the Secretary of Defense, particularly with regard to matters
of air and space operations, policy, and strategy.
Question. The Secretary of the Air Force.
Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force is directly responsible
to the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) and performs duties subject
to his authority, direction, and control. For the SecAF, the Chief of
Staff is responsible for providing properly organized, trained, and
equipped forces to support the combatant commanders in their mission
accomplishment. He exercises supervision over members and organizations
of the Air Force advising the Secretary on plans and recommendations,
and acting as agent of Secretary, implements upon approval. I will work
very closely with the Secretary toward this end; continuing the Air
Force transformation into an agile expeditionary force, capable of
rapidly responding on a global scale, with tailored forces ready to
deal with any contingency.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Air Force.
Answer. The Under Secretary of the Air Force and Assistant
Secretaries work to ensure implementation of the Secretary's goals for
the Air Force of a transformed agile expeditionary force. If confirmed,
I will work closely with each of them to reach the Secretary's vision.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with and through the Chairman in
formulating military advice as a member of the JCS by advising him on
the capabilities of the Air Force and its preparations to support
military operations by combatant commanders. I look forward to
performing the Chief of Staff's statutorily assigned duties of
providing properly organized, trained, and equipped forces to the
combatant commanders to accomplish their mission and providing military
advice to the President, National Security Council, and Secretary of
Defense on matters within my expertise, as required.
Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Vice Chairman has the same statutory rights and
obligations of other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When
performing duties as the acting Chairman, the Vice Chairman's
relationship with the combatant commanders is exactly the same as that
of the Chairman. If confirmed, I will assist the Vice Chairman to
execute duties prescribed in statute and otherwise directed by the
Chairman or Secretary of Defense. I will advise the Vice Chairman on
the capabilities and future requirements of the Air Force.
Question. The Chiefs of the other Services.
Answer. Our Armed Forces can only be truly effective in service to
this great Nation if we work closely, capitalizing on our individual
strengths and complementing our capabilities. If confirmed, I am
committed to cooperating with the Chiefs of our other services to
enhance mutually beneficial relationships as we carry out our
responsibilities as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will seek
and encourage synchronization of service capabilities to better produce
joint interoperability and other joint warfighting capabilities in
support of the effects desired by our combatant commanders.
Question. The Commander, U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM).
Answer. As we provide the preponderance of airlift, the Air Force
supplies critical support to TRANSCOM. If confirmed, I'll work with the
Commander of TRANSCOM to improve our ability to accomplish these tasks.
Question. The Commander, U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM).
Answer. Given the critical role space plays in the U.S. nuclear
deterrent, the Air Force must work seamlessly with STRATCOM. If
confirmed, I will keep the STRATCOM Commander constantly apprised of
the readiness of the air and space forces required to support STRATCOM
operations.
Question. The other combatant commanders.
Answer. I will ensure that the Air Force is properly organized and
providing the combatant commanders with the right equipment and fully
trained people to execute their missions. I believe a forthright
dialogue with the combatant commanders is the way to achieve this goal.
Question. The General Counsel of the Air Force.
Answer. I respect and value the important role the General Counsel
plays within Air Force headquarters. Under the direction of the
Secretary, and along with the Under Secretary and Assistant
Secretaries, the General Counsel assists the Secretary as he seeks to
lead our Service. I will look to the General Counsel for guidance and
counsel, particularly in the realm of policymaking, and in those areas
where the General Counsel possesses unique competencies, and on matters
where the Secretary directs the General Counsel's personal involvement
because those matters are of interest to the Secretary.
Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.
Answer. I respect and value the counsel I have received, and if
confirmed, would continue to receive from the Judge Advocate General.
The Judge Advocate General is one of the key advisors' to any Chief of
Staff, and I would rely on the Judge Advocate General as the senior
attorney on the Air Staff and as the senior military lawyer advising
Air Force Headquarters. As both a professional military officer, and as
an attorney, the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force offers an
invaluable perspective of the law for senior decision makers. I will
endeavor to maintain the close working relationship the Chief of Staff
has historically enjoyed with the Judge Advocate General, particularly
in the extremely vital military justice and operational law arenas.
Question. The Superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy.
Answer. The United States Air Force Academy is an invaluable
institution that continues to attract the brightest young men and women
from across our Nation and develop them into Air Force leaders. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the Superintendent to address the
challenges currently facing the Academy, ensure the successful
implementation of the Agenda for Change, and promote the Academy's
continued commitment to excellence and fulfillment of its mission.
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Chief of Staff of the Air Force?
Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force fulfills many duties
and functions. As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he is a
military adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and
the Secretary of the Defense. The Chief of Staff is also directly
responsible to the Secretary of the Air Force, providing plans,
recommendations, and advice to the Secretary, implementing policy,
overseeing the Air Staff and other members and organizations of the Air
Force, participating on the Armed Service Policy Council, and
performing other duties as prescribed by the Secretary. For the
Secretary, the Chief of Staff is responsible for providing properly
organized, trained, and equipped forces to support the combatant
commanders in their mission accomplishment.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the acting Secretary of the Air Force would prescribe
for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect that the acting Secretary of the Air
Force will prescribe duties to ensure the continued transformation of
the Air Force into an agile expeditionary force and an integrated total
force.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to section 8034
of title 10, United States Code, relating to the Air Staff and its
composition and functions?
Answer. Based on my experience as the Vice Chief of Staff, I do not
believe changes are necessary to section 8032 of title 10, United
States Code. [Note: Section 8034 describes the position and duties of
the Vice 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 Chief of Staff of the
Air Force?
Answer. No.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Chief of Staff of the Air Force?
Answer. The top three tasks facing the next Chief of Staff are: 1)
further refining and improving our Joint Warfighting skills, 2) to
continue strengthening our greatest asset--our people, and 3)
recapitalizing our aging fleet so that we can meet the COCOM's needs.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. Each challenge involves its own set of unique requirements,
needs, and stakeholders. I will need to collaborate with the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant commanders,
the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, and the various
Integrated Process Teams. With their help, we can develop the best and
most feasible plans to keep the U.S. Air Force ready for tomorrow.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force?
Answer. The most serious problem facing our Air Force is
prosecuting the War on Terrorism today while at the same time preparing
to fight tomorrow. This is an especially difficult problem in light of
our three major challenges and fiscal realities. The Air Force remains
committed to providing the joint warfighter with Global Strike, Global
Mobility and Global ISR and to do so within fiscal planning guidance.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. The Air Force has already begun to prepare for tomorrow by
introducing a framework that we call Future Total Force (FTF). FTF is
the USAF ``road map'' to make the Air Force of tomorrow better than the
one we have today. It is designed to improve overall combat
capabilities by retiring the oldest, least capable, most expensive
equipment while investing in more capable platforms. FTF is not just
about equipment; it also creates greater operational efficiencies
through the reorganization and re-shaping of our force structure.
PRIORITIES
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish?
Answer. My priorities are: (1) to maintain our focus on winning the
global war on terrorism, (2) to continue developing and caring for our
airmen, and (3) to recapitalize and modernize our force. If we can
successfully tackle these challenges, the Air Force accomplish its core
tasks of Rapid Strike, Global Mobility, and Persistent C\4\ISR.
HEALTH BENEFIT COSTS
Question. The cost of the Defense Health Program, like the cost of
medical care nation-wide, is escalating rapidly. General Jumper
recently stated that the cost of military health care is ``the single
most daunting thing that we deal with out there today.''
If confirmed, how would you approach the issue of rising personnel
costs, including health care costs, as a component of the annual Air
Force budget?
Answer. Over the past 10 years, we have worked hard to streamline
our medical infrastructure to take advantage of the continual changes
in the practice of medicine. This has resulted in reductions in the
size of many of our facilities without compromising the healthcare. We
have also worked to optimize the use of the remaining assets to make
sure that we get the greatest returns on our facility investments.
Throughout these changes, we maintain our ability to support the Air
Force mission while we continue to ensure that our beneficiaries
receive the highest quality care, while the Air Force maximizes its
return on our healthcare investments.
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
Question. As Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, you have had the
opportunity to observe the working relationship between the General
Counsel of the Air Force and the Judge Advocate General of the Air
Force, as well as the working relationship of these individuals and
their staffs with the Chairman's legal advisor, the General Counsel of
the Department of Defense, and the legal advisors of the other
Services.
What are your views about the responsibility of the Judge Advocate
General of the Air Force to provide independent legal advice to the
Chief of Staff and the Air Staff, particularly in the areas of military
justice and operational law?
Answer. I believe it is critical that the CSAF receive independent
legal advice from his senior uniformed judge advocates. Pursuant to 10
U.S.C. Sec. 8031 and Sec. 803 7, the Judge Advocate General of the Air
Force (TJAG) performs duties relating to any and all Air Force.1egal
matters assigned to him by SECAF. Pursuant to AFI 51-1, TJAG, TJAG also
responds to CSAF direction and directs and supervises the Judge
Advocate General's Corps in providing legal advice and related services
to commanders, agencies, and people AF-wide. It is critical that the
CSAF receive independent legal advice from TJAG. I am comfortable with
the existing working relationships and interactions.
Question. What are your views about the responsibility of staff
judge advocates throughout the Air Force to provide independent legal
advice to military commanders in the field and throughout the Air Force
establishment?
Answer. Staff judge advocates (SJAs) are essential to the proper
functioning of both operational and support missions. Commanders are
required by statute (10 U.S.C. Sec. 806) to communicate with their SJAs
on issues related to military justice matters, which is critical to
disciplined mission execution. In addition, commanders and other
leadership rely on their staff judge advocates for advice on all types
of legal and policy matters, particularly those in the critical
operational and fiscal law areas. SJAs have a major responsibility to
promote the interests of a command by providing relevant, timely, and
independent advice to commanders, and this independence is protected by
statute (10 U.S.C. Sec. 8037(f)(2)).
AIR FORCE FUTURE TOTAL FORCE PLANNING
Question. In a recent report submitted in response to section 587
of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005, the Air Force outlined the legal, administrative, and
practical challenges of operating a ``blended'' wing, consisting of
Active-Duty airmen and airmen of the Air National Guard.
What do you consider to be the most significant barriers to
effective integration of Air Force Reserve and Active component
personnel and units?
Answer. The Air Force has always operated as a Total Force,
operating seamlessly in peacetime as well as war. In fact, the highly
successful associate model has been in use for almost 40 years and will
be the baseline as we continue to optimize what each component brings
to the fight. As you pointed out, the report to Congress April 2005 on
the Blended Wing Concept provided insight to the tremendous operational
success of the integrated units during war. It also provided us with
valuable information on how to fine-tune the associate model to best
perform the missions of the 21st century.
Question. What do you consider to be the most appropriate and
achievable goal for integrating units of the Air National Guard into
the operational missions, including homeland defense missions, of the
U.S. Air Force? What role and mission do you expect the Air Force
Reserve to perform now and in the future?
Answer. The Guard and Reserve will continue to be full partners in
transformation and will be involved in all new missions as they come on
line. In fact, Air National Guard will fly the first operational F/A-
22s as part of an associate unit at Langley AFB. They will also be
performing high tech emerging missions, operating Predators, flying
satellites, and processing battlefield intelligence that will provide
direct support to the joint warfighter. We are also exploring ways to
better integrate the components in our enduring missions, capitalizing
on the tremendous experience levels resident in the Guard and Reserve.
We are standing up a number of active associate units in a variety of
missions, stationing inexperienced Active-Duty members at Guard and
Reserve locations to be trained by seasoned pilots and maintainers.
Every AF mission and platform needs the experience and knowledge of our
citizen airmen and the community connection they bring to the Air
Force.
Question. How would you assess the progress being made in further
integrating the Air Force Reserve into the operational mission of the
Air Force?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve and National Guard have always been
an integral part of Air Force operations for decades. In fact, the
first associate unit was an AF Reserve unit back in 1968. As I've
described, we will continue to explore ways to enhance the way in which
we work, side-by-side, with our Total Force partners in the Guard and
Reserve.
AIR FORCE END STRENGTH
Question. The Air Force's proposed budget for fiscal year 2006
includes reductions of 2,300 personnel in the Active-Duty ranks and
2,100 in the Air Force Reserve.
What is the justification for these reductions in Active-Duty and
Air Force Reserve Forces?
Answer. It is important to note that no capability is lost due to
the military end strength reduction. The majority of Active-Duty
reductions are tied to military to civilian conversions. Most
conversions are one for one; meaning, the military position is deleted
and a civilian position is added. Other reductions are tied to items
such as Personnel transformation, other various programmatic actions.
The majority of the Air Force Reserves end strength reduction was in
drill positions (elimination of AFR Combat Logistics Support Squadrons
and Aerial Port drill spaces). These were converted to dollars to fund
other priorities and buy other end strength. They were chosen in part
because they could be reduced without impacting readiness capabilities.
TRANSFORMATION
Question. If confirmed, you would play an important role in the
process of transforming the Air Force to meet new and emerging threats.
What are your goals for Air Force transformation?
Answer. The U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan outlines
several goals regarding transformation that will be used to implement
the Air Force transformation strategy. Our major goals are to work with
rest of DOD, non-DOD Agencies, as well as allies and coalition partners
to enhance joint and coalition warfighting capabilities while
continuing to aggressively pursue innovation to lay the groundwork for
Air Force transformation. As we strive to meet our joint goals, we will
seek to create new Air Force organizational constructs to facilitate
transformation and institutionalize cultural change. These
transformational changes will include ``breaking out'' of industrial
age business processes while embracing information age thinking.
MILITARY-TO-CIVILIAN CONVERSIONS
Question. The Services have been engaged in a multi-year effort to
eliminate thousands of military billets and replace them with civilian
or contractor personnel.
What is your view of the occupational specialties or functions in
the Air Force that would be most appropriate for military-to-civilian
conversions?
Answer. The most appropriate jobs for military-to-civilian
conversion are ones that that do not require a military member to fill
them. Our fiscal year 2006 conversions include air traffic control,
aircraft maintenance (at Edwards AFB), information management,
communications-computer, and personnel, among others. The Air Force is
also implementing DOD-wide medical conversions, however, no doctors or
dentists were impacted.
Question. If confirmed, what metrics would you establish to measure
the effectiveness of military-to-civilian conversions, and how would
you determine if and when Air Force civilians and private contractors
could perform work in a more efficient or cost effective manner than
military personnel?
Answer. Conversions are reviewed and measured as part of holistic
strategic approach in Total Force Human Capital Management that strives
to find the best mix of Active, ARC, and civilian forces. Career field
managers closely review their military and civilian mix; unit
commanders monitor their units, as well, for the best mix based on
their taskings. Unit commanders utilize the new civilians hired, just
as they use the other civilians within the unit. If a conversion from
military-to-civilian (or contractor) results from a Public-Private
Competition under the procedures of OMB Circular A-76, such measures
are established as part of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.
Question. How would you measure the impact of such conversions on
readiness?
Answer. The Air Force carefully evaluates all military to civilian
conversions to ensure the force is capable of meeting wartime taskings.
Unit commanders evaluate their readiness status monthly via Status of
Readiness and Training System (SORTS) reporting. Manpower is one data
point used to evaluate readiness via SORTS. Career field managers
closely review the projected conversions for wartime taskings and
career field sustainability within the framework of our overall Human
Capital Management strategy.
Question. Are the proposed reductions in the Air Force Active-Duty
end strength part of a broader effort to free up military members to
perform more operational duties?
Answer. Our goal is to keep the warfighter focused on warfighting.
To this end we are eliminating Active-Duty positions that do not
require a military member to fill them. We are replacing the Active-
Duty positions with an appropriate number of civilians, so that we do
not impact our readiness.
PREVENTION AND RESPONSE TO SEXUAL ASSAULTS
Question. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Personnel conducted a hearing on policies and programs
of the Department of Defense for preventing and responding to incidents
of sexual assault in the Armed Forces at which you testified and
endorsed a ``zero tolerance'' standard. In late April 2004, the DOD
Task Force on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault issued its report and
recommendations, noting ``If the Department of Defense is to provide a
responsive system to address sexual assault, it must be a top-down
program with emphasis placed at the highest levels within the
Department down to the lowest levels of command leadership. It must
develop performance metrics and establish an evaluative framework for
regular review and quality improvement.''
In response to the report and recommendations of the DOD Task Force
report, what actions has the Air Force taken to prevent and respond to
incidents of sexual assault?
Answer. AF implemented plan to strengthen prevention/enhance
response to sexual assault victims. We engaged civilian subject matter
experts to understand Sexual Assault behaviors/prevalence. Our Campaign
Plan addressed five major areas:
1. Policy and Leadership: Zero tolerance--criminal conduct;
violates core values
2. Prevention through training/education: AETC developing AF-
wide training at all levels of PME; CSAF produced Outreach
Training/Video for all airmen
3. Enhanced Response: Permanent Sexual Assault Response
Coordinator (SARC) positions; Victim Advocates (VA) at each
base
4. Enhanced AEF Response; Ensured trained SARC and VAs in
deployed areas
5. Enhanced Reporting: Implemented confidential reporting 14
Jun 05.
Question. What additional resources and organizational changes, if
any, has the Air Force devoted to victim advocacy programs?
Answer. In all, we devoted $12.7 million in fiscal year 2005 and
projected $17.8 million in fiscal year 2006 to victim advocacy
personnel and programs. We established 114 permanent full-time Sexual
Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) positions at installations with
1,000+ population, along with and additional 95 supporting positions.
The majority of our new SARCs are GS-101-12 civilian social workers.
Thirty-five are military (captains/majors) who will serve as a SARC for
a term and also serve when in the deployed environment (building
rotation base). In addition, we revamped the PME structure and
dedicated funds to improve evidence processing at the U.S. Army
Criminal Investigative Lab (USACIL). Lastly, we created an outreach
training video for distribution across the entire total force.
Question. If confirmed, what actions do you plan to take to ensure
that senior leaders of the Air Force have day-to-day visibility into
incidents of sexual assault and the effectiveness of policies aimed at
ensuring zero tolerance?
Answer. Responsibility for Prevention & Response resides squarely
with leadership. Accountability begins with our MAJCOM commanders and
me. In addition, our AFIDP is responsible for policy implementation/
evaluation. At the local level, the WG/CV is accountable for prevention
& response. To ensure our WG/CVs have a clear line of sight, our SARCs
report directly to them. As a reflection of how seriously our senior
leaders take this issue, we have discussed it in depth at the last four
CORONAs, and will continue to assess the program to make needed
adjustments. We are establishing metrics and evaluation criteria that
will be periodically reviewed by senior leaders, and will continue to
survey the total force, analyze data, take appropriate action.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY
Question. In December 2004, you and Secretary Chu provided a press
briefing on the DOD Inspector General's report on sexual misconduct at
the U.S. Air Force Academy. You cited various facts indicating that the
Agenda for Change is being implemented at the Academy and that it is
having beneficial effects on the cadet wing. In recent weeks,
complaints of cadets and former cadets of religious discrimination,
inappropriate efforts to proselytize cadets, and alleged retaliation
against a junior chaplain for her actions in attempting to respond to
complaints have resulted in the formation of a new task force and
inquiry.
What is your current assessment of the success of the Agenda for
Change in responding to the problem of sexual assault and harassment at
the U.S. Air Force Academy?
Answer. We're making visible progress on multiple fronts. Cadet
survey results show an increased faith and confidence in leadership.
Ninety percent of cadets characterize climate as ``conducive'' to
reporting, and the survey revealed women feel safe at USAFA. The number
of total assaults reported is down from academic year 2003 to 2004
(18.8 percent to 12 percent). The number of reports to the Academy
Response Team system is up (18 percent to 35 percent). These are
indications of trust and confidence in reporting and victim care
processes instituted.
The number of applications to the Academy for the 2008 class was
12430, with 3087 of those being women. This is an increase of almost
800 women applying from the year before. Most importantly, the quality
of applications remains excellent (Class 2008 average SAT=1310/national
average=1026).
Question. What is the status of the most recently formed task
force's inquiry, and when will its report be issued?
Answer. SecAF directed a cross-functional team to assess religious
climate at USAFA and measure progress in integrating principles of
respect in character development programs--report issued on 22 Jun 05.
We assessed policy & guidance, appropriateness of relevant training,
practices that enhance or detract from climate that respects ``free
exercise of religion'' and ``establishment'' clauses of 1st Amendment,
effectiveness of internal controls, relevance of religious climate to
the entire AF. Lt Gen Brady found the overall problem was not one of
institutional or widespread religious discrimination but of failure to
fully accommodate all members' needs and a lack of awareness of the
boundary between permissible and inappropriate expression of religious
beliefs in a military setting.
Question. What is the current Air Force policy on tolerance of
individual religious beliefs? What are your views on this issue? Every
airman needs to respect every other airman. Respect includes protecting
the right to hold to any belief system airmen/family members' choose--
this is the responsibility of every Air Force commander and leader.
This includes respecting an airman's right to align with traditional
religious views as well as his/her right to not align with any specific
view. Recently, the Chief of Staff released a memo to the entire force
outlining these principles, and clearly defining Air Force policy on
the issue. The framework of that policy is built upon the tolerance for
individual religious beliefs and practices relating to the sacred when
such accommodation will not have an adverse impact on the military,
unit, or individual readiness; unit cohesion, health and safety
standards; or discipline.
Question. What is the current Air Force policy on proselytizing and
on-duty expression of faith? What are your views on this issue?
Answer. Air Force policy is airmen may not impose their religion on
others or fail to respect the rights of others to hold differing
beliefs or have no religious faith. Airmen are sworn to support the
Constitution of the United States. I believe senior leaders,
commanders, and supervisors at every level must be particularly
sensitive to the fact that subordinates can consider public expressions
of belief systems coercive.
unified medical command
Question. The Department's 2005 BRAC recommendations include
significant realignments in military medical capability and support the
goal of achieving greater efficiency through joint organizational
solutions. The proposed recommendations regarding Walter Reed National
Military Medical Center, as well as other joint medical centers in
Landstuhl, Germany, and San Antonio, Texas, are based on the assumption
that staffing in the future will be joint with personnel from all three
military departments. While various studies have been done regarding
the concept and feasibility of establishing a joint military medical
command, very little progress has been made on implementing such a
command.
Do you consider a joint military medical command to be warranted
and feasible?
Answer. The Joint Medical Command proposal represents an
opportunity to gain efficiencies through enhancement of
interoperability and Service synergies while streamlining the policy
and oversight of the DOD's medical system. That being said, the Air
Force medical system is an integral part of our Expeditionary Air
Force. I consider Air Force medical assets potentially assigned to the
Joint Medical Command as critically necessary to assure a healthy and
fit force at home station and to support our deployed forces. I do have
questions regarding command and control of our Air Force medics, their
preparation for the deployed mission, and the impact on home station
healthcare when they are deployed.
Question. What functions, in your view, are unique to the Air Force
and should remain within the Air Force management structure?
Answer. AF medics are integral to how we present forces and execute
air and space operations. In addition to the aeromedical evacuation and
squadron medical elements, the AF would desire to retain the remaining
Aerospace Medical Operations, primary care and dental functions
necessary to assure the health of the forces. This will ensure the
primary mission of managing and executing our operational mission is
properly prioritized and within my authority to manage.
Question. With or without a unified medical command, what steps
would you take, if confirmed, to improve joint medical readiness
requirements in support of contingency operations?
Answer. I would continue to work with our service counterparts and
combatant command surgeon staffs to ensure interoperability of
doctrine, command and control and equipment. Our medics will remain
supportive of joint medical requirements, planning, and training. They
continue to work with the joint community to refine health service
support doctrine and to ensure the right medical capability is
provided. Our medics will continue to exercise a leadership role within
the joint community as we have in the past as Joint Staff Surgeon,
combatant command surgeons, and most recently, as chair of the Medical
Joint-Cross Service Group for the Base Realignment and Closure
Committee.
OVERSEAS AIR FORCE BASES
Question. The President announced plans in August 2004 to implement
an Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) to emphasize
an expeditionary posture of U.S. forces overseas. This will result in
the restationing of 60,000 to 70,000 U.S. military personnel from
overseas bases to the United States.
In your opinion, what opportunities exist for the United States Air
Force to realign the basing of combat air forces overseas in order to
improve Air Force support to U.S. combatant commands and our allies?
Answer. Opportunities exist in the areas of posturing against
emerging threats, enhancing strategic alliances, refining theatre
presence; better C2, infrastructure, manpower and theatre security
cooperation; insure coalition efforts are prepared to employ air and
space power in joint operations, Humanitarian Relief Operations
(HUMRO); Noncombatant Evac Ops (NEO); MEV (SaC), SOF, CSAR, SETAF; and
enhancing facilities at determined sites to create geographic HUBs for
JTFs.
Question. What impact will the restationing of these personnel and
their equipment have on the requirements for Air Force airlift and the
installations needed to support the increase in strategic mobility
requirements?
Answer. Mobility requirements and capabilities must be
exceptionally robust to support this new construct and ensure effective
warfighter support. Specifically, the right number of C17s and a
modernized C-5 fleet for inter-theater, worldwide deployment and
redeployment of CONUS-based forces will be imperatives. The KC-X
replacement tanker will become a more critical enabler for the airlift
bridge to effect the critical power projection phase and ensure
effective CAF support. The development of the Contingency Response
Group and Contingency Response Wing (CRG/CRW) architecture provides
base opening and mobile, responsive mobility support.
AIRCRAFT RECAPITALIZATION
Question. Approximately one third of the current Air Force aircraft
inventory is under some type of flight restriction, mainly due to aging
aircraft problems. The C-17 and F/A22 are among the first of the Air
Force's recapitalization efforts.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to further recapitalize the
Air Force aircraft inventory and how would you prioritize the
recapitalization effort?
Answer. We will transform to a smaller, more capable force by
retiring our oldest, more costly legacy aircraft, and invest in a
reshaped force designed to be more sustainable in the future. The USAF
is developing a mission roadmap, which will provide a force that fills
the Nation's needs and enables capabilities across the full spectrum of
joint warfighting requirements. The roadmap will ensure we can
accomplish our core tasks of rapid strike, global mobility, and
persistent ISR wherever the joint warfighter needs them. We will
leverage technology to increase capabilities, reduce support costs and
mitigate major aging aircraft issues. Finally, we must challenge our
aerospace industry to shift its focus to recapitalization and produce
more cost effective and supportable aircraft.
ACQUISITION ISSUES
Question. The acting secretary of the Air Force has announced that
the Air Force will no longer pursue leases of major equipment, but will
instead rely on the traditional acquisition system.
Do you support this decision?
Answer. Yes, I absolutely support the acting SECAF's decisions.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe it would
be appropriate for the Air Force to use a lease instead of a
traditional acquisition approach?
Answer. As Kenneth Krieg (Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) recently testified, leasing of
capital equipment could be a potential option when the equipment is
truly commercially available outside DOD and can meet leasing
requirements as established by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
AIRCRAFT SUSTAINMENT AND MODERNIZATION
Question. The global war on terrorism has increased demands on the
tanker fleet, increasing annual KC-135 flying hours over 30 percent
since September 11. This increased demand is expected to continue for
the foreseeable future. Reducing the size of the KC-135 tanker fleet
increases the utilization rate of the remaining tanker aircraft,
thereby accelerating the need to recapitalize the aircraft. The Air
Force has grounded 29 KC-135Es because of corrosion problems in the
engine struts and has expressed a desire to retire these 29 aircraft
and 20 additional KC-135Es in fiscal year 2006. The problem of
corrosion in the engine struts is well known, and the repair or
replacement of KC-135E engine struts has been done on many occasions in
the past.
Why does the Air Force choose to retire KC-135E aircraft from its
aircraft inventory instead of repairing or replacing the engine struts,
at least until Air Force plans for the modernization of its tanker
fleet are better defined?
Answer. Due to safety concerns, the KC-135 SPO recommended
grounding 29 aircraft by 1 Oct 04. Gen Handy, Air Mobility Command
Commander, decided to remove these aircraft from the flying schedule
based solely on flight safety considerations. He consolidated the
affected aircraft at bases that were best suited for their maintenance
requirements.
The OSD-directed Tanker Replacement Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
will be complete in August 2005 and will provide the AF with additional
data to make an informed decision on recapitalizing our tanker fleet.
Resources will then be applied to ensure that the future of our
Nation's air refueling fleet is viable and sufficient for our joint
forces.
Question. Currently, 30 Air Force C-130E aircraft have been
grounded for cracks in the aircraft's center wing box, and an
additional 59 C-130 E and H model aircraft are operating with flight
restrictions as a result of aircraft structural fatigue associated with
the center wing box. The development of cracks in the C-130 center wing
box as a result of structural fatigue is not a new problem. Several C-
130s have had their wing boxes replaced when cracks have developed in
the past. Additionally, significant investments have been made in non-
recurring engineering to modernize the C-130's avionics, structural,
and propulsion systems.
Does the Air Force intend to replace the center wing box for each
of the 29 grounded C-130Es, as well as repair or replace the center
wing box for each of the 59 restricted C-130s? If not, why not?
Answer. We are currently awaiting the Mobility Capability Study,
several engineering studies, and the Joint Staffs Intratheater Airlift
Study, in order to determine the best course of action. These studies
will help us decide what the right mix of C130s is and what is feasible
for wingbox replacement repairs. We will keep Congress informed as to
the results of each of the studies.
future missions in base realignment and closure recommendations
Question. The 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
recommendations forwarded by the Secretary of Defense to the BRAC
Commission on May 13, 2005, include the realignment of 23 Air National
Guard installations and 1 active installation by removing all aircraft
currently stationed at these installations with no recommendation for
other missions to relocate to these installations. These
recommendations have the effect of changing the force structure of
these installations while making no recommendation on the status of the
base itself, which was the intent of BRAC.
How will these actions affect the size of the Air National Guard?
Answer. The current BRAC recommendations do not seek to reduce end
strength in the Air National Guard or the Air Force Reserve. Because
the emerging missions will provide an exponential increase in
capability, we will need the additional manpower and capability
resident in our Citizen Airmen of the Total Force. We are closely
working with the Air National Guard to match them with relevant
combatant commander missions.
Question. How will the Air Force address the need of these units
for new missions and responsibilities in order to sustain the viability
of the military installation?
Answer. We will be working throughout the summer with all the
MAJCOMs, ANG and AF Reserve to ensure all units potentially losing
flying missions move into missions that will be relevant and meaningful
well into the 21st century. For Air National Guard units, we will
ensure that in addition to their Federal mission, the requirements of
their State and Homeland Defense roles are also considered and
adequately addressed.
Question. In your opinion, what new missions should be considered
and pursued by units losing aircraft and when should they expect to see
these new missions?
Answer. We have a growing list of emerging missions including:
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; Command, Control, Communications, Computer
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Intelligence (C\4\ISR); Space
operations; and Information operations. These missions will keep the
gaining units relevant in the 21st century. The transition to these new
missions will be deliberate and well thought out to ensure our Total
Force is well-trained and ready for tomorrow's missions.
AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Question. During testimony earlier this year on the fiscal year
2006 budget request, General Jumper noted that, ``The Air Force is
committed to providing the Nation with the advanced air and space
technologies required to protect our national security interests and
ensure we remain on the cutting edge of system performance,
flexibility, and affordability. Air Force Science and Technology (S&T)
investments are focused on achieving the warfighting effects and
capabilities required by the Air Force Concepts of Operations.''
If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding the
importance of innovative defense science in meeting Air Force missions?
Answer. I support a robust Air Force Science and Technology (S&T)
Program and believe we are currently funded at a level that provides
for the innovation needed to support our Air Force missions. If
confirmed, I will continue to pursue an adequate and stable investment
in Air Force S&T.
Question. The Air Force currently plans to dedicate approximately
$2 billion to science and technology programs, 1.6 percent of the total
Air Force budget and $346 million to basic defense research, or 0.3
percent of the total Air Force budget.
Do you believe the current balance between short- and long-term
research is appropriate to meet current and future Air Force needs?
Answer. I believe the current balance between short- and long-term
research is appropriate. The Science and Technology (S&T) Program spans
a broad foundation of basic research, applied research, and advanced
technology development efforts. The output of this S&T investment
provides Air Force leadership the capabilities needed to respond to a
rapidly changing world. The Air Force S&T Program provides for the
discovery, development, demonstration, and timely transition of
affordable technologies that keep our Air Force the best in the world.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in ensuring
research priorities that will meet the needs of the Air Force in 2020?
If confirmed, I plan to continue using the Air Force's Integrated
Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment (I-CRRA) master planning
process and the COCOMs' Integrated Priority List to ensure we have a
high correlation between our Science and Technology (S&T) programs and
the required warfighting capabilities.
Question. In the face of rising acquisition costs for programs such
as the F-22, Joint Strike Fighter, and programs to support space
operations, if confirmed, how do you plan to ensure the protection of
funding for long-term science and technology investments?
Answer. The Air Force closely links technologies in its S&T Plan to
warfighter capability needs and focuses on those technologies of the
highest priority to the warfighter. At $1.98 billion in the fiscal year
2006 President's budget, Air Force S&T is funded at a level to achieve
the warfighting capabilities needed to support Air Force Core
Competencies. Overall, ``core'' funding for the Air Force S&T Program
has increased over $60 million or almost 2.3 percent real growth in the
fiscal year 2006 President's when compared to similar funding in the
fiscal year 2005 President's budget. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with Congress to ensure a strong Air Force S&T Program tailored
to achieve our vision of a superior Air and Space Force.
TECHNICAL WORKFORCE
Question. The Air Force Research Laboratory relies on a strong
technical workforce to conduct research for development of new weapons
systems, platforms, and capabilities to meet its mission of: ``leading
the discovery, development, and integration of affordable warfighting
technologies for our air and space force. ``
Are you concerned about the current or future supply of experts in
defense critical disciplines, particularly personnel with appropriate
security clearances, to hold positions in defense laboratories? Yes I
am concerned. Our scientists and engineers (S&Es) are crucial to
keeping the U.S. Air Force on the leading edge of emerging technology.
I will work hard to make sure we have the right mix of talent,
expertise, and skill to meet our needs.
GENERAL OFFICER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Question. Incidents of misconduct or substandard performance ad
findings of inspectors general and other command directed
investigations are documented in various ways in each of the services.
Procedures for forwarding adverse and alleged adverse information in
connection with the promotion selection process are set forth in DOD
Instruction 1320.4.
Question. How is the Air Force ensuring compliance with DOD
Instruction 1320.4?
Answer. As the single repository for records of adverse information
on Senior Officials, SAF/IG accomplishes an extensive files check
whenever an individual meets a promotion board for any of the general
officer ranks. If adverse information is uncovered, a senior officer
unfavorable information file (SOUIF) is created and is attached to the
officer's promotion board folder. If selected for promotion, this file
stays with the officer's nomination package through its coordination
with OSD, the White House, and Congress. If new unfavorable information
is uncovered on an officer already nominated for promotion, that
information is immediately added to the nomination package. In this
instance, the Air Force may pull the individual's name from the list.
Question. What standards and procedures are in place in the Air
Force to ensure that allegations of adverse information relating to a
nominee for promotion is brought to the attention of the committee in a
timely manner?
Answer. If formal action is pending, the SecAF will sign a
notification to OSD of the situation and request appropriate action,
such as formal separation from a pending promotion list, retirement
request, or place member on hold if there is a nomination pending
Senate confirmation. Additionally, informal phone contact is made both
with OSD/MPP and/or the SASC staff (through the SAF/LL). Files checks
on all individuals are conducted prior to submittal of nomination
packages, retirement requests, and promotion lists; these files checks
are updated every 60 days while formal action is pending approval, and
ensure no adverse or potentially adverse information exists prior to
the SecAF's signature on these requests.
READINESS LEVELS
Question. What is your assessment of the current readiness of the
Air Force to execute its assigned missions?
Answer. I believe our readiness is sufficient and we can meet all
of the current combatant commander's requirements.
Question. 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. My readiness concerns include: the proper mix of strategic
airlift aircraft including maintaining an adequate mobility capacity
and Air Refueling fleet. Our rapid strike capability is challenged by
the aging of our legacy aircraft, in addition to the need for
persistence, stealth, and precision. Our ISR assets are in continual
use and must be adequately resourced. These issues are difficult and
solving them will require teamwork with Congress, the Department of
Defense, and industry.
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 Chief of Staff 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 John Warner
AEROMEDICAL EVACUATION
1. Senator Warner. General Moseley, the committee included a
provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006--pending consideration by the full Senate--that would authorize
$200 million for up to two fully-equipped, dedicated aeromedical
evacuation aircraft for seriously wounded and ill casualties. I believe
we must provide such a state-of-the-art capability, especially given
the grievous complexity of today's wounds. Do you agree that we need a
dedicated aeromedical evacuation capability for our casualties?
General Moseley. I agree with the Senate that we need to provide
the most capable and responsive Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) capability
we can for our casualties. I also agree with having a ``dedicated
capability'' but not the purchase of a unique, dedicated platform. With
the retirement of the C-9, we have intentionally moved away from a
small, dedicated AE fleet to a concept that uses any available aircraft
that can be configured to provide AE capability. We now provide state
of the art enroute medical care regardless of which airframe is
selected to carry the wounded. The responsiveness is proportional to
the patient condition; Urgent is ASAP, Priority is within 24 hours, and
Routine is within 7 days. The average time from battle injury to CONUS
Medical Center is 4 days.
______
Question Submitted by Senator John McCain
BOEING 767 TANKER DEAL, ACQUISITION REFORM, AND LEADERSHIP
2. Senator McCain. General Moseley, during your term as Vice Chief
Staff of the Air Force, your appearances before the House and Senate
Armed Services Committees and in over 300 hundred of your e-mails that
I have reviewed, you clearly advocated for the Boeing 767 tanker lease
deal. After exhaustive investigations by this Committee, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and an alphabet soup
of groups: DOJ, GAO, CBO, CRS, DOD IG, OMB, IDA, NDU, DSB, PA&E, DOT&E,
etc., we now know that Air Force leadership and to some degree DOD
leadership failed to follow acquisition statutes and regulations and
ensure good fiduciary stewardship of taxpayer funds, tailored the
requirements of the ORD to the Boeing 767 instead of to the warfighter
and overstated the effects of corrosion on the KC-135 tanker fleet. I
could go on and on. What steps will your take to ensure that this does
not happen again if you are confirmed as the Air Force's top General?
General Moseley. I believe that the traditional acquisition process
(Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15) has served the Air Force well
and if confirmed, I will work to ensure our weapons systems are
procured in the proper manner. This includes the accomplishment of
Analyses of Alternatives for major weapons systems which will better
inform the process. I will also support the on-going departmental
initiatives that are further studying ways in which the acquisition
process can be improved. Perhaps equally important, I support putting
uniformed acquisition professionals back into oversight roles that were
eliminated during recent downsizing initiatives. I look forward to
working with Congress, the department, and the acquisition community on
this important issue and I thank Senator McCain for his leadership
regarding this matter.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
AIR GUARD AND BRAC
3. Senator Levin. General Moseley, there is strong opposition to
the Air Force's 2005 base realignment and closure (BRAC)
recommendations from the Air National Guard. From a policy standpoint,
they have raised concerns that these recommendations will result in the
loss of thousands of experienced Reserve component personnel. From a
process standpoint, the Air Guard said it was not adequately consulted
when these recommendations were developed by the Air Force. In my state
of Michigan, for example, if the A-10s leave Battle Creek, and no
mission comes in, which is what the Air Force recommends, we are left
with a fully-manned, high-quality, high-retention unit with no mission
to perform, and it seems likely many of those personnel will leave the
Guard which would in turn lose many such skilled and experienced
personnel. How do you respond to these concerns?
General Moseley. Senator, we understand the BRAC tasking put to us
was to maximize the Nation's warfighting capability and shed excess
infrastructure as we reset a smaller force structure to meet future
strategy needs. To do this, we propose restoring our individual
squadrons to effective sizes. The active component dealt with force
reductions over the past 10 years by reducing its number of squadrons;
in the Guard we tended to keep the same number of squadrons and reduce
the size of each. Consequently, you'll tend to see more adjustment in
the Guard squadrons as we adjust to reductions in the force. That said,
we maintain the manpower balance among the Guard, Reserve, and Active
in our flying missions. The AF wants to retain the experience and
talents of its Guard airmen; in many cases we expect to retain our
airmen. For instance, in addition to the A-10s that are consolidating
at Selfridge ANGB, there are two other nearby Guard units that are
plussing up in fighters, at Toledo (80 miles from Battle Creek) and at
Fort Wayne (80 miles from Battle Creek). The Air Guard, along with the
AF Reserve, was not only consulted, but played an integral role in all
the deliberative meetings that led to the Secretary's BRAC
recommendations. The Director of the Air Guard was kept informed
throughout the BRAC process and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
received an update as our deliberations matured.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Dayton
BRAC PROGRAMMATIC DECISIONS
4. Senator Dayton. General Moseley, it appears that the Air Force
leadership made a decision to use the BRAC process for programmatic
decisions, especially as it relates to the Air National Guard (ANG) and
aircraft retirements, and therefore bypass Congressional oversight. Do
you agree with that statement? If not, how do you explain the presence
of ``non-BRAC programmatic actions'' in the Secretary's
recommendations?
General Moseley. The Classified Force Structure Plan submitted to
Congress by the Joint Staff on 15 Mar 05 included the 20-year force
structure projection (the 2025 Force) that identified a programmatic
reduction--apart from BRAC--of approximately 6 percent of traditional
Air Force force structure, with about 20 percent coming out of the
fighter force.
The Air Force used the 2025 Force Structure Plan (which was
required to stay within prescribed budget limits) and the BRAC
selection criteria as start points to develop its BRAC recommendations.
The ``Non-BRAC programmatic actions'' within Air Force recommendations
define those actions that occur to get down to the force structure plan
required by the Statute; we claim neither costs nor savings from these
programmatic moves. For clarity, the Air Force included non-BRAC
programmatic actions to ensure the total combined impact of BRAC
recommendations and programmatic actions at a specific installation
were captured.
FUTURE FORCE STRUCTURE POLICY
5. Senator Dayton. General Moseley, what is the future force
structure policy of the Air Force for the next 10 years?
General Moseley. Senator Dayton, the Air Force, along with the
participation of the leadership of the National Guard Bureau, Air Force
Reserve Command and selected Adjutant General representatives, has
carefully crafted a Future Total Force plan that ensures highly
effective air and space power for the Nation well into the future. The
plan is comprised of two main parts: a well-analyzed and cost-
constrained force structure and innovative organizational constructs
that employ that structure in the active, Guard and Reserve as
partners.
This fiscally responsive force structure plan divests older weapon
systems that are increasingly more expensive to operate, as well as
very limited in their capabilities to meet the future requirements of
the security environment. We need to shift our investment towards
newer, more capable systems and platforms that are leveraged by higher
crew ratios to deliver maximum warfighting and homeland defense
capabilities. Our plan includes new missions and capabilities for the
joint warfighter and includes a greater role of the Air National Guard
and the Air Force Reserve partners--side-by-side with their Active
component. Therefore the FTF plan directs the divestiture of legacy
aircraft and sunset missions to fund critical capabilities found
increasingly in unmanned aerial vehicles, space assets, information
operations, and intelligence units and the Total Force warriors who
will serve as the foundation of these capabilities.
The second aspect of the FTF plan is all about our people, and how
we can best leverage the unique strengths each brings. The Air Force
has always operated as a Total Force. Under the FTF plan we will
expand, in scope and numbers, the Total Force units in day-to-day
association with one another. In fact, the highly successful associate
model has been in use for almost 40 years between the Air Force and the
Air Force Reserve, largely in the strategic airlift mission. For the
first time, we will associate in larger numbers of units, in both
directions--Active to Guard and Reserve, and the reciprocal direction
as well, and expand this associate relationship to other platforms.
Using this construct, we will leverage the tremendous experience
resident in the Guard and Reserve as well as provide the ability, using
Active Duty airmen, to sustain increasing levels of deployment under
our expeditionary role.
6. Senator Dayton. General Moseley, what is the role of the ANG in
support of that policy?
General Moseley. Senator Dayton, the Air National Guard has been
and will continue to be a full partner in transformation and will be
involved in all new missions as they come on line. In fact, Air
National Guard will fly the first operational F/A-22s as part of an
associate unit at Langley AFB. They will be integral to increasingly
relevant emerging missions, flying UAVs, operating space systems and
processing battlefield intelligence that will provide direct support to
our joint war fighters, the combatant commanders--including NORTHCOM.
The Air Force recognizes the critical importance of homeland defense
and the critical contributions the Air National Guard makes to their
communities, states and nation. The FTF plan accounts for this
important role and ensures the Air National Guard remains a central
part of the Homeland Defense mission.
7. Senator Dayton. General Moseley, does BRAC support/negate/
supplant this mission/policy?
General Moseley. The FTF plan is strictly about force structure and
organizational constructs and was developed independently of the BRAC
process. Both the force structure and the organizational constructs
were provided to the BRAC team for use in their deliberations--from
that perspective, the BRAC, the force structure, and the organizational
constructs were mutually supportive. Once basing decisions were made
public, we worked and will continue to work with the Air National Guard
and Air Force Reserve to facilitate effective assignment of new
missions. We anticipate the emerging mission and association plan will
be ready for announcement in the late summer/early fall timeframe.
AIR SOVEREIGNTY
8. Senator Dayton. General Moseley, what is the role of the active
Air Force in air sovereignty, or does it only defend abroad?
General Moseley. The active Air Force performs an air sovereignty
mission within the continental United States as well as its missions
abroad along with the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. Through
Air Combat Command (ACC) at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, the USAF
provides operational aircraft to the Canadian-U.S. North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) air sovereignty mission for
performance of air defense throughout the U.S. Northern Command
(USNORTHCOM) geographic area of responsibility.
9. Senator Dayton. General Moseley, if the active Air Force only or
primarily defends abroad, and the ANG's mission is air sovereignty,
what equipment does the Guard need to fulfill that mission?
General Moseley. The USAF performs all assigned air missions, both
abroad and within the continental United States, using a Total Force
mix of assets from the Active-Duty Air Force, the Air Force Reserve,
and the Air National Guard. While the Air National Guard performs a
great deal of the air sovereignty alert mission, it does not perform
that mission without air assets from the active and Reserve
organizations. At the same time, Air National Guard members perform
numerous overseas missions, serving with Air Force Active-Duty and Air
Force Reserve members in a variety of theaters and airframes. The USAF
employs an Air Expeditionary Force concept which draws assets from the
Total Force for employment around the globe. The assignment of the air
sovereignty alert mission to air units operating in the U.S. merely
adds one more requirement to their air operations. Therefore, the
equipment which the Air National Guard requires must ensure that the
assets are available to create the correct mix of air defense, air to
ground and air reconnaissance assets required by the Total Force to
perform all air missions.
______
[The nomination reference of Gen. T. Michael Moseley, USAF,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 16, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment as Chief of Staff of
the Air Force, and for appointment to the grade indicated while
assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., sections 8033 and 601:
To be General
Gen. Teed M. Moseley, 0000.
______
[The biographical sketch of Gen. T. Michael Moseley, USAF,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Gen. T. Michael Moseley, USAF
General T. Michael Moseley is Vice Chief of Staff, Headquarters
U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC. As Vice Chief, he presides over the Air
Staff and serves as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Requirements
Oversight Council.
General Moseley graduated from Texas A&M University in 1971 with a
Bachelor of Arts degree in political science. He earned a Master of
Arts degree from Texas A&M University in 1972, also in political
science. He has commanded the F-15 Division of the USAF Fighter Weapons
School at Nellis AFB, Nevada, the 33rd Operations Group at Eglin AFB,
Florida, and the 57th Wing, the Air Force's largest, most diverse
flying wing, also at Nellis. The general has served as the combat
Director of Operations for Joint Task Force Southwest Asia. General
Moseley also commanded 9th Air Force and U.S. Central Command Air
Forces while serving as Combined Forces Air Component Commander for
Operations Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. The
general is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and has been
named an officer of the Order of National Merit by the president of the
French Republic. He has also been awarded the United Arab Emirates'
Military Medal, 1st Class, by the president of the U.A.E.
General Moseley's staff assignments have been a mix of operational,
joint and personnel duties. These include serving in Washington, DC, as
Director for Legislative Liaison for the Secretary of the Air Force;
Deputy Director for Politico-Military Affairs for Asia/Pacific and
Middle East, the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Chief of the Air Force General
Officer Matters Office; Chief of Staff of the Air Force Chair and
Professor of Joint and Combined Warfare at the National War College;
and Chief of the Tactical Fighter Branch, Tactical Forces Division,
Directorate of Plans, Headquarters U.S. Air Force.
Education:
1971...................................... Bachelor of Arts degree in
political science, Texas
A&M University, College
Station
1972...................................... Master of Arts degree in
political science, Texas
A&M University, College
Station
1977...................................... Squadron Officer School,
Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
1981...................................... Fighter Weapons Instructor
Course, U.S. Air Force
Fighter Weapons School,
Nellis AFB, Nevada, 1984
Air Command and Staff
College, Maxwell AFB,
Alabama.
1988...................................... U.S. Air Force Joint Senior
Battle Commander's Course,
Hurlburt Field, Florida.
1990...................................... National War College, Fort
Lesley J. McNair,
Washington, DC.
2000...................................... Combined Force Air Component
Commander Course, Maxwell
AFB, Alabama, and Hurlburt
Field, Florida.
Assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1972....................... May 1973.......... Student,
undergraduate
pilot training,
Webb AFB, Texas
May 1973........................ July 1977......... T-37 instructor
pilot and spin
flight test
pilot; flight
check pilot, and
standardization
and evaluation
flight examiner,
3389th Flying
Training
Squadron, 78th
Flying Training
Wing, Webb AFB,
Texas
July 1977....................... September 1979.... F-15 instructor
pilot, flight
lead and mission
commander, 7th
Tactical Fighter
Squadron,
Holloman AFB, New
Mexico
September 1979.................. August 1983....... F-15 weapons and
tactics officer,
instructor pilot,
and flight lead
and mission
commander;
standardization
and evaluation/
flight examiner,
44th Tactical
Fighter Squadron
and 12th Tactical
Fighter Squadron,
Kadena Air Base,
Japan
August 1983..................... June 1984......... Course officer,
Air Command and
Staff College,
Maxwell AFB,
Alabama
June 1984....................... June 1987......... Chief, Tactical
Fighter Branch,
Tactical Forces
Division,
Directorate of
Plans, Deputy
Chief of Staff
for Plans and
Operations,
Headquarters U.S.
Air Force,
Washington, DC
June 1987....................... June 1989......... Commander, F-15
Division, and
instructor pilot,
Fighter Weapons
Instructor
Course, U.S. Air
Force Fighter
Weapons School,
Nellis AFB,
Nevada
June 1989....................... June 1990......... Course officer,
National War
College, Fort
Lesley J. McNair,
Washington, DC
June 1990....................... August 1992....... Chief of Staff of
the Air Force
Chair and
Professor of
Joint and
Combined Warfare,
National War
College, Fort
Lesley J. McNair,
Washington, DC
August 1992..................... January 1994...... Commander, 33rd
Operations Group,
Eglin AFB,
Florida.
January 1994.................... May 1996.......... Chief, Air Force
General Officer
Matters Office,
Headquarters U.S.
Air Force,
Washington, DC
May 1996........................ November 1997..... Commander, 57th
Wing, Nellis AFB,
Nevada
November 1997................... July 1999......... Deputy Director
for Politico-
Military Affairs,
Asia/Pacific and
Middle East,
Directorate for
Strategic Plans
and Policy, the
Joint Chiefs of
Staff,
Washington, DC
July 1999....................... October 2001...... Director,
Legislative
Liaison, Office
of the Secretary
of the Air Force,
Headquarters U.S.
Air Force,
Washington, DC
November 2001................... August 2003....... Commander, 9th Air
Force and U.S.
Central Command
Air Forces, Shaw
AFB, South
Carolina
August 2003..................... present........... Vice Chief of
Staff,
Headquarters,
U.S. Air Force,
Washington, DC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight information:
Rating: Command pilot.
Flight hours: More than 2,800.
Aircraft flown: T-37, T-38, AT-38, and F-15A/B/C/D.
Major awards and decorations:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal with oak leaf cluster
Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster
Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters
Air Medal
Joint Service Commendation Medal
Air Force Commendation Medal
Air Force Achievement Medal
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Korea Defense Service Medal
French National Order of Merit
United Arab Emirates' Military Medal, 1st Class
Other achievements:
2003 H.H. Arnold Award, the Air Force Association's highest honor
to a military member in the field of National Security.
Effective dates of promotion:
Second Lieutenant - July 9, 1971
First Lieutenant - July 9, 1974
Captain - Jan. 9, 1976
Major - Oct. 1, 1983
Lieutenant Colonel - March 1, 1986
Colonel - April 1, 1991
Brigadier General - Dec. 1, 1996
Major General - Feb. 1, 2000
Lieutenant General - Nov. 7, 2001
General - Oct. 1, 2003
______
[The Committee on Armed Services certain senior military
officers nominated by the President to posisitons 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. T. Michael Moseley,
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.)
Teed Michael ``Buzz'' Moseley.
2. Position to which nominated:
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, Washington, DC.
3. Date of nomination:
May 13, 2005.
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 3, 1949; Dallas, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Margaret Virginia Moseley (Maiden name: Margaret
Virginia Willmann).
7. Names and ages of children:
Tricia Kristen Moseley, 31; Gregory Michael Moseley, 29.
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.
11. 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.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Association of Former Students, Texas A&M University
Council on Foreign Relations
National Association of Eagle Scouts
National War College Alumni Association
Texas and Southwest Cattle Raisers Association
Texas State Historical Association
Texas State Society
Ninth Air Force Society
Thunderbirds 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.
Awarded Air Training Command's Instructor Pilot of the Year Award,
1975.
Presented letter of Commendation, Distinguished Service by the
Minister of Defense, Republic of Korea, 1999.
Awarded ``Officer's Rank in the French National Order of Merit'' by
the President of the French Republic, 2001.
Air Force Association, HH Arnold Award, ``Highest Honor to a
Military Member in the Field of National Security,'' 2003.
Awarded the Emirate's Military Medal (1st Class), ``In recognition
for distinguished service to the United Arab Emirates Armed Forces,''
2003.
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
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
T. Michael Moseley, General, USAF.
This 29th day of April 2005.
[The nomination of Gen. T. Michael Moseley, USAF, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Warner on June 30, 2005,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on June 30, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Eric S. Edelman by
Chairman Warner 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, I support the full implementation of these reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I am not aware of any reason to believe that the reforms
have not been substantially implemented. I believe that they have
strengthened civilian control of the military, improved the quality of
military advice given to the President and Secretary of Defense, and
improved the Department's ability to execute its missions.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I believe that the most important aspects of the Goldwater-
Nichols reforms are the Nation's increased emphasis on military
``jointness,'' the formulation of top-down defense strategy and plans,
and the vesting of important responsibility and authority in the
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 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 understand that the Department of Defense is currently
examining roles and missions issues in the Quadrennial Defense Review,
including expanding the benefits derived from Goldwater-Nichols to
interagency applications of ``jointness.'' If confirmed, I will study
any promising reforms suggested in that effort. The Department will
need to consult closely with Congress, especially this committee, on
any potential modifications of the Goldwater-Nichols reforms.
DUTIES
Question. Section 134 of title 10, United States Code, provides
that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) 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 set forth in Title
10 and the Department of Defense Directive. The Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy serves as the principal staff 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. In particular, section 134(b) of title
10, United States Code, prescribes the duties of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy as follows:
(b)(1) The Under Secretary shall perform such duties and
exercise such powers as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
(2) The Under Secretary shall assist the Secretary of Defense--
--
(A) in preparing written policy guidance for the
preparation and review of contingency plans; and
(B) in reviewing such plans.
(3) 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.
(4) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
shall have 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.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would prescribe for you?
Answer. I believe that, if I am confirmed, Secretary Rumsfeld would
look to me to discharge the duties assigned to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy by statute and regulation, especially assistance and
advice on the development and implementation of national security and
defense policy. Those duties would include oversight of DOD policy and
plans, DOD relations with foreign governments and international
organizations, and DOD participation in intra-governmental processes
with other agencies.
Question. How do you see the civilian role, as opposed to the
military role, in the formulation of strategy and contingency planning?
Answer. I believe the civilian role is to establish, in broad
outlines, the overall defense strategy and to set out the objectives
and major assumptions on which contingency planning is based. From the
briefings I have received, I understand that the USD(P)'s office
initiates this process on behalf of the Secretary through the
Contingency Planning Guidance. Following the guidance in this document,
which the President approves, combatant commanders develop operation
plans for prescribed scenarios. As they are being developed, the
current Secretary himself conducts in-process reviews with the
responsible combatant commander. If I am confirmed, my role as USD(P)
would be to follow the development of this body of plans and assist the
Secretary in a formal review of the plans, which are submitted for his
approval.
CONTINGENCY PLANNING
Question. One of the purposes of Goldwater-Nichols was to increase
military and civilian 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 in a position yet to make such a judgment, but I
am told and read that Secretary Rumsfeld has done much in the past 4
years to advance OSD's role in overseeing the Contingency Planning
process. I understand that the Secretary and USD(P) play central roles
in directing the development and review of contingency plans, and the
Secretary retains final approval authority for the plans. My impression
is that the USD(P) staff enjoys good working relations with the Joint
Staff and combatant command planning staffs. I believe that these kinds
of relationships facilitate effective oversight. I have also been
informed that the Secretary's and the Chairman's staffs have worked
together to speed up Departmental contingency planning and make it more
responsive to the needs of the President and the Secretary--especially
in terms of providing them more options in time of crisis.
Question. What steps do you believe are necessary to ensure
effective civilian control and oversight of contingency planning?
Answer. If confirmed, I will have the opportunity to gain a
detailed understanding of OSD's oversight processes and how they might
be improved. My current impression, however, is that there is no reason
to believe that effective civilian control and oversight are lacking.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy?
Answer. Our Nation is at war. Strategic victory in the global war
on terrorism is our greatest challenge. Moreover, our Nation is
confronted by a broader array of security challenges than those we
faced in the past. In addition to the continued threat of traditional
military challenges posed by nation states, the United States faces a
range of non-traditional challenges from nations and non-state actors,
of which the terrorism that we have seen in the past years is the most
salient example. We live in an era that is marked by strategic
uncertainty. Accordingly, I believe that the Department of Defense must
be flexible and agile, anticipating change, influencing its direction,
and adapting our strategy and capabilities as appropriate.
The Department's recently published National Defense Strategy:
Positions us better to handle strategic uncertainty;
Recognizes the value of measures aimed at resolving
problems before they become crises and crises before they
become wars; and
Emphasizes the importance of building partnership
capacity to address common threats.
I believe that identifying and pursuing approaches and mechanisms
that help both international and interagency partners build their
security capacity should be a primary focus of the Policy organization,
and it is something to which, if confirmed, I would intend to devote a
great deal of effort.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, my immediate emphasis will be to participate
in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which specifically addresses
the Department's capability for managing both traditional as well as
new challenges to U.S. interests. In addition, I would continue
implementing the re-alignment of U.S. global defense posture. Given my
past experience, I would put special emphasis on the need to work with
allies and partners to develop a common understanding of threats and
the appropriate approaches to address these challenges in concert.
FUTURE OF NATO
Question. Over the past several years, NATO has experienced a time
of both great change and stress. NATO has enlarged with the addition of
seven new members from Eastern Europe and the Baltics, and NATO has
taken on an ambitious out of area mission in Afghanistan as well as a
training mission in Iraq.
What are the greatest opportunities and challenges that you foresee
for NATO over the next 5 years?
Answer. At its Prague Summit in November 2002, NATO launched a set
of initiatives central to ongoing transformation efforts that have
changed the Alliance's strategic mindset concerning threats, roles, and
capabilities. NATO leaders:
Established the NATO Response Force (NRF), designed as
a brigade-size, rapidly deployable joint/combined force.
Streamlined the NATO Command Structure to operate more
efficiently and effectively. Twenty original headquarters were
reduced to 11, and the Allied Command Transformation (ACT) was
created to drive Allied transformation.
Launched the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC)
through which Allies pledged to make specific capability
improvements in their military forces.
In 2003, NATO's Secretary General focused the Alliance on
shortcomings in the ``usability'' of Allied military forces--i.e., the
lack of sufficient forces that are deployable and sustainable on
operations outside NATO territory. Since then, NATO has developed
``Usability Targets'' for Allied land forces. At the Istanbul Summit in
June 2004, NATO leaders agreed to maintain at least 40 percent of land
forces prepared and equipped for deployed operations, and at least 8
percent deployed or on standby on an indefinite basis.
A key challenge will be to complete the Alliance transition from
stationary forces to more mobile, deployable, and sustainable forces
(Allies need to do more, especially in providing the key supporting
enablers that expeditionary forces require, including airlift and
combat support). Another challenge is to convince Allies to offer in
sufficient numbers the forces that they do have to fill the
requirements of NRF rotations and ongoing Alliance operations in
Afghanistan and Kosovo. Another major challenge is to develop a
cooperative relationship with the European Union, as it develops its
European Security and Defense Policy, which preserves NATO as the
primary instrument of transatlantic security and does not diminish the
Alliance's military effectiveness.
Question. Do you envision further enlargement of NATO within the
next 5 years?
Answer. At the June 2004 Istanbul Summit Allied leaders said the
door to NATO membership remains open, but there is no timetable for
another round of enlargement. Three NATO aspirants (Albania, Croatia,
and Macedonia) are now participating in the Membership Action Plan.
Ukraine and Georgia have also expressed interest in joining the
Alliance. At the April 2005 Foreign Ministerial in Vilnius, Allies
invited Ukraine to begin an intensified dialogue on membership issues.
Each NATO aspirant will be judged on its individual merits and progress
in implementing political, economic, and military reforms.
EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENSE POLICY
Question. A challenge facing the United States and NATO in the
months and years ahead is 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. I believe the NATO-EU relationship should be cooperative,
not competitive, and should avoid duplication. There should be no
weakening of the transatlantic link. The U.S. supports an EU Security
and Defense Policy that provides more capability--for NATO, as well as
for EU operations where NATO chooses not to engage. Key to achieving
these goals is to employ the 2003 NATO-EU ``Berlin-Plus'' agreements,
which set out cooperation arrangements between the two organizations.
Those arrangements have been used in the EU operation in Bosnia, and in
efforts to develop capabilities such as the NATO Response Force and the
EU Battlegroups. The U.S. has been very active in promoting this
cooperation, and I believe it should continue to be.
EU ARMS EMBARGO
Question. The prospect of the European Union (EU) lifting its
embargo on arms sales to China has generated considerable concern in
Congress. Many believe that it would be detrimental to U.S. national
security interests were China to have access to more and better
defense-related systems and technologies.
What is your view of this matter?
Answer. I would be opposed to any EU effort to lift its arms
embargo on China. It would send the wrong signal to China at a time
when its rhetoric over Taiwan is escalating. It would endorse China's
poor record on human rights. Finally, lifting the embargo could
facilitate China's military modernization, increasing the threat to
U.S. forces in the event of conflict over Taiwan.
Question. Do you believe the United States should engage in a
dialogue with the EU regarding how to strengthen, not relax, controls
on exports of militarily sensitive items to China?
Answer. I believe that a strategic dialogue between the United
States and the EU on security matters in East Asia would be a useful
and important way to develop a common strategic picture of what it
takes to maintain peace and stability in the region. This dialogue
would help to reinforce the need for EU restraint on the transfer of
sensitive military and dual-use technology to China.
IRAQI SECURITY FORCES
Question. The U.S. Government has embarked on a strategy of
training, equipping, and mentoring Iraqi security forces as the most
effective way to establish meaningful security in Iraq, end the
persistent insurgency, and reduce the requirement for significant
numbers of U.S. and coalition forces.
How would you assess the current readiness and capabilities of the
Iraqi security forces?
Answer. As Ambassador to Turkey, I was not in a position to
evaluate the Iraqi security forces. From the information I have seen,
however, I would say that the readiness and capabilities of the Iraqi
security forces vary from unit to unit but are generally improving.
Iraqi units are operating alongside U.S. units in greater numbers, and
some of them are operating independently with sole responsibility for
their operating area. For example, Iraqi units have assumed primary
responsibility for their operating areas in some parts of Baghdad and
Mosul.
Question. What criteria should be used to provide a realistic
measure of the readiness and capabilities of these forces?
Answer. I defer to our military experts in these matters to propose
the best measures of readiness and capability. Our military uses
various criteria to measure readiness and capability for our own
forces, and that experience would seem relevant and useful in assessing
the Iraqis.
Question. What period of time do you feel will be required to
prepare the Iraqi security forces to be able to assume principal
responsibility for the security of their nation from both internal and
external threats?
Answer. The President, the Secretary of Defense, and our commanders
in the field have all stressed that we are operating in accordance with
a conditions-based plan to transfer security responsibility to the
Iraqis. I cannot make any informed estimate concerning when Iraqis
might assume principal responsibility for security in Iraq, but I can
say that the U.S. should operate based on conditions on the ground, not
based on an arbitrary time-line.
Question. What is the appropriate role for other nations--coalition
partners, neighboring Muslim nations, NATO, and the larger
international community--in assisting the training, equipping, and
progress of the Iraqi security forces?
Answer. Members of the international community have stepped forward
and are participating in two multi-national training efforts: the
Multi-National Security Transition Command--Iraq (MNSTC-I) and the NATO
Training Mission--Iraq (NTM-I). These organizations are helping train
Iraqi military and police personnel in Iraq and in Jordan. There are
also smaller, coordinated, bilateral efforts to provide particular
specialty training to Iraqi security personnel, for example, police
forensics.
QDR
Question. The Secretary has promulgated terms of reference for the
next Quadrennial Defense Review and work on this review is underway.
Under Secretary Feith is taking a leading role in this important
effort.
If confirmed, would you step directly into the role that Mr. Feith
is playing in the QDR when you succeed him?
Answer. Exactly what role I might play would be a decision for the
Secretary. I have not yet discussed it with him. If confirmed, however,
I plan to be an active participant in the QDR process.
Question. What is your view of the terms of reference that have
been established?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on the QDR terms of reference,
which are an internal, pre-decisional document. If confirmed, I intend
to familiarize myself quickly with the terms of reference.
Question. In your view, what assumptions about acceptable risk and
resource constraints should be included in the QDR process?
Answer. In my view, the Department's assumptions on acceptable risk
and resource constraints should be based on the new National Defense
Strategy and be consistent with legislation establishing the QDR.
Making realistic judgments about acceptable levels of risk is one of
the hardest tasks the Secretary faces.
STABILITY AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
Question. Recent experience in Iraq has underscored the importance
of planning and training to prepare for the conduct and support of
stability and support operations in post-conflict situations. We
understand that Secretary Rumsfeld has decided to elevate the stability
and support operations mission in Department planning and guidance so
that it is fully integrated across all DOD activities.
Do you support this effort?
Answer. Our experiences since the end of the Cold War in Somalia,
the Balkans, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Iraq highlight the importance of
preparing for stability operations. Proper preparation involves
numerous parts of DOD and, also, other USG Departments and Agencies,
all of which have potentially important capabilities to bring to bear.
The Department of State, where I have served for 25 years, has
undertaken a major initiative in this regard, the Office of the
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, headed by my
colleague Carlos Pascual. I understand that this new office has enjoyed
the Department of Defense's full support. If confirmed, I would favor
continuing that support, and I look forward to supporting Secretary
Rumsfeld's ongoing efforts to transform the Department and ensure DOD
is properly linked with larger USG stabilization and reconstruction
efforts.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your role in implementing any
new directives in the area of post-conflict planning and the conduct of
stability and support operations?
Answer. If confirmed as Under Secretary for Policy, my role would
be to help ensure that DOD guidance to the Military Departments,
Combatant Commands, and Defense Agencies sets forth the broad direction
they will need to move in to develop the capabilities required to
conduct successful stability operations in the future. In addition, I
would play a role in working with other Departments and Agencies to
develop common objectives and pathways to increase the efficacy of USG
stabilization efforts, of which DOD is a participant. Ultimately, if
confirmed, I would be responsible for providing policy advice to the
Secretary of Defense on stability operations--ensuring he has the
requisite information and options to make informed decisions and to
advise the President.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate relationship
between DOD and other departments of government in the planning and
conduct of stability and support operations in a post conflict
environment?
Answer. The U.S. Government as a whole has a responsibility to plan
and conduct stability operations using the core competencies of various
departments and agencies in an integrated manner, including working
with our Allies and friends.
An integrated approach to post-major combat operations begins with
training and planning before potential conflicts. The State
Department's Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and
Stabilization (S/CRS) is working closely with DOD to bring together
military and civilian planners, develop operational concepts for civil-
military operations in the field, and provide interagency training,
educational and exercise opportunities that will build relationships
before future contingencies.
There will be times when DOD may well be the lead agency in an
operation due to the large deployment of U.S. forces. At other times,
the military would properly play a lesser role--supporting civilian
agencies such as the State Department and USAID. Whether DOD or other
departments or agencies have the leading role in a stabilization
mission, a key need often will be to build up the indigenous civilian
and security capacities, which will facilitate the timely transition to
self-rule and withdrawal of international military and civilian
personnel.
Question. What lessons do you believe the Department has learned
from the experience of planning and training for post-conflict
operations in Iraq?
Answer. The USG has learned a great deal over the past 15 years
about the requirements of post-major combat environments. Fighting may
shift from major combat operations to irregular warfare. ``Post-
conflict'' calm may sometimes only come with a combination of: 1)
building indigenous security forces; 2) jump-starting economic
activity; and 3) facilitating local governance.
We also face a shortage of international peacekeepers. This is one
of the reasons that President Bush launched the Global Peace Operations
Initiative (GPOI), which seeks to increase global peacekeeping capacity
over the next 5 years through increased training, exercises, and
deployment assistance to partner countries.
We also need strategies to encourage and enable other countries to
fight alongside or instead of us. As a government, we should be
thinking through how we can best build up the governance capacities of
countries that are in danger of spreading instability regionally or
providing a safe haven for terrorist or criminal networks.
Although I can't speak to specific studies the Department may have
conducted concerning post-conflict operations in Iraq, I will, if
confirmed, seek to ensure that we draw maximum insight from our recent
experience.
ENGAGEMENT POLICY
Question. One of the central pillars of our recent national
security strategy has been military engagement as a means of building
relationships around the world. Military-to-military contacts, Joint
Combined Exchange Training exercises, CINC exercises, humanitarian
demining operations, and similar activities were used to achieve this
goal.
If confirmed, would you support continued engagement activities of
the U.S. military?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that these activities contribute to U.S.
national security?
Answer. Security cooperation activities have contributed to our
security in the past, are beneficial today in the global war on
terrorism, and will most certainly continue to be a cornerstone of U.S.
national security. This Nation has learned time and again that building
partnership capacity is essential to address common security challenges
successfully.
Question. Would you assure the committee that there would be
adequate civilian oversight of these activities?
Answer. Yes.
PROLIFERATION SECURITY INITIATIVE
Question. In May 2003, the President announced the Proliferation
Security Initiative, a global effort that aims to stop shipments of
weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related
materials worldwide.
What is the role of the Department of Defense in the Proliferation
Security Initiative?
Answer. PSI is a Presidential initiative that is being developed
and implemented by a number of U.S. Government agencies. The Department
of Defense is part of the interagency team, coordinated by the National
Security Council staff. DOD's priority is ensuring that our military
can support interdiction operations when necessary.
In addition, the Department of Defense leads U.S. participation in
the PSI Operational Experts Group--an expanding multinational network
of military, law enforcement, intelligence, and legal experts that has
been meeting periodically to develop operational concepts, organize
interdiction exercises, share information about national legal
authorities, and pursue cooperation with key industries. More than
forty countries have participated in one or more of the PSI
interdiction exercises designed to improve national capabilities and
participants' ability to operate together.
Question. Is there dedicated funding in the DOD budget the
Proliferation Security Initiative? If not, do you believe that the
Initiative should have a dedicated DOD budget line?
Answer. I understand that there is no PSI line item in the DOD
budget. If confirmed, I will consult with the combatant commanders and
the DOD Comptroller to determine whether creating such a budget line
would be beneficial.
COUNTERNARCOTICS PROGRAM FOR AFGHANISTAN
Question. The cultivation of poppies and trafficking of opium has
reached alarming proportions in Afghanistan. Some estimate that over 50
percent of Afghanistan's gross national product is associated with the
illegal opium trade and that Afghanistan is at risk of failing as a
nation state. Initial coalition strategies for discouraging and
disrupting the opium trade have not been effective. In fiscal year
2005, the U.S. will provide more than $750 million in funding and
assistance to address opium production and trafficking in Afghanistan,
including $257 million in Defense spending.
In your view, what strategy would be most effective in reducing
opium production and trafficking in Afghanistan?
Answer. The growing drug production and trafficking problem in
Afghanistan is a complex issue. Not knowing the details of the current
plan, I am unable to say how one might improve it. I do believe that we
should ensure that we apply the necessary resources to build Afghan
political and economic institutions capable of withstanding the
narcotics--as well as other--threats.
Question. What should the role of the U.S. military forces be in
the counterdrug program in Afghanistan?
Answer. I believe that, in general, the U.S. military should be in
a supporting role in counterdrug programs. With respect to Afghanistan,
it seems to me that we would want the Afghan security forces to be the
ones to interact directly with the local population. I believe,
however, that U.S. military forces can provide support to Afghan law
enforcement activities with respect to specialized types of assistance
that might be required.
Question. What is the appropriate role for coalition nations and
the larger international community in effectively addressing the
counterdrug challenge in Afghanistan and the surrounding region?
Answer. Several of our coalition partners have assumed lead nation
roles related to the counterdrug challenge. For example, the United
Kingdom has the overall lead for counternarcotics, and Germany assumed
the lead for police training. With the help of Congress, this
administration has increased U.S. support to counterdrug efforts in
Afghanistan and the surrounding region. Our coalition partners and the
larger international community must also increase their support.
Additionally, I can see a larger role for NATO supporting the Afghan
counterdrug policies and initiatives, especially considering that some
European allies in particular are affected heavily by the narcotics
traffic involving Afghanistan.
DOD'S COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION (CTR) PROGRAM
Question. The CTR program has several key objectives that include:
(1) eliminating strategic nuclear weapons; (2) improving the security
and accounting of nuclear weapons and fissile material; (3) eliminating
and preventing the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons and
capabilities; and (4) encouraging military reductions and reforms to
reduce proliferation threats.
Do you support the CTR program? If so, how, in your view, has the
CTR program benefited U.S. national security?
Answer. I support CTR. CTR is one of the programs that addresses
poorly guarded WMD, related infrastructure, and delivery systems at
their sources--primarily in the former Soviet states. CTR is part of
the administration's ``toolbox'' of options for combating the threat of
WMD proliferation.
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. From what I have been able to observe, I believe the
program is well coordinated among the Departments of Defense, State,
and Energy.
Question. Do you support expansion of the CTR program and, if so,
in what geographic areas or areas of work? Please explain.
Answer. I would support initiatives for CTR to conduct activities
outside the Former Soviet Union (FSU) in special circumstances. The
threat posed by residual WMD materials and capabilities is not confined
to one region.
Question. How much more needs to be done to reduce the
proliferation threat from the residual Cold War stockpiles of WMD
weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union?
Answer. Even though many ``traditional'' CTR projects are well past
the half-way point, much remains to be done with respect to both threat
reduction work (such as mobile missiles) and newly emphasized areas of
work (such as biological weapons proliferation prevention).
Question. Are Russia and the former Soviet Union countries making a
significant contribution to efforts to reduce the proliferation threats
they inherited?
Answer. I believe that, overall, the best contribution a CTR
partner can make is to smooth the mechanics of doing dangerous work in
that partner's territory that benefits the entire world. I am informed
that there may be room for Russia to increase its contribution by
improved facilitation of CTR's work. We appreciate the sensitive
locations of some CTR projects in Russia, as well as the caution needed
when working with WMD. But Russia can be very secretive when it comes
to issues related to national security, and I am aware of the
complexities and difficulties of working with the Russian bureaucracy
and security services to conduct the day-to-day business of WMD
elimination and security.
Question. What needs to be done to enable agreement between Russia
and the United States on access and liability issues that continue to
hamper progress on some CTR programs?
Answer. The current Government-to-Government Agreement (``CTR
Umbrella Agreement'') expires in June 2006. It provides needed
liability protections for CTR activities, exemption of CTR assistance
from import duties and taxes, as well as other important protections.
The United States is working hard to resolve issues relating to non-
proliferation programs with Russia in ways that would facilitate
renewal of the CTR Umbrella Agreement before it expires. I believe it
is in Russia's long-term interest to be more forthcoming regarding the
agreements covering all non-proliferation programs.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
Question. There are significant problems with the management and
implementation of the DOD chemical weapons demilitarization program.
Congress has become increasingly concerned that the Department does not
appear to be on track to eliminate its chemical weapons in accordance
with the Chemical Weapons Convention timelines.
What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the U.S. remains
in compliance with its Treaty obligations for chemical weapons
destruction?
Answer. Although this is under the purview of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, I understand
that the Department of Defense is assessing possible alternatives that
may contribute to improving the overall pace of U.S. destruction
efforts and the specific timing of when we meet our chemical weapons
destruction obligations. The potential impact on meeting the final
destruction deadline of April 2012 will not be known until the
assessments are completed.
Question. Do you agree that the United States should make every
effort to meet its treaty commitments, including its obligations under
the Chemical Weapons Convention?
Answer. Yes. I understand that that the Department of Defense has
met all the CWC commitments to date.
Question. Can you assure the committee that, if confirmed, you will
focus your personal attention on this matter?
Answer. Yes.
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Question. At her confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Rice
expressed the administration's strong support for the U.N. Convention
on the Law of Sea and stated that she would work with the Senate
leadership to bring the Convention to a floor vote during this
Congress. The Department of Defense has been a strong advocate of the
Convention, and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Clark, testified
in favor of its ratification at a SASC hearing last year.
Do you support U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea?
Answer. Yes. The Convention supports navigational rights critical
to military operations. These rights are essential to the formulation
and implementation of our national security strategy.
Question. Do you believe this treaty is in the national security
interest of the United States?
Answer. Yes
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
Question. Program Budget Decision 763 (December 2004) directed the
Missile Defense Agency to reduce funding for the missile defense
program by $5 billion in years fiscal year 2006-2011. The restructured
program seeks a balance between near-term fielding and long-term
development.
Do you believe the ballistic missile defense program places enough
emphasis on the near-term fielding of ballistic missile defense
capabilities for the protection of the United States and its deployed
forces?
Answer. It is my understanding that by the end of 2004, the
Department had fielded the key elements of an initial system to shoot
down a long-range missile headed toward the United States. At the same
time, I know that systems intended to protect our deployed forces are
in the field. In fact, the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 was used
successfully in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
National Security Presidential Directive-23, which outlines the
Nation's missile defense policy, makes clear that we must continue a
robust research and development effort even once our initial
capabilities are in place. I agree with this approach. I have not had
the opportunity to examine in detail the Missile Defense Agency's plan
to balance near-term fielding with long-term development, but if I am
confirmed, I will work to ensure that MDA's plans are consistent with
the approach directed by the President and outlined in NSPD-23.
Question. The objective of the missile defense program is to
provide ballistic missile defense against all ranges of missiles, in
all phases of flight, to protect the U.S. homeland, U.S. forces forward
deployed, allies and friends.
How do you believe the Department should prioritize its ballistic
missile defense policies, programs and efforts so that they address the
most pressing threats first, while remaining affordable?
Answer. I agree that the Department ought to balance its missile
defense efforts to meet the most pressing threats first, and that the
missile defense program should remain affordable. At the same time, I
think that any discussion of whether this program is affordable should
take into account the potential cost to the Nation of suffering a
ballistic missile attack, especially if that missile were armed with a
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. I have not had the opportunity
to examine in detail either the intelligence community's threat
assessments or the Missile Defense Agency's development plan and am
unable at this time to provide a considered answer on how to set
priorities. It is my understanding that the long-range missile defense
capabilities we are in the process of fielding are intended to address
the most urgent threats, specifically the North Korean threat, and I
agree with that approach. I do not believe it would be prudent,
however, to focus our missile defense program so narrowly on the near-
term threat that we find ourselves unable to deal with threats in the
future. If I am confirmed, I will have the opportunity to consider in
more detail how that balance ought to be maintained.
Question. Sec. 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 directed the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, to develop
criteria for operationally realistic testing of fieldable prototypes
developed under the ballistic missile defense system, and to test each
block capability using those criteria. The Missile Defense Agency has
submitted an Integrated Master Test Plan, approved by the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation that establishes criteria for
operationally realistic testing and outlines an aggressive ground and
flight test schedule through the end of fiscal year 2006.
Do you agree with the need to ensure operationally realistic
testing of the ballistic missile defense system? Are you confident that
the testing plan prepared by MDA will demonstrate the operational
capability of the system, as appropriate to the technological maturity
of each block capability to be fielded?
Answer. While I understand that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy does not have direct responsibility for testing programs, I
believe that, as with any new and complex system, we ought to conduct
operationally realistic testing of our missile defense program as soon
as is appropriate. Although I have not had the opportunity to review
the Missile Defense Agency's testing plan, I understand that the
Director of MDA works closely with the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation to ensure that our test program is as robust and
operationally realistic as possible. If confirmed, I will do what I can
to ensure that this continues to be so. But I would not favor
withholding a totally new capability that could save large numbers of
American lives, while waiting for a complete testing regime.
REORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
POLICY (OUSD(P))
Question. At the beginning of the Bush administration, Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld undertook a major reorganization of the OUSD(P).
If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you propose to the
current organization of the OUSD(P)?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to study any organizational
changes that may be under consideration or that may be needed within
the OUSD(P). It would therefore be premature for me to offer an opinion
at this time. If confirmed, however, I will study with an open mind any
organizational changes that appear worthy of consideration and will, if
appropriate, make corresponding recommendations to the Secretary of
Defense. In that event I would look forward to consulting with this
committee on any proposed changes.
OVERSEAS BASING PLANS
Question. With the President's release of the Integrated Global
Posture Strategy in September 2004, a series of military installations
around the world were identified as having an ``enduring presence.''
These bases and sites will support both the permanent presence of U.S.
military personnel and units rotating for training. The Department of
Defense is now in the process of negotiating formal agreements with
host nations to establish the status of forces, basing arrangements,
and terms for burdensharing. Many of these agreements will result in a
substantial investment of funds for new construction of facilities and
infrastructure to support U.S. operations, either to be funded by the
host nation or by the United States.
To ensure a wise use of taxpayer dollars, what types of host nation
agreements should be completed by the Department of Defense before
authorization for funds are requested for military construction
projects and infrastructure repairs in the annual President's budget or
supplemental appropriations?
Answer. As a general policy, I believe we should seek agreements
that include, among other things, provisions for status protections and
access to and use of host country facilities, as well as acquisition
and cross-servicing agreements before deploying forces on a regular
basis to a host country. It is important, however, that once these
agreements are in place, we are in a position to implement our presence
plans expeditiously. In some cases, this could require DOD to request
funds prior to the conclusion of negotiations.
Question. Does the Department of Defense plan to establish
installation development master plans that will capture all facility
requirements, total estimated investment, and anticipated funding
sources before requesting authorization for funding in the annual
President's budget or supplemental appropriations?
Answer. I understand that the Department submitted to Congress
comprehensive overseas master plans in March of this year and intends
to update them each year. If confirmed, I would work with Under
Secretary Krieg and Congress to ensure our plans support Department and
administration strategic objectives.
Question. What is the DOD goal to establish burdensharing
arrangements with host nations in order to minimize the impact to DOD
budgets?
Answer. I understand that the Department of Defense's policy is
that, to the extent it is able, a host nation should contribute to the
cost of stationing a U.S. presence in its country. The Department has
longstanding arrangements of this sort with many allies, such as Japan,
Korea, and Germany, which together host the vast majority of our
overseas infrastructure. The goal of maximizing host countries'
contributions is one of the key elements in DOD's negotiating approach
for future access, facilities, and infrastructure.
U.S. FORCE STRUCTURE IN SOUTHWEST ASIA
Question. As part of the Integrated Global Posture Strategy, the
Department of Defense recently released a master plan for the CENTCOM
area of responsibility (AOR) that proposes to establish numerous
forward operating sites with the permanent presence of thousands of
U.S. military personnel in various countries throughout the Gulf and
Southwest Asia. However, in subsequent meetings with various
representatives of CENTCOM and the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, there seems to be some disagreement on the number
of U.S. military personnel that will be stationed and rotated out of
the AOR.
If confirmed, how would you work to resolve these types of policy
differences in opinion between a combatant commander and your office?
Answer. I am not aware of any specific disagreement on these
matters; if confirmed, however, I will work to ensure close
coordination between senior civilian and military officials on such
issues.
Question. What are the future challenges for the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy to implement the administration's Integrated Global
Posture Strategy?
Answer. As with any major initiative, I can envision that a notable
challenge with respect to Global Defense Posture is ensuring that our
changes--from conception to consultation and negotiation to
implementation--continue to be synchronized across the U.S. Government.
In addition, I believe we must retain the flexibility to adapt our
defense posture to changes in the strategic landscape, including
seeking new partnership opportunities.
U.S. FORCE STRUCTURE IN TURKEY
Question. A recent newspaper article quoted Turkey's ambassador to
the United States as saying, ``The Turkish authorities are now
considering how Incirlik facilities would continue to be made available
to the USA,'' said O. Faruk Logoglu, ``We think that there will be an
agreement . . . soon.''
What, in your view, is the future for Incirlik Air Force Base in
Turkey, and specifically our ability to station combat aircraft there?
Answer. See answer next under.
Question. If the U.S. is not able to conduct a full spectrum of
training and operations from Incirlik AFB, what should be the decision
on the future of the air base?
Answer. First, one must recognize that Incirlik Air Base is a
Turkish military facility. As such, all decisions regarding its use,
both now and in the future, will be made by the Turkish government. For
50 years, the U.S. has been fortunate to have access to this excellent
facility, and we are grateful that Turkey has continued to authorize
such access. Ambassador Logoglu's comment was specifically about use of
Incirlik for logistics missions.
In late April, the Turkish government responded favorably to our
request to use the base at Incirlik as a cargo hub for military and
commercial aircraft operating to and from Iraq and Afghanistan. This
new arrangement allows up to 6 U.S. C-17s and 150 personnel, on a
temporary and rotational basis, to use Incirlik as a hub to transport
non-lethal supplies to these two countries.
Regarding future stationing of U.S. combat aircraft at Incirlik,
the U.S. has not made such a request to the Turkish government. This
point was clearly articulated by Under Secretary Feith during his visit
to Turkey this past February. Incirlik remains a valuable facility.
Discussions are now underway for possible training opportunities that
would benefit both countries.
CHINESE MILITARY
Question. What do you believe are the objectives of the Chinese
military modernization program?
Answer. Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) modernization
appears to involve broad transformation across the military
establishment, including equipment, organization, doctrine, training,
and personnel. From what I have read, the near-term focus of PLA
modernization appears to be oriented on building capabilities to
prevent moves towards permanent separation by Taiwan, or to erode
Taiwan's will to resist, paving the way for a negotiated settlement of
the cross-Strait dispute on Beijing's terms. A second set of
objectives, no less important, is to develop the capabilities to deter,
delay, or degrade potential third-party intervention in any conflict,
particularly a conflict over Taiwan.
Question. What do you believe are the Chinese political-military
objectives regarding Taiwan, the Asia-Pacific region, and globally?
Answer. China seeks to accomplish political unification with
Taiwan. It would prefer to do so peacefully, allowing economic
integration eventually to absorb Taiwan, but is developing military
capabilities that would allow China to impose a non-peaceful
resolution. Within the Asia-Pacific region, China appears to be
positioning itself to compete with the United States, Japan, and India
for political and economic access and influence. Globally, China's
engagement is structured to support its increasing demands for critical
resources, secure lines of communication, and access to technology to
sustain economic growth and development. We are witnessing elements of
this strategy in China's relationships with Sudan, Iran, and Venezuela.
Question. How do you believe the United States should respond to
the Chinese military modernization program?
Answer. We should continue to monitor closely China's military
modernization, while continuing to push Beijing for greater
transparency and openness. At the same time, and in accordance with the
Taiwan Relations Act, the United States should continue its policies of
maintaining our capabilities to resist Chinese use of force or coercion
against Taiwan and of providing Taiwan such assistance as required to
maintain a self-defense capability.
Overall, our strategy should be designed to preserve peace and
stability in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere. Rather than
focusing on single countries, whether they be North Korea, China, or
any other country, our strategy should be flexible and supported by
continued transformation of the U.S. military.
Key to this transformation are maintaining a global presence, and
strengthening our alliances and partnerships in the region and the
world. In describing U.S. defense transformation, President Bush said,
``we will ensure that we place the right capabilities in the most
appropriate locations to best address the new security environment.''
Question. Our current military-to-military relations with the
Chinese have been described by defense officials as ``modest.''
Do you believe that we should make any changes in the quality or
quantity of our military relations with China? If so, what changes and
why?
Answer. I believe our military-to-military relationship with China
should be based on reciprocity. The success of our military
relationship with China cannot be measured by the quantity of exchanges
alone. We should seek interactions that improve the quality of
exchanges in order to build trust and transparency, and to ensure that
the Chinese military, at various levels, understands U.S. military
capabilities and political resolve.
In addition, uncertainty about China's future should be taken into
account when planning our defense exchanges. I believe it is important
that we maintain our interaction, but we should be realistic about what
to expect from our exchanges with the Chinese military.
TREATMENT OF DETAINEES
Question. The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
of Fiscal Year 2005 sets out that it is U.S. policy ``to ensure that no
detainee shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or
treaties of the United States.''
What is your understanding of the responsibility of the Department
of Defense to ensure that the Constitution, laws, and treaty
obligations of the United States that prohibit the torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons held in U.S.
custody are adhered to by those elements of DOD that are involved in
detention and interrogation operations?
Answer. If confirmed as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,
I believe that it would be my duty to ensure that DOD policy is
consistent with legal requirements set forth in the Constitution, laws,
and treaty obligations of the United States.
Furthermore, I believe that the Department has an obligation to
investigate all credible claims of maltreatment or abuse of detainees,
and, as appropriate, to hold accountable personnel who commit these
acts.
Question. What is your understanding of the role and responsibility
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on this issue?
Answer. Detainee operations are a critical mission of the
Department. It is my understanding that the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy serves as the Secretary's principal advisor on the
development of policy for detainee operations. If confirmed:
I would work with the DOD General Counsel to ensure
the Department's policies on detainee operations remain
consistent with all the obligations set forth in the
Constitution, applicable laws, and treaty obligations of the
United States.
I would ensure that my staff continued to work closely
with all elements of the Department and other departments and
agencies to develop policy regarding detainee operations and to
assist the Department in planning for future DOD detention
operations, including continuing operations in Guantanamo,
Afghanistan, and Iraq;
I would closely coordinate with the combatant
commanders to ensure commanders in the field and at DOD
detention facilities have all necessary guidance for mission
success;
I would continue the department's robust dialogue with
the ICRC, which serves our mutual interests in improving
detention operations.
I would ensure that my staff and I continue to keep
members of the committee informed of the status of detainee
operations.
NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW
Question. The committee understands that the Defense Department
intends to review nuclear forces as part of the Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) now underway.
Would such a review of nuclear forces as part of the QDR take the
form of an update to the Nuclear Posture Review issued in 2001?
Answer. At this point, I am not familiar with the details of the
QDR that is currently underway, but I expect that the QDR would deal
with some issues associated with implementing the Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR), rather than changing the basic NPR strategy.
Question. Would you expect such an effort to include a review of
the size of the nuclear weapons stockpile and a review of the number
and type of nuclear weapons delivery platforms?
Answer. Again, I am not familiar with the details of the QDR at
this point. I understand that the Department of Defense reviews the
size and composition of the stockpile periodically. The President has
stated he wants to reduce U.S. nuclear weapons to the lowest level
consistent with our national security needs, including our obligations
to our allies. I understand that the Nuclear Posture Review has
resulted in force posture and stockpile reductions to carry out the
President's guidance. I also understand that the NPR directed periodic
reviews to be conducted to assess progress on planned reductions and
recommend adjustments if necessary.
DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD STUDY
Question. The Defense Science Board recently established a Task
Force on Nuclear Capabilities to assess the current plan for sustaining
the nuclear weapons stockpile and make recommendations for ensuring the
future reliability, safety, security, and relevance of the nuclear
weapons stockpile for the 21st century. The study on these issues to be
issued by the task force is sponsored jointly by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and by the Assistant
to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological
Defense Programs.
If confirmed, what input would you expect to have into this study?
Answer. There are both technical and policy issues associated with
such a review of the future U.S. nuclear stockpile. I would expect that
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy would be
consulted regarding planning assumptions for, and interim results of,
this study. If confirmed, I intend to become familiar with these
important issues and work constructively with the appropriate offices
to help ensure the continued reliability, safety and security of our
nuclear stockpile.
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 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
TURKEY'S ROLE IN THE COALITION
1. Senator Warner. Ambassador Edelman, as you are aware from your
experience as the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Turkey is increasingly
concerned about the growing strength of Kurdish Guerillas (the PKK) who
are infiltrating Turkey from northern Iraq. On his recent visit to the
United States, the Turkish Prime Minister sought U.S. assistance in
defeating those terrorists. What is the U.S. view of this problem both
with respect to how it relates to the ongoing Coalition operations in
Iraq, and how significant a national security challenge this terrorist
group poses to Turkey?
Ambassador Edelman. There have been increased PKK attacks in Turkey
and the PKK terrorist group remains an important concern for Turkey.
The U.S. continues our staunch support for Turkey in its fight against
the PKK. We also remain committed to our pledge that Iraq will not be a
base for terrorist operations against Turkey.
2. Senator Warner. Ambassador Edelman, more broadly, is Turkey
playing a constructive role with respect to supporting coalition
stability and reconstruction efforts in Iraq?
Ambassador Edelman. Turkey supports a Ground Line of Communication
through Turkey which re-supplies U.S. forces and allows a substantial
volume of commercial products and reconstruction materials to flow
through. The amount of fuel, coalition supplies and humanitarian goods
which transit Turkey have made an important difference. Turkey also
pledged $50 million to Iraq reconstruction at the Madrid Donor's
Conference.
3. Senator Warner. Ambassador Edelman, we were extremely
disappointed that Turkey did not permit coalition forces to enter Iraq
through the north when this operation began. Is Turkey supporting the
coalition effort in other ways at this time?
Ambassador Edelman. Turkey has recently approved U.S. use of
Incirlik Air Force Base for logistical support operations for both OIF
and OEF. Turkey opened an important dialogue with Iraqi PM Jaafari in
Ankara during his first trip outside of Iraq. Additionally, Turkey's
consistent support for Iraq's Transitional Government sent a strong
message to the world community.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE PRESS
4. Senator Levin. Were you aware of any communications with the
press regarding Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife and the role that she
played in his trip to Africa prior to the publication of information on
this subject in July 2003? Did you participate in any such
communications or in any discussions regarding such communications
prior to publication?
Ambassador Edelman. I departed my position in the Office of the
Vice President at the White House on June 6, 2003. I was not aware of
any communications with the press regarding Ambassador Joseph Wilson's
wife and the role that she played in his trip to Africa prior to the
publication of information on this subject in July 2003. I did not
participate in any communications with the press on this subject at any
time. I did not participate in any discussions regarding such
communications prior to publication, except as follows: After some
press stories related to this matter appeared in May-June 2003, I did
discuss with colleagues the importance of correcting incorrect press
reports suggesting that Vice President Cheney had requested Ambassador
Wilson to make his trip to Africa.
______
[The nomination reference of Eric S. Edelman follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 16, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Eric S. Edelman, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy, vice Douglas Jay Feith.
______
[The biographical sketch of Eric S. Edelman, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Eric Steven Edelman
On July 22, 2003, Vice President Richard B. Cheney administered the
oath of office to Ambassador Eric Edelman as Ambassador to the Republic
of Turkey. From February 2001 to June 2003, he was Principal Deputy
Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. Prior to
being assigned to the Office of the Vice President, he was Ambassador
to the Republic of Finland, 1998-2001. From June 1996 to July 1998, he
served as Executive Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of State. Mr.
Edelman was Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy, Prague, Czech
Republic, from June 1994 to June 1996.
From April 1993 to July 1993, he served as Deputy to the
Ambassador-at-Large and Special Advisor to the Secretary of State on
the New Independent States. Mr. Edelman's areas of responsibility were
defense, security and space issues.
Mr. Edelman served as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Soviet and East European Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) from April 1990 to April 1993.
From April 1989 to March 1990, he was Special Assistant (European
Affairs) to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
Mr. Edelman served at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow 1987-1989, where
he was head of the external political section. He had responsibility
for Soviet policies in the third world in the Office of Soviet Affairs
at the Department of State from 1984 to 1986.
Previously, Mr. Edelman served as Special Assistant to Secretary of
State George P. Shultz, 1982-1984; a staff officer on the Secretariat
Staff, 1982; a watch officer in the State Department Operations Center
1981-1982; and a member of the U.S. Middle East Delegation to the West
Bank/Gaza Autonomy Talks Delegations, 1980-1981.
A career Foreign Service Officer, Mr. Edelman entered the Senior
Foreign Service in 1992. He is a recipient of the Secretary of
Defense's award for Distinguished Civilian Service (1993) and the State
Department's Superior Honor Award (1990 and 1996).
Mr. Edelman received a B.A. in History and Government from Cornell
University in 1972, and a Ph.D. in U.S. Diplomatic History from Yale
University in 1981.
Ambassador Edelman is married to the former Patricia Davis and they
have four children: Alexander, Stephanie, Terence, and Robert.
______
[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 Eric S.
Edelman 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.)
Eric Steven Edelman.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
3. Date of nomination:
16 May 2005.
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 27, 1951; Baltimore, Maryland.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Patricia Lee Davis.
7. Names and ages of children:
Alexander, 20; Stephanie, 15; Terence, 13; Robert, 11.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Cornell University - BA (1972).
Yale University - MA (1973); MPil (1975); PhD (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.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
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.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
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.
American Foreign Service Association (AFSA).
Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR).
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.
1972-1973 - Elected Member Monmouth County (New Jersey) Democratic
Committee.
(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.
Eric Edelman - Committee to Elect Marc Edelman - $500 - March 10,
2005, League City, Texas City Council (Non-partisan election).
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
State Department Superior Honor Awards - 1989 (Group Award), 1990,
1996 Department of Defense Distingished Civilian Service Award -
January 1993.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive 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.
[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.
Eric S. Edelman.
This 18th day of May 2005.
[The nomination of Eric S. Edelman was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on July 29, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. He received a
recess appointment as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on
August 9, 2005. The nomination was confirmed by the Senate on
February 9, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Daniel R. Stanley by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. Almost two decades 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 support the full 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 and successfully
implemented.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I consider the strengthening of the role of the Combatant
Command to be the most important aspect of these defense reforms. In my
view, virtually all of the attributes of ``Jointness'' are a result of
the enhanced role of the combatant commanders.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special
Operations reforms can be summarized as strengthening civilian control
over the military; 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; enhancing the effectiveness of
military operations; and improving the management and administration of
the Department of Defense (DOD).
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend
Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe
it might be necessary to address in these proposals?
Answer. The results of the Quadrennial Review may conclude that
certain aspects of Goldwater-Nichols need to be revised or adjusted,
however, it would be premature for me to speculate. Should this be the
case, and should I be confirmed, I would work closely with this
committee and Congress to provide witnesses, briefings, and the
necessary information so Congress can make an informed judgment
regarding any proposed changes the Department of Defense may advocate.
DUTIES
Question. Section 138 of title 10, United States Code, and DOD
Directive 5142.1, provide 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. Additionally,
among other responsibilities, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs is required to provide advice and assistance
concerning congressional aspects of DOD policies, plans, and programs;
to coordinate actions relating to congressional consideration of the
DOD legislative program; and to coordinate responses to congressional
inquiries.
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. If confirmed, my primary responsibility to the Secretary
would be to keep him informed on all major congressional actions,
requests, concerns, and initiatives on matters of import to the
Secretary and the Department of Defense.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what other duties do you
expect that Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect Secretary Rumsfeld to charge me with
the responsibility of ensuring that the Department's liaison with
Congress is effective, responsive, user and customer friendly, and to
ensure the Department's goals and priorities are properly articulated.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. If confirmed, what would be your relationship with:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I will function as the principal assistant to
the Secretary on congressional matters. Under the Secretary's
direction, I will be responsible for coordination of the DOD
legislative program, liaison with Congress, participation of
departmental witnesses in congressional hearings, responses to
congressional inquiries, and DOD support of congressional travel.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I would have a similar relationship with the
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries of
Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Under Secretaries of
Defense and the Assistant Secretaries will be to serve as the principal
advisor regarding liaison and communications with Congress.
Question. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the General Counsel
to ensure responsiveness in matters of congressional interest and to
expedite their coordination on legislation proposed by the Department.
In addition, I would help identify legal issues inherent in legislative
matters and obtain the views and recommendations of the General
Counsel.
Question. The Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
Answer. I would exercise no authority or control over the DOD
Inspector General. If confirmed, I would be fully cooperative and
supportive of the IG's mission.
Question. The chiefs of legislative affairs of the military
services.
Answer. If confirmed, I would routinely meet with the chiefs of
legislative affairs of the military services to coordinate the
Department's liaison mission, and ensure responsiveness to this
committee and Congress. By DOD Directive, ultimate responsibility for
supervision of legislative liaison activities throughout the Department
is vested in the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs. I would work closely with the legislative affairs offices of
the military services to foster a climate of effective cooperation and
support.
Question. The legislative assistant to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. If confirmed, I would routinely meet with the legislative
assistant to the Chairman so as to coordinate the Department's liaison
mission and ensure responsiveness to this committee and Congress.
Question. The Defense Agencies.
Answer. If confirmed, I would provide overall guidance to the
individual Defense Agencies with respect to the Department's
legislative issues. I would routinely meet with the legislative
assistants to the various Defense Agencies to ensure the Agencies
understand the Department's initiatives, the Secretary's position, and
to ensure they are responsive to congressional inquiries.
Question. Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Defense Agencies and the combatant commands, there are numerous offices
which have their own congressional liaison personnel.
What would you do to ensure that your office is the focal point for
all of the Department of Defense for dealing with Congress and that all
DOD legislative affairs personnel are responsive to Congress?
Answer. The Secretary and the acting Deputy Secretary have directed
me, if I am confirmed, to develop and implement recommendations to
ensure that the legislative affairs operations of the Department of
Defense are better coordinated, more responsive, and customer friendly.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs?
Answer. The principle challenge is to ensure that critical
information is provided to Congress in a timely and useful manner.
Congress should not be in a position of reading or hearing about
important issues in the media. The second challenge is providing
timely, valuable advice to the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and the key
principals about congressional issues, concerns, or requests.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would first evaluate the entire legislative
affairs organization(s) in the Department to ensure that these
activities are properly organized and coordinated to meet the title 10
responsibilities extended to this position. I would propose
organizational or procedural changes to the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary where or if required.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense's relationship with Congress?
Answer. Timeliness of information and notification.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the military services' relationship with Congress?
Answer. It varies from Service to Service. In some cases there is a
problem with timeliness of the information, in some instances it is the
accuracy of the information provided. On balance, I believe that the
military services' relations with Congress are sound.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and timetables
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ``communicate, communicate, and
communicate.'' It is vital to emphasize the importance of a cooperative
relationship with this committee and Congress, that the Department
needs to be as responsive as possible, and that the accuracy of
information is critical to maintaining a cooperative relationship. I
would establish routine meetings with each of the legislative affairs
operations within the Department and stress these principles at every
meeting. In addition, if confirmed, I will immediately review all
aspects of the Department's legislative liaison operations to ensure
that we have the right organizational arrangements, the right processes
and procedures, and a common understanding of how this Department will
conduct legislative affairs with this committee and Congress.
ROLE OF CONGRESS IN NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY
Question. In your opinion, what is the role of Congress in setting
national security policy?
Answer. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress
the power to raise armies and maintain a Navy. This specific power,
along with the power to appropriate funds for these purposes, as well
as the power to ratify treaties establishes that Congress has a shared
responsibility with the executive branch in setting national security
policy.
LIAISON WITH THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
Question. The liaison with the Appropriations Committees is
primarily 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
responsibilities under section 138 of title 10, United States Code?
Answer. If confirmed, I would have a cooperative relationship with
both the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the
Appropriations Committees. I would coordinate closely with the
Comptroller's office on all matters and issues of interest to Congress
and would include Comptroller staff in my daily staff meetings. I
believe this arrangement would allow me to carry out the
responsibilities under section 138 of title 10, USC.
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 problems?
Answer. As with any organizational function that is bifurcated in
such a manner, this arrangement is not optimal. With that said, in my
experience, the Offices of Legislative Affairs and the Offices of the
Comptroller are committed to working together to support the
Department's mission and goals. Frequent coordination has been the
routine and will continue if I'm confirmed.
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, and in consultation with the Defense
Oversight Committees, this is something that I would examine and
analyze. I believe that Congress does and should have significant input
on how the Department liaisons with Congress.
Question. If confirmed, what do you anticipate would be your
relationship with the Appropriations Committees?
Answer. If confirmed, I would anticipate my relationship would be
cooperative, supportive, and responsive. No modification of the current
organizational relationship would be made without the support of the
Defense Oversight Committees.
CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON PERSONNEL THROUGHOUT DOD
Question. The requirements for information from congressional
committees and offices has grown, and, as stated above, Defense
Agencies and directorates and individual commands within the Services
have personnel performing full-time congressional liaison functions. A
former Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs estimated that there
were 300 to 400 individuals in DOD that, as part of their official
capacity, have some dealings with Congress.
How many individuals currently perform legislative liaison
functions in your office and throughout DOD today?
Answer. There are currently 16 individuals whose primary
responsibility is direct liaison with Congress. There are additional
administrative and support personnel, interns, and contractors who
support various internal functions. Our current personnel total is 32.
As for the entire DOD, there are hundreds of individuals who have some
dealings with Congress. The last count for which I am aware put the
number at between 400 and 600.
Question. What are your views regarding the optimal organization
and numbers of personnel assigned throughout the Department for the
Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs to carry out his or her
assigned responsibilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to specifically address this
question and act, if necessary, to organize the Office of Legislative
Affairs in a manner that supports my title 10 responsibilities, meets
the expectations and needs of Congress, and provides the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary of Defense with the critical information and advice
they require.
PROVIDING CONGRESS WITH TIMELY INFORMATION
Question. If confirmed, 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. Clearly, the Department needs to do a better job of this.
If confirmed, this will be my top priority. I will discuss this matter
with the Secretary and all senior leadership of the Department to
emphasize the importance of timely notification and providing relevant
information to this committee and Congress.
Question. Late submission of legislative proposals by DOD to
Congress for consideration as part of the annual defense authorization
act formulation has been a chronic problem. Legislative proposals and
initiatives which require substantial review and in many cases,
testimony and discussion at annual posture hearings in February and
March, all too often have been forwarded to Congress too late for
appropriate action.
Based on your experience in the Department, what do you consider to
be the reasons for the inability of DOD to provide Congress with all of
its legislative proposals at the same time as submission of the
President's annual budget?
Answer. Based upon my experience, this problem is due to lack of
management emphasis throughout the Department of Defense. The
submission process occurs too late in the year to meet the timelines of
the budget submission and lacks discipline with regard to what
proposals are forwarded for consideration.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to improve the
Department's performance in providing timely legislative initiatives to
Congress?
Answer. If confirmed, I would immediately address the timeline for
submission of legislative proposals with appropriate officials within
the Department. I would also address this matter with the Office of
Management and Budget. Starting the process earlier in the year to
provide the system adequate time to evaluate and approve the proposals
is part of the solution. I would make more timely submissions of
legislative proposals to Congress a priority.
Question. Late submission of written statements by high ranking
officials in the Department of Defense for scheduled hearings has
become a matter of concern. This practice is in contravention of
committee rules and adversely affects the ability of Senators to
properly prepare and exercise oversight.
What recommendations do you have for addressing this problem?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ask the Secretary and the Deputy
Secretary to reiterate guidance as to the expectations of the
committee, the committee rules, and to reinforce their expectation that
these rules are to be respected and complied with. I would also
emphasize this with all witnesses whom I would assist in preparing
testimony.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to improve the
Department's performance in providing timely submission of written
statements for hearings?
Answer. If confirmed, I would, as frequently as necessary, remind
Department leaders of the committee rules and their expectations that
these rules be respected.
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.
If confirmed, 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. Maintaining an understanding of congressional interests,
the flow of legislation, and topics that may impact the Department is a
key function of the Office of Legislative Affairs. Sources of this
information are numerous and varied; the best of which is frequent
contact with members and staff. If confirmed, I would ensure that my
staff would be alert to legislative initiatives that may emanate from
other committees.
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. If confirmed, 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
preparing civilian nominations for confirmation, and a primary support
role to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Services in preparing
military nominations for confirmation. In addition, my staff and I will
track nominations closely and ensure the Committee is made aware of all
relevant information.
MANAGEMENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
Question. What are your personal views on the value of the
legislative fellowship program within the Department of Defense?
Specifically, in your opinion, is the dedication of military officers
and civilian employees to legislative fellowships warranted?
Answer. In those cases where members have little or no personal
experience with the military, I believe the Fellowship Program provides
an enormous benefit to the Member. In any case, this program provides
an extraordinary educational experience for military officers and
civilian employees. In my view, there is a difficult balance to
maintain. Secretary Rumsfeld believes very strongly that military
people should be doing military things--this concept is important to
maximizing efficiencies. This must be balanced with the advantages of
providing Congress important insights that can be gained through daily
interaction with Military Fellows and the educational value of such a
tour to the broadening and development of our officer corps.
Question. While the assignment of legislative fellows following
their fellowships is a service responsibility, what is your assessment
of the manner in which the experience gained by legislative fellows has
been used?
Answer. The post fellowship utilization tour management has been
spotty at best. In my view, a more defined process should be in place
that more quickly takes a fellow from the Hill into a legislative
affairs component in the DOD. A fellowship tour should be considered a
3-year tour--1 year working in a congressional office or committee and
2 years follow-on in legislative affairs. I believe that such a program
would enhance the experience for the officer and provide better value
to the Department and to the military 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:]
Question Submitted by Senator John McCain
RESPONSIVENESS TO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
1. Senator McCain. Mr. Stanley, often over the last 3 years the
communication from the Department on matters concerning the Boeing
Tanker Lease plan have been less than satisfactory. The DOD Inspector
General in the Management Accountability Review of the Tanker Program
cited that the responses to several letters from Congress were ``not
timely'' and ``could have been improved by a more comprehensive
answer.'' The Department's poor responsiveness as well as thoroughness
only increased the aggravation in Congress with the Department's
handling of the problem. In your advance questions you stated that ``I
expect Secretary Rumsfeld to charge me with the responsibility of
ensuring that the Department's liaison with Congress is effective,
responsive, user and customer friendly.'' What actions do you intend to
take to ensure you accomplish the Secretary's charge?
Mr. Stanley. I agree that the Department's timeliness and the
thoroughness of its communication to Congress in the case of the Boeing
Tanker Lease plan over the past 3 years was, in too many instances
abysmal and far below the standards I would tolerate if confirmed. I
view timely response to congressional correspondence as a core function
of legislative affairs. While this organization is not often tasked as
the respondent to congressional inquiries and letters, we do have a
responsibility to ensure a timely and proper response by those who are
tasked. If confirmed, I will personally manage the congressional
correspondence function, I will insist on timely responses, and I will
establish a tracking mechanism that provides visibility to me and to
the Secretary of all congressional correspondence that is sent to the
Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense.
______
[The nomination reference of Daniel R. Stanley follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 16, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Daniel R. Stanley, of Kansas, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Powell A. Moore.
______
[The biographical sketch of Daniel R. Stanley, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Daniel R. Stanley
Daniel Stanley serves concurrently as the acting Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs and as Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. He is
responsible to the Secretary of Defense for all legislative
coordination between the Department of Defense and the United States
Congress. He leads the legislative affairs staff and supervises the
overall operations of the office. Prior to this position, Mr. Stanley
served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Senate Affairs.
Mr. Stanley previously served concurrently as the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) and the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Training, Readiness, and
Mobilization). He was responsible for secretariat oversight for all
aspects of Army training and readiness and all issues pertaining to the
National Guard and Army Reserves. He was also responsible for reviewing
the mobilization and deployment of Reserve Forces in support of
operational missions.
Additionally, Mr. Stanley served as Secretary of Administration for
the State of Kansas, the senior member of the Governor's cabinet and
chief operating officer for the government. He provided leadership and
oversight for nine divisions including human resources,
telecommunications, procurement, accounting and financials, all State
owned and leased facilities. During his tenure, Kansas achieved
national recognition for innovation in excellence in human resources,
facilities management, and information technology management.
Among the 28 boards and commissions on which Mr. Stanley served, he
chaired the Capital Area Plaza Authority, the Public Building
Commission, the Information Technology Executive Council, and the
Kansas State Employee's Health Care Commission.
Prior to his appointment as Secretary of Administration, Mr.
Stanley served as Administrative Assistant, Legislative Director, and
Defense Policy Advisor to Senator Bob Dole. As a member of the Arms
Control Observer Group staff, Mr. Stanley was a member of the first
congressional delegation to Berlin after the fall of The Wall,
monitored START and, Defense and Space Talks negotiation, as well as
the Chemical/Biological Treaty negotiations. In addition, Mr. Stanley
staffed all defense authorization and appropriations bills for the
Republican Leader and provided coordination with defense, committees of
oversight as well as with the services and the Department of Defense.
He staffed Senator Dole during three rounds of Base Closure and
Realignment, Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and served as
Senator Dole's advisor for major defense procurement initiatives and
force structure realignments.
From 1985 to 1987 Mr. Stanley served in various positions with the
McDonnell Douglas Corporation including Director of Strategic Planning.
A veteran of the submarine force, Mr. Stanley enlisted in the Navy
in 1973, and was commissioned in 1980. He served aboard the U.S.S.
Batfish and the U.S.S. Woodrow Wilson. Additionally, he served with the
Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon and was responsible for strategic
communications systems linking the National Command Authority to the
nuclear forces. Mr. Stanley retired from the Naval Reserve in 1996 with
the rank of commander. He is a recipient of the Meritorious Service
Medal, the Joint Commendation Medal among other awards.
A fifth generation Kansan and native of Kansas City, Kansas, Daniel
Stanley graduated from the State University of New York Empire State
College with a degree in nuclear technology. He also attended the
University of Kansas and the Armed Forces Staff College.
Mr. Stanley is married to Kay Coles and resides in Falls Church,
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 Daniel R.
Stanley 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.)
Daniel R. Stanley (Dan).
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
May 16, 2005.
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 29, 1951; Kansas City, Kansas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Kay Ann Coles.
7. Names and ages of children:
Elizabeth Lynam, 35; 2LT Daniel Stanley, Jr., USA, 27.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of Kansas, 1970-1973.
Empire State College, 1975-1979; BS; November 1979.
Armed Forces Staff College, Command and Control Course, 1983.
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.
2/2005-Present - Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative
Affairs), Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
1/2003-Present - Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Legislative Affairs), Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
4/2002-12/2002 - Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Senate
Affairs), Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
9/2001-3/2002 - Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Training,
Readiness, and Mobilization) and concurrently Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs),
Department of the Army, Washington, DC.
11/1996-8/2001 - Secretary of Administration, State of Kansas,
Topeka, Kansas.
11/1989-10/1996 - Office of Senator Bob Dole, United States Senate,
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.
Chairman, Kansas Health Care Commission.
Chairman, Information Technology Executive Council.
Chairman, Capital Area Plaza Authority.
Chairman, Topeka Public Building Commission.
Chairman, Governor's Task Force on Work Force Development.
City Council Member, 5th District, Topeka, Kansas.
Executive Board, Kansas Military History Magazine.
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, Scott Stanley Real Estate and Investment Corporation
(Family Sub S Corp) See SF-278.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Life Member, American Legion, Liberty Post #14, Lawrence, KS.
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.
Alternate Delegate, Shawnee County Republican Party (1998-2001).
Elected to the Topeka City Council (2001).
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Volunteered at Republican Party Headquarters (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.
Bush for President, 2004, $1,000.
Republican National Committee, 2004, $200.
Heinaman for Commissioner, 2004, $200.
Tafanelli for House, 2002, $250.
Shallenberger for Governor, 2002, $200.
Kansas Republican Party, 2002, $1,500.
Tafanelli for House, 2000, $250.
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.
Joint Commendation Medal.
Navy Achievement Medal.
Good Conduct Medal.
Outstanding Service Award, Topeka City Council.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Article, Conservative Digest, 10/1987, ``Nuclear Command and
Control.''
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.
Attached, Keynote Speech, ``50th Anniversary of Veterans Day,
Emporia, Kansas, November 11, 2003.
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.
Daniel R. Stanley.
This 19th day of May 2005.
[The nomination of Daniel R. Stanley was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on June 30, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on June 30, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to James A. Rispoli by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management (EM)?
Answer. If I am confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management, I see as my overarching duty to provide leadership and
management to a team of professionals, both Federal employees and
contractors, in the restoration, cleanup, and closure of the
Department's nuclear weapons legacy complex of sites throughout the
Nation. This mission is paramount to the security and safety of the
nation, and must be performed with full recognition of safety for the
workers and the communities in which our sites are located.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Bodman would prescribe for you?
Answer. In my very first meeting with Secretary Bodman, in my
current capacity as Director of the Office of Engineering and
Construction Management, he expressed his strong personal interest in
improving performance of the Department's portfolio of projects,
especially our highly complex and challenging environmental projects.
It is clear to me that he is committed to safety in all that we do, and
to meeting our commitments to the people of this nation in our program
of restoration, cleanup and closure of our sites. If confirmed as
Assistant Secretary, I expect that he will reinforce that charge to me
and provide me with his full support in the execution of the
Environmental Management program.
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 a number of challenges inherent in this
program. I would consider the overarching challenges to be:
Safety. We are cleaning up inherently hazardous sites.
Worker safety is paramount, and of course, the whole purpose of
the cleanup and closure efforts is to restore the sites to a
condition that is safe and appropriate.
Complexity and uncertainty. We are cleaning up waste
for which the technologies may still be unproven, or in some
cases, whose physical characteristics and behaviors we may not
understand.
Project management discipline. The prior Assistant
Secretary began the transformation of the cleanup into a
projects portfolio. We must complete the task of instilling
proper management discipline throughout. There are industry
standard practices and tools that industry uses to establish
cost, schedule, and funding requirements, and then manage to
those targets. The challenge will be to foster complete
acceptance and use of those practices and tools.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. The successful management of this program will require
several areas of focus, all towards the same purpose. The Federal
leaders, managers, and employees at all levels, and their contractor
counterparts, must understand their mission, and recognize that the
industry-standard tools, practices, and management methods available to
them are proven by the test of time. Consistent reinforcement of
competent leadership and management at all levels will be my personal
commitment, if I am confirmed to this position.
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Question. The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management is
responsible for cleanup activities occurring at Department of Energy
sites across the country.
What are your views on the roles and responsibilities of field
managers relative to those of Environmental Management Headquarters
managers?
Answer. The Environmental Management program in the Department of
Energy is complex and technically challenging, and I know we all
recognize that. I believe that we can succeed only through a team
effort that includes executives, leaders, and managers at the sites
(both contractor and Federal) and at the headquarters. I have been
blessed to experience successful team efforts in my career, both in the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command where I previously served as
manager of the Navy's cleanup program for shore installations, and then
in industry where a significant part of my work was leading contracted
environmental work for the U.S. Air Force at several of its
installations. I know that it will take a team effort, and I have been
a leader for both the Government and the contractor in these efforts. I
will work to develop a better understanding of roles and
responsibilities for all of us involved in this effort, if I am
confirmed.
Question. What is your view of EM's organizational structure? Is
there a well-delineated 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?
Answer. Not having worked within the Environmental Management
organization, I will need to better understand the EM organizational
structure and the relationship between the field staff and headquarters
staff, and then onward to other DOE officials. I would expect to focus
on a clear chain of command within the EM organization, extending to
the interface with the contractor officials, with clearly defined roles
and responsibilities. Certainly this will be an early area of interest
if I am confirmed.
Question. 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?
Answer. Not yet having visited the sites and their contractors in
an ``internal EM'' capacity, I will need to learn about those
relationships if I am confirmed.
Question. In your opinion, should the field offices have more
autonomy than they currently have?
Answer. Not yet having visited the sites and their contractors in
an ``internal EM'' capacity, I will need to learn about those
relationships if I am confirmed.
Question. The Environmental Management program has used a variety
of contracting methods, including management and operating cost plus
award fee contracts, cost plus incentive fee contracts, and
performance-based, fix-priced contracts.
What is your view of the role of these, or other contracting
methods, and what principles do you believe DOE should follow when
entering into EM contracts in the future?
Answer. When I managed the Navy's ashore cleanup program, I worked
with the contracting officials of the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command to develop an acquisition and contracting approach that became
a standard for their contract efforts. As leader and manager of
contracted efforts, I saw that the Air Force had a similar acquisition
and contracting approach. I believe that there should be a common
corporate approach, and yet there should be latitude for tailoring that
approach to suit the challenges and risks in each application. In my
present capacity, I have not been involved in the specifics of the
contracts at the various sites, but I do believe that the principles I
mentioned are proven, and that a reasoned strategy must be in place for
each and every contract entered into by the Government.
MISSION
Question. The Department of Energy has offered changing views, over
the lifetime of the EM program, as to whether the program should focus
on cleaning up the sites now within its purview or whether the program
should have an ongoing mission of cleaning up all surplus DOE
facilities, as the facilities become excess, over time.
Do you believe there is a point at which the EM program should stop
taking surplus buildings, facilities or waste streams from other
components of the DOE into the EM program for decommissioning,
decontamination, and disposal?
Answer. As I have not yet been involved in discussions on the issue
noted, I would defer comment but will make it a priority to review this
issue, if I am confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, what requirements would you place on the
other DOE programs before you would take additional buildings,
facilities or waste into the EM program?
Answer. I cannot comment at this time on the potential requirements
referenced as I have not been involved in this issue. Should I be
confirmed, I would carefully review the issue and consult with the
other departmental leaders involved with it.
Question. Do you believe it is an appropriate policy for the EM
program to ``go out of business'' at some point and leave the remainder
of newly generated waste as the responsibility of existing DOE
programs? If not, how should newly generated wastes be managed and
which program (EM or the program generating the waste) should budget
for these activities?
Answer. If I am confirmed, this is an important policy question
which I would need to personally consider, in consultation with the
Department's leadership.
Question. In developing the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006, this committee did not adopt the proposal in the
President's budget request, of transferring certain Environmental
Management activities from the Environmental Management program into
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In the committee's
view, such a transfer would not comply with the legislation which
established the NNSA.
What is the Department of Energy's interpretation of these
provisions of the NNSA Act which relate to the possible transfer of
cleanup activities into the NNSA? What is your interpretation?
Answer. I personally am not currently familiar with this particular
aspect of the NNSA Act, but if confirmed I will study it and consult
with my colleagues at the Department of Energy, including those in the
NNSA.
Question. During her confirmation hearing before this committee, on
June 7, 2001, Jessie Hill Roberson, your predecessor in this position
should you be confirmed, testified that it was her goal to ``make
changes that have lasting and permanent impact on this program. ''
Question. Do you believe that the Environmental Management program
is best served, at this point in time, by a continuation of the focus
on accelerated cleanup begun under Assistant Secretary Roberson?
Answer. Although I am familiar with certain aspects of the
accelerated cleanup program by working with EM on selected site issues,
I would need to spend more time understanding all the aspects of the
program. If confirmed I will carefully review all aspects of the
cleanup program and its effectiveness.
Question. One of the initiatives undertaken by Assistant Secretary
Roberson was the development of ``end states'' documents for each major
site in the EM program, depicting the residual contamination levels
remaining at each site after the completion of cleanup.
What is the status of the development of ``end states'' for each
major site?
Answer. Not having worked within the Environmental Management
organization, I will need to learn the status, details and rationale
for the development of the end states for the major sites, if I am
confirmed.
Question. Were these documents intended to receive the concurrence
of state and Federal environmental regulators at each site, and if so,
which sites received such concurrence? What is the status of these
documents at sites which did not receive concurrence?
Answer. I am not familiar with the originally intended status or
anticipated procedural steps for resolution and documentation of end
states. Certainly this will be an early area of interest for me if I am
confirmed.
Question. Did the EM program intend for the ``end states''
documents to be the starting point of a discussion with regulators
about changes to the existing regulations and compliance agreements
that guide cleanup? If so, would you pursue such discussions with
regulators if you are confirmed?
Answer. I believe that open and honest dialog with the regulatory
community, both from headquarters and at each site, is vital. Our sites
are in the communities, and in the final analysis, the cleanup is being
done for the good of the country and its citizens. If I am confirmed, I
will encourage open, honest and professional dialog with the regulators
who represent that constituency.
Question. One of the promises of accelerated cleanup was that, by
applying additional funds in the near term to achieve the early
completion of cleanup at certain sites, more funds would be available
for the remaining sites where cleanup is expected to take longer. In
other words, if DOE got a few sites done and out of the way, there
would be more room in the budget to tackle other sites.
Do you believe this promise of accelerated cleanup has yet been
realized, and if not, why not?
Answer. If confirmed, I will need to better understand the
integration of the EM budget and the accelerated cleanup program
timelines. I have not been involved in such issues in my present
position.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Question. Do you believe that the EM program has conducted
sufficient technology development so that a treatment and disposition
pathway exists for all identified waste streams under the program?
Answer. Although I am aware that EM's program includes technology
development, I am not familiar with the status of that aspect, or its
interrelationship with the individual contracts and projects that deal
with the waste streams. Because of the oftentimes unique
characteristics of the wastes in our inventory, I see this as an
important area for me to understand if I am confirmed.
Question. If any orphan waste streams--those for which there is no
identified disposition pathway--exist within the EM program, what
technology development or other efforts would you undertake, if
confirmed, to address them?
Answer. Again, while I am aware that EM's program includes
technology development, I am not familiar with the status of this
issue. I see this as yet another important area for me to understand if
I am confirmed.
Question. What, in your view, are the continuing requirements for
developing and fielding new technologies, and what are the highest
priorities?
Answer. Again, I see this as an important area for me to understand
if I am confirmed.
PENSIONS
Question. During fiscal year 2006, the EM program is scheduled to
complete cleanup at the following closure sites: Rocky Flats, Mound,
and Fernald. In each case, DOE must decide how to administer or
transfer the post-closure pension and medical benefits for cleanup
workers at these sites. DOE has indicated that it intends to keep the
responsibility for administering these benefits with the cleanup
contractors, post-closure.
Has DOE evaluated any cost efficiencies that would be gained by
pooling the sponsorship and functional management of post-closure
benefits into a single purpose contract; one that could be competed for
and awarded to one of a number of companies that specialize in the
administration of such benefits?
Answer. With regard to the questions raised on pensions, I am
currently not familiar with the details of the administration of
benefits at sites post-closure. I realize that this is an important
issue and I will familiarize myself with the details should I be
confirmed.
Question. Assuming the EM program is funded at the level of the
fiscal year 2006 budget request, will there be any sites under the EM
program where sufficient funding will not be available to make payments
to employee pension plans at the levels mandated under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)?
Answer. Again, I realize this is an important issue and will
familiarize myself with the details should I be confirmed.
Question. Are you aware of any sites under the EM program where
making ERISA-mandated pension plan payments will result in such a drain
on available funding that the furlough or involuntary separation of
employees at the site will be necessary?
Answer. Again, I realize this is an important issue and will
familiarize myself with the details should I be confirmed.
WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING
Question. If confirmed, your duties will involve the review and
approval of workforce restructuring plans at sites under the EM
program.
Please describe your general approach and philosophy in reviewing
workforce restructuring plans.
Answer. This is a critically important issue, and ensuring fairness
for the workforce is a priority for me. If confirmed I will be
personally involved in reviewing any workforce-related issues, and look
forward to working with the committee on these issues.
Question. Given the nature of their work, cleanup workers are
fundamentally in a position of ``working themselves out of a job.''
How do you believe this particular challenge is best handled from
both a corporate perspective and as a manager of these workers?
Answer. Again, if confirmed I will be looking very carefully at the
workforce-related issues in the Environmental Management program.
WASTE INCIDENTAL TO REPROCESSING (WIR)
Question. One of the biggest challenges of DOE's Environmental
Management program is emptying the large tanks of highly radioactive
waste that exist at defense nuclear sites in South Carolina,
Washington, and Idaho. Last year, Congress granted DOE, in consultation
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the authority to determine that
portions of this waste are not high level radioactive waste and thus
DOE may leave residue that meets the requirements of the provision at
the bottom of the tanks in South Carolina and Idaho after these tanks
are otherwise emptied.
How is DOE using this new authority?
How will DOE complete the cleanup of the tanks at the Hanford site
in Washington State in the absence of equivalent authority for those
tanks?
What is the timetable for completing cleanup of the Hanford tanks?
What effect has the passage of Initiative-297 by the State of
Washington had on the Department's ability to complete the cleanup at
Hanford?
Answer. At this time, I cannot comment on the specifics to the use
of the authority. I recognize the interest in this issue by members of
the committee and I will seek to both understand the details and commit
to working with the committee should I be confirmed.
WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
Question. The Department of Energy has notified the congressional
defense committees that the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) being
constructed to treat and immobilize the liquid, high-level radioactive
waste at Hanford is experiencing ``significant'' escalation in the
total project cost.
In your view, should the WTP be considered a high risk project from
a cost and management perspective?
Answer. Without doubt, this project to build a waste treatment
plant at Hanford is complex. I consider any such unique project dealing
with the complexity of chemical and nuclear waste to be high risk.
Several experts have told me that it may very well be the most
difficult and complex nuclear and chemical process facility in the
world, and in size it equals building three nuclear power plants. I see
the effective management of risk as integral and essential in
successful delivery of a project of this size and complexity.
Question. If confirmed, what remedies or precautionary actions
would you recommend the Secretary of Energy implement in the near term
to bring this project under control from the perspectives of cost,
schedule, and technical risk?
Answer. If I am confirmed to the position of Assistant Secretary,
recognizing that this project is likely the most complex of its type in
the world, and recognizing the significance of the cleanup work at
Hanford, I will give a high priority to personally understanding the
risk management approach and its integration into the project
management for, and the eventual operation of, this facility.
Question. If confirmed, how would you use your experience in
leading the DOE Office of Engineering and Construction Management to
improve the overall execution of project management within the EM
program, particularly for major projects such as the WTP?
Answer. My career as a Navy Civil Engineer Corps officer, then as a
senior officer in two environmental companies, and now as the Director
of the Office of Engineering and Construction Management, have imbued
in me a clear sense for leadership and management of both individual
projects and entire programs. I recognize that the EM program is
extremely complex and challenging, but I am not daunted by taking on
this challenge if I am confirmed. There are sound and proven leadership
and management techniques that have served me well in my career; I also
recognize that each leadership position, and each set of challenges,
requires a reasoned application of those techniques. As I have stated
above, I would focus on the processes and tools, and the utilization
and understanding of those processes and tools by leaders and managers
at all levels, both Federal and contractor.
Question. What, if any, technology uncertainties exist with respect
to the WTP or with respect to the operational waste treatment and
immobilization steps planned for use in the WTP?
Answer. As you may know, during the execution of this project, it
has been reviewed not only by EM, but also by two independent reviews
performed by the Logistics Management Institute, and two independent
reviews by the Corps of Engineers. This is a challenging project, and
in the opinion of some, the most challenging and complex of its type in
the world. Certainly during the planning and design stages there were
technology uncertainties. As I have stated above, if I am confirmed, I
will give a high priority to personally understanding the risk
management approach and its integration into the project management for
this facility at this point and going forward.
BURIED WASTE
Question. The Federal Government and the State of Idaho have been
in dispute regarding whether and to what extent DOE is obligated to
remediate substantial quantities of buried waste that underlie the
Idaho National Laboratory.
What is the status of any pending litigation involving this dispute
and what is the DOE position regarding its cleanup obligations for this
waste?
Answer. If confirmed I will carefully review the status of this
disagreement and would then look forward to working with the committee
on this issue.
Question. How is DOE addressing any environmental risks associated
with this waste?
Answer. Again, if confirmed I would be able to review and
understand this issue.
WASTE DISPOSAL
Question. Completion of cleanup at a number of EM sites depends on
the timely shipment of quantities of transuranic waste to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico for disposal. In some cases,
DOE is under regulatory deadlines for completing shipments to WIPP.
What regulatory deadlines does the EM program currently face
related to WIPP shipments and what is the current progress against
those deadlines?
Answer. As I do not currently work in the EM program I do not know
the answer to this question. If confirmed, I must learn about this
issue, and similar issues related to committed deadlines.
Question. Are you aware of any issues that jeopardize DOE's ability
to meet these deadlines? If so, what is DOE doing to address these
issue? What, if any, additional permits or permit modifications are
needed for WIPP in order to meet these deadlines?
Answer. Again, I do not know the answer to this question at this
time. If confirmed, I must learn about our committed deadlines and
issues related to them. With an understanding of these issues, I would
be able to address any questions the committee may have on this
subject.
ENDURING SITES
Question. Cleanup under the EM program occurs not only at closure
sites, but at DOE national laboratories and other sites with ongoing
missions. These locations are sometimes distinguished from the closure
sites by use of the term ``enduring sites.''
Does the EM program approach cleanup differently at closure sites
than at enduring sites?
Answer. As I have not yet been involved in this aspect of EM's
operation, I need to become familiar with EM's approach to this issue.
Question. How should the EM program best manage the interfaces
between its cleanup operations and other ongoing missions at the
enduring sites?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with other departmental elements
as appropriate to best insure that we are addressing EM's activities
responsibly while also minimizing the impact to ongoing missions at
operating sites.
Question. Does the EM program prioritize work differently at
enduring sites, and if so? in what way?
Answer. Again, as I have not yet been involved with this aspect of
EM's operation, I am not prepared to answer this question at this time.
DESIGN BASIS THREAT
Question. Secretary Bodman testified before this committee that DOE
sites will not achieve compliance with the current design basis threat
until 2008.
Given the seriousness of the need to secure nuclear materials, both
abroad and at home, do you believe that this is a sufficiently rapid
response to the threats currently outlined by the Intelligence
Community, and against which DOE has agreed it must defend at its
nuclear sites?
Answer. If confirmed, the Design Basis Threat would be a very high
priority for me. I would intend to be personally involved, and
understand this issue. Since I have no specific knowledge related to
this question, I can not address it at this time.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you undertake to
consolidate and more rapidly secure any special nuclear material
existing within the EM program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will need to understand the nature and
extent of the special nuclear material and wastes in the inventory, in
order to he able to evaluate the potential for any improvement in this
area.
Question. Do you agree that, even with a primary focus on
accelerating cleanup, it is still an essential responsibility of the EM
program to secure these materials against the threats existing now?
Answer. Cleaning up our sites is an essential role of the EM
program, and securing these materials is of paramount importance during
that process. This is another issue that I will have to learn if
confirmed.
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. As a former career naval officer sworn to protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States, I believe in our system
of government and its respective legislative and executive functions.
If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to appear before this
committee and other committees of Congress.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. I believe I am a person of honor and integrity, and if
confirmed, I would intend to bring those inherent characteristics to
all my dealings with both administration officials, and with Members of
Congress and their staffs.
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. I do.
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 believe that open and honest communication is vital to
success and credibility. If I am confirmed, I would intend to maintain
a most positive dialog with this committee, its members and staff, and
other appropriate committees.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey O. Graham
FUTURE MISSIONS
1. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, the people of South Carolina do not
see the Savannah River Site (SRS) as a closure site. They are actively
seeking out new missions to bring to SRS. Since SRS falls under the
management of Environmental Management (EM), it is important that you
are aware of the unique atmosphere in South Carolina. Do you agree that
your stewardship of SRS extends beyond the simple cleanup of the site?
Mr. Rispoli. From my present position in the Department of Energy,
I understand that the Department has a significant investment in the
Savannah River Site, in both infrastructure and other facilities that
will have a useful life for years to come. I have reviewed the recently
developed 10-Year Site Plan for the facility, and it indicates that
while the environmental cleanup mission is to be completed by 2025, the
site will have an ongoing mission to support National Nuclear Security
Administration activities. It is the designated center for the tritium
supply to the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. Additionally, it has
a role in the Department's nuclear nonproliferation mission through the
conversion of weapons grade nuclear material to reactor fuel suitable
for use in nuclear power reactors.
The Environmental Management organization, as landlord for the
site, has a responsibility to plan for the future of this investment,
and ensure that the enduring facilities and infrastructure are suitably
managed and maintained. Additionally, as the 10-Year Site Plan
indicates, there is a very active natural resources program that is
managed by the U.S. Forest Service for the Department of Energy. If I
am confirmed to the position of Assistant Secretary, I will be fully
engaged in the cleanup aspects, as well as other facets of the Savannah
River Site.
2. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, what will you do to ensure that the
Savannah River National Laboratory is funded in the future?
Mr. Rispoli. In my present position in the Department, I have not
been involved with the budgetary aspects related to the Savannah River
National Laboratory. I recognize the importance of this national
laboratory and the stewardship provided as the only laboratory in the
Department to be within the Environmental Management organization. If I
am confirmed, I commit to you that I will visit this laboratory, learn
more about its mission and functions, and be engaged with you and the
committee going forward.
3. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, what new missions do you envision
coming to SRS in the near term?
Mr. Rispoli. Because of my present position in the Department, I am
familiar with the major capital investment that is being made by the
National Nuclear Security Administration at the Savannah River Site. My
present office has been engaged with the NNSA, and has played a
supportive role in the oversight of these projects. If I am confirmed
to the position of Assistant Secretary, I would expect to be engaged
with the Secretary, not only on this future mission and function, but
also with others that may develop.
4. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, the contract for SRS is scheduled
to be rebid in the near future. The request for information (RFI)
recently went out. How will you and the Department ensure that the
eventual winner of the management contract will make a strong
commitment to the community?
Mr. Rispoli. While I am not familiar with specifics, I have been
informed of the ongoing contract schedule for SRS and can state that
DOE remains committed to the community, public and worker safety, risk
reduction to the environment and reduction of the burden on the United
States taxpayer. If I am confirmed, I will work to ensure that our
contractor(s) have a strong commitment to the community.
5. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, the House Energy and Water
Appropriations bill contains report language that could lead to the
shipment of commercial spent waste to Department of Energy (DOE) sites
such as SRS for interim storage. Despite South Carolina's history of
supporting all things nuclear, this would be a significant test of
their trust and likely opposed by the residents. Absent a plan to begin
reprocessing this fuel in South Carolina, I, too, would be reluctant to
support any efforts to store commercial spent fuel at SRS. Do you
support shipping commercial spent fuel to DOE sites for interim
storage?
Mr. Rispoli. I have not been involved with any discussion related
to interim storage at the SRS of the type to which you refer. If I am
confirmed, I would expect to work both within EM, and with other
appropriate Department officials to review the report language.
6. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, what will you do to ensure that
Yucca Mountain opens as quickly as possible?
Mr. Rispoli. In my present position in the Department, I have not
had authority or purview over the repository development at Yucca
Mountain. The administration and the Department strongly support the
development of the repository at Yucca Mountain, and the related
supporting aspects for transport and handling of material destined for
that repository. I also understand the importance of the
interrelationship between the activities of the Environmental
Management organization and the intended disposition of material at
Yucca Mountain. If I am confirmed, I will work closely with the Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to ensure that the efforts are
coordinated and supportive of the schedule and operations intended for
Yucca Mountain.
SITE CLEANUP
7. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, recently, the DOE Inspector General
(IG) released a report that was very critical of the deactivation and
decommissioning mission at SRS. According to the report, ``About 67
percent of the facilities completed by Westinghouse through August
2004, at a cost of about $7.8 million, posed little or no potential
risk to the environment, workers, or public.'' The report also found
that, ``Twenty-two facilities that posed potential environmental,
safety, and health risk had not been scheduled for deactivation and
decommissioning at the time of our review, even though they were
available for remediation.'' In an attached memorandum to the Office of
the Inspector General, EM ascertains that the IG recommendations cannot
be implemented because they do not take into account worker safety in
sequencing. Have you familiarized yourself with this report?
Mr. Rispoli. I have reviewed the DOE IG report at your suggestion,
and understand the issues that the IG has identified. I will need to
become more familiar with the underlying issues of this report if I am
confirmed and will review the program's response to the issues raised
in the report. As you see in my statement for the record related to the
hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, I am
committed to safety in each and every aspect of the cleanup program--
for the workers, for the communities in which the sites are located,
and for all other stakeholders.
Although I have not been involved with any of the decisions on
prioritization of work at the Savannah River Site, nor with the
contract provisions, I have had experience in the past since I directed
the Navy's comparable cleanup program, and also worked as an
engineering contractor assisting clients with prioritization of risk in
similar issues. If I am confirmed, I would expect to bring a similar
approach to dealing with risk. This approach would be to identify the
risks, evaluate the probability of occurrence of each risk event, and
the impact or consequence of that event. If confirmed, I will fully
explore these issues at the Savannah River Site considering both the IG
report and the approach to resolution of the issues in it.
8. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, what are you going to do to ensure
that site cleanup proceeds in a manner that is most efficient, safe,
and cost efficient?
Mr. Rispoli. As I have indicated in my testimony to the Senate
Armed Services Committee, I have held a number of leadership positions
in both the Navy and in the private sector, in the management of
cleanup at individual sites, and in complex wide situations. I believe
that by using the correct industry standard project management
practices, and modem management tools for planning and management of
this cleanup effort, the program can be and will be managed
efficiently, safely, and cost effectively. If I am confirmed, I will
bring my commitment to the use of these proven practices to the
organization. I believe that with knowledgeable professionals who
understand how to manage projects, and who are committed to the use of
these methods, we will successfully execute this technically complex
and wide-ranging cleanup program.
9. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, the IG made the following three
recommendations:
1. Halt deactivation and decommissioning activities on
facilities that pose no potential environment, safety and
health (ES&H) risk to the environment, workers, and/or public;
2. Re-prioritize all remaining facilities based on the
potential ES&H risk that the facilities may pose to the
environment, workers, and/or public; and
3. Renegotiate the current contract with Westinghouse to
accelerate deactivation and decommissioning activities on the
facilities that pose the highest potential risk to the
environment, workers, and/or public.
Are you planning to implement any of the suggested reforms
contained in the report?
Mr. Rispoli. As I have indicated, I have recently reviewed the IG's
report at your suggestion and I understand the recommendations offered.
If I am confirmed, I will learn about the underlying situation at the
Savannah River Site and will be pleased to discuss this issue with you.
10. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, recently, Bruce Carnes stated the
Energy Department suffers from a ``disease'' of making baseless
promises regarding cleanup activities. One promise made to Congress was
the added savings from smaller sites that are now closing would be
reinvested to larger sites to ensure cleanup stays on schedule. Should
we expect the fiscal year 2007 budget to include the savings incurred
at the smaller sites for the larger cleanup sites?
Mr. Rispoli. In my present position, I am not, nor have I been,
involved in prioritization of work within the EM budget, nor with the
EM budget in the larger context of the DOE budget. If I am confirmed to
this position, this will clearly be a keystone element of the program
for me to learn and engage.
WASTE INCIDENTAL TO REPROCESSING
11. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, as you are aware, in last year's
defense authorization bill, the authority was granted to accelerate
tank closure in South Carolina and Idaho. This provision will enable
tanks to be closed in a safe manner and allow DOE to save billions of
dollars in the process. As the author of the amendment that authorized
this cleanup to happen and as the Senator that represents one of the
sites covered by this statute, I have a vested interest in ensuring it
is carried out in a timely fashion. I understand from your answers to
the advance policy questions that you cannot comment on the specifics
to the use of the authority. I urge you in the strongest possible terms
to familiarize yourself with this issue and brief me on the progress
DOE has made in closing the tanks. Do you plan to reassess the law as
written or can you guarantee that you will work to carry out the law as
written?
Mr. Rispoli. I understand both your leading role and interest in
this issue and can transmit to you both my and the Department's
assurance that we will carry out our responsibilities under the statute
as written.
12. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, the partnership between the
Governor of South Carolina, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (DHEC) and the DOE has been excellent and was
vital to enacting the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) provision
into law. How will you work to maintain this relationship and ensure
that the Governor and DHEC continue to be advised of the implementation
of this language?
Mr. Rispoli. As I have indicated in my testimony before the Senate
Armed Services Committee, I have had experience and success in my
career in working with all the stakeholders in my past involvement with
environmental cleanup. I have worked with both state regulatory
agencies and nongovernmental organizations that represent stakeholders
in cleanup. I have previously chaired an advisory committee providing
counsel to the State of Hawaii's Director of Environmental Health, the
equivalent of the Director, DHEC and was elected unanimously by the
members, comprised of officials from industry, professional firms, and
nongovernmental environmental organizations. I would expect to bring my
approach of open communication and cooperation to my dealings with the
Governor, your office, Congress, and the DHEC.
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE
13. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, the Savannah River Site enjoys
broad support from the community in Aiken, South Carolina. The
residents of the site's surrounding community have been good stewards
of site, eagerly accepting new missions--even if doing so meant taking
a significant risk. Do you plan to spend significant time at the site
to get to better understand the community?
Mr. Rispoli. I am pleased to state that during my 5 years with the
Department of Energy, I have visited the Savannah River Site more than
any other. If I am confirmed, I would plan to visit the site with an
even wider point of view, to better understand all the aspects of the
site and its operations and would look forward to meeting and working
with the community and its leaders. I believe that any Federal
installation must be a good neighbor, and involve itself with the
community, and I would intend to bring this perspective if I am
confirmed.
14. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, how will you ensure public support
for the site remains strong?
Mr. Rispoli. In my Active-Duty Naval career, I have served as
Commanding Officer of two naval installations: Camp David, Maryland,
and Navy Public Works Center, Pearl Harbor. In each instance, I have
enjoyed personal and active ties with representatives of the community
and worked closely to address their issues and concerns. I believe that
Federal installations consider themselves as part of the communities in
which they are located, and must establish ties to maintain good
neighbor relations. If I am confirmed, I will personally encourage this
approach throughout the EM complex, including the site at Savannah
River.
15. Senator Graham. Mr. Rispoli, how do you plan to communicate
what happens at the site with the surrounding community?
Mr. Rispoli. I believe in open and honest communication. Honesty
and integrity are, for me, personal attributes that I bring to each and
every position. As part of EM's responsibility in the area of community
relations, I will, if I am confirmed, reinforce this philosophy to all
the site office managers, and personally practice this approach.
______
[The nomination reference of James A. Rispoli follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 17, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services; Energy and Natural Resources pursuant to a Standing
Order of the Senate on June 28, 1990:
James A. Rispoli, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Energy (Environmental Management), vice Jessie Hill Roberson, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of James A. Rispoli, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of James A. Rispoli
Jim Rispoli, a licensed professional engineer in several States, is
the Director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Engineering
and Construction Management. His office is responsible for management
policy, assessment, and oversight of the Department's facilities,
infrastructure, and capital projects. The value of the Department's
facilities and infrastructure is over U.S. $80 billion. Additionally
its portfolio of 125 capital construction projects exceeds U.S. $38
billion, ranging from one of a kind nuclear facilities and laboratories
to standard office buildings and utilities. Prior to joining the
Department of Energy he was Vice President and manager of Dames &
Moore's Pacific area operations. He also was a Senior Vice President of
Metcalf and Eddy in charge of their Hawaii offices. In both firms he
led major engineering and construction projects for private clients,
state and federal governmental agencies. He served in the United States
Navy's Civil Engineer Corps holding executive level facilities,
environmental and construction management positions. A Fellow of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, he is past Director of its
Construction Division, and has served in several local section officer
positions. He is also a Fellow of the Society of American Military
Engineers for which he has held several officer positions at the local
post level, and served as the national society's Vice President for
Environmental Affairs. Mr. Rispoli is an active member of the Project
Management Institute for whom he has served on a number of panels and
study efforts. He holds advanced degrees in engineering arid business.
He was appointed to his present position in June 2002. Since that
time, the Secretary of Energy has designated him as the Department's
Senior Real Property Officer, and has appointed him to the Federal
Energy Management Advisory Committee.
______
[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 James A.
Rispoli 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 Anthony Rispoli.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, Department of
Energy.
3. Date of nomination:
May 17, 2005.
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 6, 1947; Staten Island, New York.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Carol Anne Ruginis.
7. Names and ages of children:
Christina Marie Thomasson, 29; and Joseph Vincent Rispoli, 24.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
St. Peter's High School For Boys, Staten Island, NY; 9-1960 to 6-
1964, Diploma, 6-1964.
Manhattan College; 9-1964 to 6-1968, Bachelor of Engineering, 6-
1968.
University of New Hampshire; 9-1968 to 9-1969, M.S. Civil
Engineering, 9-1969.
Central Michigan University, 9-1975 to 5-1977, M.A. Business
Management, 5-1977.
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.
8-1994 to 7-1995; Captain, CEC, USN Director of Corporate
Management; Headquarters Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Alexandria, VA.
6-1995 to 12-1997; President, M&E Pacific, and Sr. VP, Metcalf &
Eddy (HQ in Wakefield, MA); M&E Pacific, Inc., Honolulu, HI.
1-1998 to 10-1999; Vice President & Managing Principal Pacific
Operations; Dames & Moore Honolulu, HI.
10-1999 to 11-2001; Deputy Director Office of Engineering &
Construction Mgmt.; Headquarters, Dept. of Energy Washington, DC.
11-2001 to present; Director, Office of Engineering and
Construction Mgmt.; Headquarters, Dept. of Energy, 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.
Chair, Advisory Committee to the Director for Environmental Health,
State of Hawaii (and previous to election as chair, member); 1996-1999;
Unpaid volunteer position.
Additionally, prior to the time period for the positions listed in
item 9 above, I was a career military officer. I began active service
in the U.S. Air Force in 1968, following commissioning as a 2nd
Lieutenant through the AFROTC. I served as an Air Force civilian
employee (GS-12) for approximately 1 year in 1973-1974 pending my
recall to Active Duty as a Lieutenant, Civil Engineer Corps, U.S. Navy.
I completed an Active Duty career in 1995, with the position shown in
item 9 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.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Fellow, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Fellow, Society of American Military Engineers.
Member, Project Management Institute.
Member, American legion, Mclean Virginia Post.
Member, Chi Epsilon National Civil Engineering Honor Fraternity.
Member, Military Officers Association of America.
Member, Italian Cultural Society of Washington DC.
Member, Mclean Photography Club.
Smithsonian Associate.
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.
Chi Epsilon Civil Engineering National Honor Society while at
Manhattan College, 1967-1968.
Air Force ROTC Scholarship while at Manhattan College, 1967-1968.
Legion of Merit (three awards) for service as Naval Officer:
Commanding Officer, Camp David; Commanding Officer, Public Works Center
Pearl Harbor; Director, Corporate Management, Headquarters Naval
Facilities Engineering Command.
Meritorious Service Medal (five awards) for service as Naval
Officer: Operations Officer, Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 62;
Head, Facilities Planning Department, Northern Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command; Public Works Officer, Naval Air Station
Oceana; Head, Civil Engineer Corps Management & Assignments Office;
Assistant Commander, Environment, Safety & Health, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command.
Presidential Service Certificate and Badge, Commanding Officer,
Camp David.
Fellow, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Fellow, Society of American Military Engineers.
Three consecutive outstanding performance evaluations as member of
the Senior Executive Service.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Publisher Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environment During Navy Civil Engineer Fall 1977
Construction.
Protecting the Environment Journal of the June 1982
During Construction. Construction
Division, American
Society of Civil
Engineers.
NAVFAC's Environmental The Military March-April 1991
Contracting Strategy. Engineer, Society
of American
Military Engineers.
Build on Success (one of four PM Network, Project Nov. 2004
contributing authors). Management
Institute.
Leader Profile.................. The Military March-April 2005
Engineer, Society
of American
Military Engineers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
James A. Rispoli.
This 2nd day of June 2005.
[The nomination of James A. Rispoli was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on June 30, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2005.]
NOMINATIONS OF LT. GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF, FOR APPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND;
RONALD M. SEGA TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE; PHILIP JACKSON
BELL TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR LOGISTICS AND MATERIAL
READINESS; JOHN G. GRIMES TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION; KEITH E. EASTIN TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT; AND WILLIAM C.
ANDERSON TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS,
ENVIRONMENT AND LOGISTICS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Elizabeth Dole
presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner (chairman),
Inhofe, Talent, Dole, Thune, and Levin.
Other Senators present: Senator Wayne Allard and Senator
Ted Stevens.
Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Charles W. Alsup,
professional staff member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff
member; Sandra E. Luff, professional staff member; Thomas L.
MacKenzie, professional staff member; Elaine A. McCusker,
professional staff member; David M. Morriss, counsel; Lucian L.
Niemeyer, professional staff member; Joseph T. Sixeas,
professional staff member; Robert M. Soofer, professional staff
member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel; Diana G. Tabler,
professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Gabriella Eisen, research assistant;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Peter K. Levine,
minority counsel; Michael J. McCord, professional staff member;
and Arun A. Seraphin, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Alison E. Brill and Pendred K.
Wilson.
Committee members' assistants present: Cord Sterling,
assistant to Senator Warner; Paul C. Hutton IV, assistant to
Senator McCain; Frederick M. Downey, assisant to Senator
Lieberman; and William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill
Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ELIZABETH DOLE
Senator Dole. This hearing will come to order.
I am pleased to have six distinguished nominees before the
committee this morning. We welcome Lieutenant General Norton
Schwartz, U.S. Air Force, the current Director of the Joint
Staff, who has been nominated to be Commander, United States
Transportation Command (TRANSCOM).
We also welcome our five distinguished civilian nominees:
Dr. Ronald M. Sega, presently the Director of Defense Research
and Engineering, to be Under Secretary of the Air Force; John
G. Grimes, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks
and Information Integration (NII); Philip Jackson Bell, to be
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel
Readiness; Keith E. Eastin, to be Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Installations and Environment; and William C.
Anderson, to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Installations and Environment.
I welcome Senator Stevens, who will introduce General
Schwartz, and Senator Allard, who will introduce Dr. Sega.
Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Madam Chair, thank you very much, and
Senator Levin. It is my pleasure today to introduce General
Norton Schwartz to you. He is a personal friend. General
Schwartz is a 1973 graduate of the Air Force Academy, an
alumnus of the National War College, and a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations. As a command pilot he logged more
than 4,200 flying hours. In his distinguished career he has
successfully held a wide range of military positions, including
Commander of the Special Operations Command-Pacific and Chief
of Staff of the Joint Special Operations Task Force for
Northern Iraq during Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
From 2000 through October 2002, General Schwartz served as
Commander of the Alaska Command, the Alaska North American Air
Space Defense Command Region, and the 11th Air Force at
Elmendorf Base at my home in Anchorage. He was serving in this
capacity when our Nation was attacked on September 11. Under
his direction, the military took control of the Alaskan air
space and grounded all traffic, while responding to reports of
a possible hijacking that was approaching American air space.
The hijacking report turned out to be a false alarm, but
our air space is a lifeline for the people of our State, and we
were very grateful that General Schwartz was at the helm to
guide us through the events of that day.
While stationed in Alaska, General Schwartz once said:
``The relationships we have within the communities of Alaska
are key to the success of military missions now and in the
future.'' He and his wife Suzy, who is with us today, lived
according to that philosophy and became very valuable members
of our State's community. The Alaska Journal of Commerce
acknowledged this, and I think this is a very important thing
for us, when they singled out General Schwartz for special
recognition in what they called their ``25 Most Powerful
Alaskans Issue,'' a special issue of our Alaska Journal of
Commerce.
In 2002, General Schwartz left our State to begin his new
assignment as Director of Operations for the Joint Staff. He
currently serves as director of that staff. He is a skilled
leader, a true patriot, and, as I said, a true and good friend.
I am confident he will fulfill his duties as Commander of the
U.S. Transportation Command with the same commitment and
dedication he has exhibited during his command throughout his
life and particularly in our State.
Again, I thank you very much for the privilege of
introducing my friend. I urge you to act swiftly on his
nomination, and I thank you for your courtesy, Madam Chair.
Senator Dole. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. We will be glad to answer questions.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dole. Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I thank Senator
Stevens for that introduction. I know he has a terribly heavy
schedule. So with our gratitude, and I know General Schwartz's
gratitude, he will be excused.
Madam Chairman, I join you in welcoming today's witnesses
and their families. We all know the long, hard hours that our
senior DOD officials must work and the toll that those hours
take, not only on them but on their families. So we appreciate
the sacrifice that they, the families particularly, as well as
our nominees, are willing to make in the service of our
country.
Madam Chairman, because of the number of nominees that we
have, I would ask unanimous consent that the balance of my
statement be included in the record. It just sets forth the
dedication to public service which our nominees have shown.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Carl Levin
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming today's witnesses and their
families. We all know about the long, hard hours that our senior DOD
officials must work and the toll that those hours can take not only on
them, but on their families. So we certainly appreciate the sacrifice
that you are willing to make in service of your country.
Today's nominees have already shown their dedication to public
service. General Schwartz has served a 30-year career in the Air Force,
most recently serving as the Director of the Joint Staff and the
Director for Operations of the Joint Staff. Dr. Sega joined NASA as an
astronaut in July 1991 and has served as Director of Defense Research
and Engineering for the last 4 years. Mr. Bell began his career as an
officer in the Marine Corps; over the last few years, he has served as
Deputy Under Secretary of the Army and as Chief of Staff of the State
Department's Afghanistan Reconstruction Group. Mr. Grimes held senior
technical and staff positions with the U.S. Army from 1961 to 1981,
then served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense from 1990 to
1994. Mr. Eastin has served as a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Navy and Deputy Under Secretary of Interior. Mr. Anderson has
not previously held a position in the Federal Government, but has been
active in community service.
Once again, I join the chairman in welcoming our witnesses and look
forward to their testimony.
Senator Dole. It will be placed in the record without
objection.
Senator Allard, we welcome you to introduce Dr. Sega.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
COLORADO
Senator Allard. Madam Chairman, thank you. Sorry to be
late. I showed up over at Russell 228. Old habits are hard to
break, having been on the Armed Services Committee. So we are
here, and thank you for your patience.
Madam Chairman, I have known Ron Sega for over a decade,
and I take great pleasure in introducing him to this committee.
Perhaps more than that, I took pleasure in introducing him at
his last nomination hearing. I value Ron's advice, his
experience, and his patriotism.
He served on my Space Roundtable in Colorado from his
position as Dean of Engineering at the University of Colorado
at Colorado Springs. He has a passion for education, especially
in science, math, and engineering. He is no stranger to many in
this committee, having appeared before Congress on several
occasions. You confirmed him in 2001 to be the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering, and he has testified often
since then as the Deputy Chief Technology Officer.
Ron's a distinguished airman, engineer, and space
professional, and the post of Under Secretary of the Air Force
seems tailor-made for him. His affiliation with the Air Force
has been long and fruitful, beginning with his enrollment at
the United States Air Force Academy and continuing to this day.
Ron graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1974 and earned a
Master's Degree in physics at Ohio State University. While
serving in the Air Force, he was an instructor-pilot and later
taught at the Air Force Academy, and while there he received
his doctorate in electrical engineering from the University of
Colorado.
Ron separated from the Active Force and joined the Reserve,
and continued serving in the Air Force Reserve while on the
faculty at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs,
where he would eventually author or co-author over 100
technical publications.
Ron's career in academia has been quite unique. The
University of Colorado recognized his potential and nurtured
his talent by granting him several leaves of absence for
special projects. In one, he designed, built, and tested an
experimental satellite as the program manager of the Wake Field
Facility. Unlike any other satellite designer or program
manager, Ron actually flew his satellite to space after he
became a NASA Space Shuttle astronaut in 1990. In fact, on this
mission Ron flew on the Space Shuttle Discovery, which just
returned to space earlier this week. Ron later flew on a Space
Shuttle mission to the Russian Space Station Mir as the payload
commander. These are feats that few space professionals can
match.
Ron returned to the University of Colorado after leaving
NASA and became Dean of the College of Engineering and Applied
Science. As an Air Force Reservist, he expanded his space
experience to include Air Force satellite command and control
operations.
In 2001, Ron took another leave of absence from academia,
this time to become the Director of the Department of Defense's
Research and Engineering efforts. As in every other position he
has held, his work has been outstanding.
Under Ron's extraordinary leadership, the Department of
Defense has instituted new programs, streamlined processes, and
sped technology to the warfighter. He is focused on using the
best science and technology to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
spent wisely while we also provide our military forces with the
best possible weapons and equipment.
Ron is well aware of the fact that we will need all his
talent and skill in the position for which he has been
nominated. Fixing our space acquisition programs will not be an
easy task. Ron's considerable space expertise will be
invaluable as he determines how best to improve the Air Force's
space research, development, engineering, test, and sustainment
processes.
Ron has also sound judgment and understands the importance
of leadership. He is willing to make the tough decisions and to
make things happen in the Department of Defense. I am confident
that Ron can accomplish this new mission with the same degree
of success as he has enjoyed elsewhere in his career, and I
believe Dr. Sega will make an outstanding Under Secretary of
the Air Force. I strongly support his nomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to introduce
Dr. Sega.
Chairman Warner [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
Allard. It is very important that colleagues when they have a
close association with nominees take the time from their busy
schedules to introduce them. We thank you very much.
Senator Allard. It is a pleasure to be back before you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Your seat is still here, to be occupied
when you wish.
Senator Allard. You are a wonderful chairman and thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, dear friend.
Now, I would like to ask each of our nominees to take that
very special moment that we have in our confirmation process of
introducing their families. Dr. Sega seems to be occupied at
the moment. General, would you kindly introduce your family.
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. If I may
introduce my wife of 24 years, Suzy. She has been my best
friend and conscience all these years and no doubt I would not
be sitting here today were it not for her love and support.
The second most important woman in my life is also here
today. She is the administrative assistant to the Director of
the Joint Staff, Cherylann Anderson, and she is a terrific
professional talent.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, General. Now, I think
it is important that you recognize the individuals who support
all of us in our respective challenges, whether it is here in
Congress--behind me sits our distinguished staff director of
the committee, who is now moving on to a White House position,
regrettably. But anyway----
Senator Levin. Where is she?
Chairman Warner. Well, she was here. I guess she is gone
now.
Senator Levin. She has already flown the coop.
Chairman Warner. Gone to the White House. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much, and we welcome you, Mrs. Schwartz. I
do hope that, assuming confirmation, the General has a bit
better control over his hours since he will be in command now.
Thank you.
Dr. Sega, would you introduce your family.
Dr. Sega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today is my wife
Ann and our two sons: Jack, 3\1/2\, here; and Matt, a little
over 2. This is the first day they have worn a suit and big boy
shoes, and it is doubtful whether they will make it through the
entire hearing, sir. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. We thank you. You will be on your own
then.
We welcome you, boys. Can you wave up here? Hello. Thank
you.
Senator Levin. There he is.
Senator Talent. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Let us get that boy back up again. We
finally got a photographer, and this picture is worth its
weight in gold. There you go.
Why do you not hold one, the wife the other. There, you got
your picture. That is good.
Senator Talent. Mr. Chairman, if we could get a picture of
you and Senator Levin waving at the same time again, I would
like to keep that for my scrapbook. [Laughter.]
I will keep that for my scrapbook and treasure it always.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Bell, if you would.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take
this opportunity to introduce my wife, Gin, who is sitting here
behind me; and would also like to take this opportunity to
thank her for her support for my deployment and service in
Afghanistan, as well as my acceptance of this nomination.
I also have here with me my daughter, Scarlet Talamantas,
and two of my grandsons, Patrick and Austin.
Chairman Warner. Hello, Austin. Where are we?
Mr. Bell. Would you stand up, Austin, so they can see you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Grimes, do you have family members here with you
today?
Mr. Grimes. I just have a couple friends that are here,
sir.
Chairman Warner. Well, that is all right.
Mr. Grimes. Lowell Thomas and Larry McAmire, very dear
friends, and Dr. Al Dayton, a former Air Force colonel.
Chairman Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Grimes.
Mr. Eastin, you are on your own, right?
Mr. Eastin. For some time now. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
And Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
With me this morning is my wife, Debby, my mother Mildred,
and my daughter Shawna.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
I thank those of you who have had the opportunity to bring
your families, and even though others may not be present,
Senator Levin and I have been side by side on this committee,
now in our 27th year, and whether he is chairman or I am
chairman--and it does seem to go back and forth; pretty
permanent at the moment--we have a great opportunity in the
course of the hearing--these hearings become a part of the
official records of our committee--to recognize the enormous
contribution made by the families and those other persons who
are in the infrastructure that enable these individuals to take
on these challenging tasks.
Having spent a number of years myself a long time ago in
the Pentagon, I know well of the challenges and the family
support and how important it is to enable you to perform your
respective tasks. So we thank you.
I would add that General Schwartz was a frequent and
welcome briefer to our committee during his recent service as
the Director of Operations, J-3, of the Joint Staff. As his
biography demonstrates, he has had a most impressive career,
with assignments in key Joint and Special Operations commands.
Prior to his current position as Director of the Joint Staff,
General Schwartz, as I noted, served as the Director for
Operations, J-3, of the Joint Staff, and from 1997 to 1998 as
Commander, Special Operations Command-Pacific.
General Schwartz has also served as Deputy Commander of the
U.S. Special Operations Command and Commander of the First
Special Operations Command, that command having been structured
by the Congress of the United States some years ago, primarily
under the direction of our former colleague Senator Cohen. I
think both you and I joined him in working out that
legislation.
Dr. Sega's accomplishments have been duly noted by Senator
Allard. We thank you for your service as the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering and your willingness to
continue to serve in the important position of Under Secretary
of the Air Force.
This is a critical time for the Air Force as that proud
service recovers from a number of problems, largely in the
acquisition area, the Academy, and other personnel problems.
But I know that I and Senator Levin and other members of this
committee want to give you every possible support to once again
bring the Air Force in direct line with the other two military
departments and I am confident that in short order it will be
right there, flying side by side with the other two military
departments.
John Grimes is the nominee to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Networks and Information Integration. He presently
is Vice President for Intelligence and Information Systems at
the Raytheon Company. Mr. Grimes is an Air Force veteran,
having served on active-duty as an airman, a ground radio
station technician, from 1956 through 1960. He subsequently
compiled a distinguished 20-year career as a civilian employee
of the Department of the Army, serving as Assistant Deputy
Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans of the Army
Communication Command.
Mr. Grimes then served in the Department of Defense as
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence
and Security Countermeasures and as Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Defense-wide Command, Control, and Communication
(C3) from 1990 to 2004.
We welcome you, Mr. Grimes, and we thank you for taking on
once again in your distinguished career another chapter of
public service.
Mr. Grimes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Mr. Bell is currently serving as the Deputy Under Secretary
of the Army, having assumed that post in April of this year.
Previously he served as the first Chief of Staff of the State
Department's Afghanistan Reconstruction Group in Kabul,
advising the President's special envoy and ambassador to
Afghanistan and ministers of the government of Afghanistan on
efforts to accelerate political stability, reconstruction, and
economic development.
Mr. Bell is a former Marine Corps officer who served in
Vietnam and Okinawa.
Mr. Bell, we welcome you and thank you once again for
having quickly transitioned from that area of the world to come
back here to Washington and undertake these important
responsibilities.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Eastin is presently the Senior
Consultant to the Iraq Ministry of Environment and has served
in this capacity since June 2004. He is a recognized expert in
natural resources management and has been engaged in the
practice of environmental law for over 30 years. He has served
as the Deputy Under Secretary of the Department of Interior and
as Chief Environmental Counsel and from 1986 to 1988 as
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Shipbuilding and Logistics.
I believe your Navy service under Secretaries Lehman and
Ball should prepare you for any challenges that you might have,
and we thank you for taking on another chapter in a long and
distinguished career of public service.
Mr. Eastin. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Anderson, you have compiled an
impressive career in business and the law, currently serving as
the General Manager and Senior Counsel for Environmental Health
and Safety Matters for GE Consumer and Industrial Unit of the
GE Company. Your community service with the Big Brothers-Big
Sisters, the American Red Cross, and the Urban League are
indeed very commendable.
I must say this is an extraordinarily distinguished and
well experienced group of nominees. It shows the care with
which the President, the Secretary of Defense, and others have
screened a number of individuals to take on these positions,
and I commend them both for this distinguished panel.
The committee has asked all of our nominees, military and
civilian, to answer a series of advance policy questions. The
nominees have responded to those questions and without
objection I will make the questions and their responses a part
of the record.
I also have certain standard questions we ask every nominee
who appears before the committee. Consequently, gentlemen, if
you will listen carefully and just signify your answers very
clearly.
Have you, each of you, adhered to applicable laws and
regulations governing conflicts of interest?
The Panel. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
The Panel. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record, in the hearings before the Congress
of the United States?
The Panel. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
The Panel. I will, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
possible reprisal for their testimony or their briefings?
The Panel. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
The Panel. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views
when asked, even if those views differ from the views of your
superiors or others in the administration?
The Panel. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a
timely manner when so requested by a committee of Congress or
to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any good
faith delay or denial in providing such document?
The Panel. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, do you have any opening
comments?
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I gave a brief opening
statement before, and I would concur in your comments about the
importance of family. The only disagreement I would have with
you on any of your comments would be that oblique reference you
made to the permanent nature of the majority continuing in the
majority in the U.S. Senate.
Chairman Warner. I just wanted to make sure that you were
listening to what I had to say. [Laughter.]
Senator Levin. Any reference like that never falls on deaf
ears, I can assure you of that.
Chairman Warner. I thank you.
Now, gentlemen, we will proceed and, General Schwartz, we
would like to have you lead with such opening statement as you
may have.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF, FOR APPOINTMENT
TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S.
TRANSPORTATION COMMAND
General Schwartz. Chairman Warner, Senator Levin,
distinguished members of the committee: Thank you. I am both
honored and humbled at the same time to be nominated for the
position of the Commander of the United States Transportation
Command. Sir, I fully understand and appreciate the enormous
responsibility associated with the position for which I have
been nominated and I will never lose sight of those
responsibilities.
I will take very seriously my role as champion of the
Active-Duty, Reserve, National Guard, and Defense civilian
employees who serve the defense transportation system around
the world. It is and they are a national asset.
One of the cornerstones of the national defense strategy is
the capability to rapidly deliver combat power to the joint
force commander and to effectively link those operating forces
to sustainment processes and systems. If confirmed, sir, I will
improve and transform those processes, organizations, and
systems to optimize rapid force projection, to ensure that
sustainment arrives at the right time and at the right place,
to support rapid force maneuver of the joint forces commanders
when necessary, and to return those forces to home stations and
other locations so that they can regenerate and, most
importantly, have reunions with family.
If confirmed, sir, Suzy and I will serve with energy, with
dignity, and with a profound sense of purpose. I am grateful to
you, sir, and the committee for having me before you today and
I will be ready to take any questions that you may have.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much for a very fine and
heartfelt opening statement about the challenges that you face.
Dr. Sega.
STATEMENT OF RONALD M. SEGA, Ph.D, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE
Dr. Sega. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and distinguished
members of the committee: I am honored to appear before you
today. I am grateful to have the trust and confidence of
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld. I am humbled to be
considered for the position of Under Secretary of the Air
Force.
The Air Force's 680,000 Active-Duty, Air National Guard,
and Air Force Reserve airmen serve well and proudly alongside
our country's soldiers, sailors, and marines. They defend this
country's freedom by providing combat capabilities that our
combatant commanders can use for decisive joint military
actions. I would be honored to serve as their Under Secretary.
For the past 4 years I have served as the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering in the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics. When my wife Ann and I arrived here from Colorado
Springs in August 2001 to take on that assignment, I thought I
knew what we were getting into. I was geared up to tackle the
technical issues of defense transformation.
Then, like everyone else, I was shocked into the age of
terror. As I walked home from the Pentagon on September 11, I
was already thinking about what research and engineering could
do to add to the combat power in our national arsenal.
Accelerating technological support to the global war on
terrorism and enhancing the transition of technology from ideas
to fielded capabilities became two of my objectives.
I have been able to shepherd the development of several
systems from the drawing board to the battlefield, producing
small but effective weapons in months rather than years. I am
pleased that they have contributed to Operations Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.
My other priorities as the Defense Department's Chief
Technology Officer were to integrate defense science and
technology efforts and focus on transformation, expand outreach
to the combatant commands and the Intelligence Community, and
strengthen the national security science and engineering
workforce. I am pleased to report that we have made progress in
each of these areas, although more work needs to be done. I
believe that our achievements in all these efforts have
enhanced the Air Force's combat capabilities.
I believe that an appointment such as this is a sacred
trust. If confirmed as the next Under Secretary of the Air
Force, I pledge to do all in my power to warrant that trust. I
appreciate the scale and significance of the Under Secretary's
responsibility. The Air Force's most important task is to
accomplish the military mission, to provide forces to defeat
our Nation's enemies. With that in mind, I will apply all of my
operational experience to achieving mission success in current
operations and all of my technical expertise to ensure that we
are prepared to succeed in future operations.
I also believe that the Active, Guard, and Reserve airmen
are the best in the world. Their professionalism, courage, and
skill are the reason we are the world's most respected air and
space force. I will do everything in my power to support their
efforts, develop their talents, and provide for their needs.
Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I am both grateful for and
humbled by this opportunity to serve. I am also thankful that
my wife Ann, my wisest counselor, strongest supporter, and best
friend, stands with me in this endeavor.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I look forward to working with
your committee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
I would like to digress for a moment from the order of
listening to opening statements to recognize Senator Inhofe, a
very valued and senior member of our committee who is chairman
of the Environment and Public Works Committee and at this very
moment is working to get the final stages of the Transportation
Equity Conference Report prepared for the Senate. It is my
understanding--and I happen to serve on his committee, and I am
quite interested in his response--that you have been up all
night working on this. As a distinguished aviator, you have the
stamina to do this, but I thank you for joining us here this
morning.
I know you are particularly interested in the
transportation area, and we have General Schwartz here to
undertake that. So I thought perhaps you would give us a few of
your observations here, and then you have to go back and work
on this thing again.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
Senator Levin, if that is all right with you, I will just
take a moment.
Senator Levin. Sure.
Senator Inhofe. It was an all-night thing, and I think we
are going to be successful in coming up with a good
transportation bill. It is a very significant thing.
First of all, I know all of you, and I am looking forward
to your confirmation. Four of you I have had a chance to have
personal conversations with. I have just a couple of things I
would like to bring up.
One is in the depot maintenance improvement fund. I was
very pleased that the Bush administration has recognized that
we have to do something with our Air Logistics Centers (ALC).
For 19 years now we have been talking about having a core
capability so that we would not be held hostage if something
happened during a wartime. On the other hand, with our three
major, only three, ALCs that are left, it was necessary to
start maintaining them.
So we have been pursuing this program. It has been
successful. They have performed very well. I am supporting an
amendment to fund this at $150 million a year over a 6-year
period.
Secretary Gibbs fully supported this depot maintenance
improvement fund. Dr. Sega, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Anderson, I just
would like to ask if you have any comments to make about this
fund and your support or lack of support of that.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. Jack Bell here.
Certainly the whole depot maintenance concept and the
maintenance of core capabilities is one that becomes vitally
important in the course of not only major combat, but the kinds
of involvement we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we need to
do is we need to find ways to maintain those capabilities and
also within that framework find surge capabilities, so we can
expand the volumes necessary to support the kinds of changing
environment that we are involved in.
Senator Inhofe. Specifically, though, we have a depot
maintenance strategy and master plan, and I want to know your
level of support for such a plan.
Mr. Bell. Sir, I do not know the details of that plan. I
will certainly look at it and be happy to get back with you.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Air Force Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan for depot
maintenance infrastructure is critical to ensure maintenance depots can
be both responsive and cost effective providers of DOD materiel
readiness. The depot maintenance transformation investments should be
focused on improving cost-effectiveness, reducing cycle times, and
creating a safer work environment. I have no concern with funding
programs which provide such returns on investment.
I fully support the Department's funding of the modernization and
transformation of their depot maintenance equipment, facilities, and
personnel.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. Senator, good morning. Bill Anderson.
First of all, thank you for your time that you spent with
me several weeks ago explaining your position on this issue.
You had some very thoughtful insights.
I too am not thoroughly versed in the status of the
investments. Based on what I know, the investment procedure
makes sense. It seems like it is on track, and if confirmed, I
will work with you and the members of the committee to make
sure that we remain on track on the maintenance.
Senator Inhofe. Good, good.
The other thing is the mobility capability study. General
Schwartz, we talked about that. It seems like every time we
have a meeting we ask when that study is going to be complete.
It is critical that we get that done. The answer from one of
our witnesses last April was ``shortly.'' Well, ``shortly'' has
come and gone. I would like to get some idea, as specific as
you could, as to when you believe we could have the benefit of
that mobility capability study. Any of you?
General Schwartz. Senator Inhofe, as the Director of the
Joint Staff, I am aware that the analysis for that study is
complete. It is being briefed to principals in the Department,
and I would expect that the report would be available----
Senator Inhofe. It is complete, is that correct?
General Schwartz. The analysis is complete. The results are
being briefed to principals in the Department, and upon
conclusion of that effort we will prepare a report, which the
Department will naturally present to the committee. I would
anticipate that that would be some time in the fall time frame.
Senator Inhofe. All right. There is a time when fall ends,
so we will have a chance to talk about that.
The last one I will just ask for the record. Mr. Chairman,
you are very nice to allow me to do this. It has to do with the
sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) accounts,
which used to be called real property maintenance accounts
(RPM). We watched during the 1990s these accounts being robbed,
and right now we have not really reinstated them and gotten in
the position where we can depend on them. They seem to be the
most vulnerable place to steal money out of to put in other
programs. I have a question for the record that I will be
submitting to you folks.
Thank you very much for your service and I look forward to
working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Inhofe, and we
appreciate your stopping by in your very busy day and night.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. I once had your job, but mine was a lot
easier than yours when I had it.
Senator Inhofe. You did a better job.
Chairman Warner. No, I would not say that. Good luck to
you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Had you finished, Dr. Sega, your opening
comments?
Dr. Sega. Yes, I have, sir.
Chairman Warner. And Mr. Bell?
STATEMENT OF PHILIP JACKSON BELL, TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR LOGISTICS AND MATERIEL READINESS
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, and other members of the
committee: I am honored to have this opportunity to appear
before the committee, as I am honored that President Bush has
nominated me to be the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Logistics and Materiel Readiness.
Having served in Vietnam and Afghanistan, I come before you
with an intense appreciation of the importance of logistics and
materiel readiness in supporting our men and women who are
serving in harm's way today and those preparing to go.
At the same time, it is important that we find more cost
effective ways for providing that support as the character of
the war changes from expansion to sustainment. While we are
doing that, we need to look to the future and prepare our Armed
Forces to respond to other threats and other crises, present
and future.
If confirmed, I pledge to you my dedication to fulfilling
the responsibilities of this office and the vital role that it
plays in the defense of our country. My wife Gin and I have
four children and five grandsons, and we feel the need to leave
them a better world than the one we live in today.
I thank you for this opportunity and this honor to be here
and I would be pleased to answer any questions you have. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bell follows:]
Prepared Statement by Philip Jackson Bell
Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and other members of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, I am honored to appear before you today--as I
am honored that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld nominated me for
the position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and
Materiel Readiness.
Having served in Vietnam and in Afghanistan, I come before you with
knowledge of the importance of logistics to the overall success of our
military operations, be it in training here in the States or deployed
in military interventions around the world.
We must be committed to provide the support needed by our
commanders and their troops, while at the same time finding ways to
manage the costs in doing so.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the support from my
wife Gin for my service in Afghanistan, and for the decision we jointly
made to move to Washington to work on these important issues. Gin and I
believe we need to leave the world to our grandchildren in better
condition than it is today.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Chairman Warner. I thank you for your statement and I
certainly agree with your last comment. I too am blessed with
children and grandchildren, and I try every day in my
opportunities here in this magnificent institution of Congress
to do what I can to assure that they will share a future as
rich and rewarding as the one that my generation has
experienced. Thank you, sir, for that reference.
Mr. Grimes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN G. GRIMES, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION
Mr. Grimes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members
of this committee: It is a privilege and an honor to appear
before you today as the President's nominee to serve as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information
Integration, and as the Chief Information Officer of the
Department of Defense.
First, I would like to thank the President and Secretary
Rumsfeld for their support and confidence by selecting me for
this position.
If confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to serve my
country at a time when our national security environment is
markedly different and more complex than any time in our
Nation's history. The Department has developed a defense
strategy to meet the changing and challenging threats of a
different world. True transformation of the Department can only
be achieved by transforming the way we communicate and by
taking full advantage of information age technology to ensure
our decisionmakers and our warfighters have access to the
information when needed.
We must move to an environment where information is shared
and available to those who need it in a timely manner. The
development, deployment, and integration of a Department-wide
information infrastructure and supporting network that is
global, interoperable, secure, real-time, and user-friendly are
critical underpinnings for success in the Department's
transformation. The position for which I have been nominated is
responsible for leading the implementation of this portion of
transformation.
Let me close by stating that if I am confirmed I look
forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the other
members of the committee, as well as the dedicated men and
women of the Department of Defense, to meet the challenges of
this dangerous and uncertain world in which we live.
Thank you and I look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grimes follows:]
Prepared Statement by John G. Grimes
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the committee: It is a
privilege and an honor to appear before you today as the President's
nominee to serve as the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Networks and Information Integration and the Chief Information Officer
of the Department of Defense.
First, I would like to thank the President and Secretary Rumsfeld
for their support and confidence by selecting me for this position. If
confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to serve my country at a
time when our national security environment is markedly different and
more complex than at any other time in our Nation's history.
The Department has developed a defense strategy to meet the
changing and challenging threats of a new and different world. True
transformation of the Department can only be achieved by transforming
the way we communicate, and by taking full advantage of information age
technologies to ensure that our decisionmakers and warfighters have
access to the information, when needed. We must move to an environment
where information is shared and available to those who need it in a
timely manner.
The development, deployment, and integration of a department-wide
information infrastructure and supporting network that is global,
interoperable, secure, real-time and user-friendly are the critical
underpinnings for the success of the Department's net-centric
transformation. The position for which I have been nominated is
responsible for leading the implementation of this portion of the
transformation.
Let me close by stating that if I am confirmed, I look forward to
working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the committee,
as well as the dedicated men and women of the Department of Defense to
meet the challenges of this dangerous and uncertain world in which we
live.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering the
committee's questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you for a very fine opening
statement.
Mr. Eastin.
STATEMENT OF KEITH E. EASTIN, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Eastin. Senator Warner, Senator Levin, members of the
committee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
this morning. I also appreciate that the President believes I
am qualified to assume the duties of Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Installations and Environment. I will briefly outline
my priorities if confirmed.
First, our soldiers are our most important asset. They
deserve to live in conditions that are comparable to those of
the citizens they protect. This is in housing, installations,
and other facilities.
Second, our soldiers must be trained to fight. That means
realistic training conditions. Our installations must be
maintained to ensure that our soldiers are ready to fight. Thus
we must find a way to deal with encroachment, environmental
encroachment, as well as those of community activities in the
area.
Third, attention must be paid to operating as a good
environmental steward. We must obey the laws, but work within
them to ensure installations that work. If confirmed, I pledge
to work with Congress on existing and emerging issues involving
installations and the environment.
Thank you for holding the hearing today and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eastin follows:]
Prepared Statement by Keith E. Eastin
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I
also appreciate that the President believes that I am qualified to
assume the duties of the Assistant Secretary.
I believe that installations are one of the most important features
of military life. This is especially true of current times when we have
a volunteer Army. Our soldiers have other opportunities with the
private sector. To retain these soldiers and their families in the
Army, we need to treat them as one of our most important assets and
provide them with housing and facilities that modestly compare to those
of the people they protect. This applies to family housing as well as
barracks for the Army's enlisted soldiers. If confirmed, I will place
one of my highest priorities in achieving high quality housing for the
soldiers.
The Army is working its way through another round in the BRAC
process. I believe that both our soldiers and our neighboring
communities deserve an organized and speedy execution of the process.
That requires integration of the new forces into new surroundings. It
also includes the prompt disposal of properties involved in closings so
that communities may make their properties productive--jobs for their
residents--and onto the tax rolls. If confirmed, one of my immediate
priorities will be to effectuate activities involving BRAC-related
installations in an efficient manner.
Encroachment and other challenges to the use of our training
facilities are many. Environmental factors affect the year round use of
the facilities. Threatened and endangered species are resident on many
of our installations. Community pressures to develop raw land inventory
surrounding the installations are increasingly challenging training
needs. If confirmed, I plan to continue to emphasize land use planning
and other available tools both for environmental purposes and in
dealing with local communities.
Last, I believe it important to assure the occupational safety of
our soldiers and the civilian members of our workforce. If confirmed, I
intend to see that emphasis is placed on achieving a safe working
environment for our people.
I pledge to work with Congress on existing and emerging issues
involving installations and the environment. I thank you for holding
the hearing this morning and look forward to any questions that you may
have.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Eastin.
Now Mr. Anderson. You are the wrap-up batter. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND LOGISTICS
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and members of the committee:
I sit here today truly humbled by the confidence the President,
Secretary Rumsfeld, and the Air Force have shown in me. As a
private sector executive, I am extremely honored at the
possibility of serving my country.
No one could assume responsibilities of this magnitude
without the support of family. Three of the most significant
people in my life are here with me today. My wife, Debby, has
led a nomadic life as I have moved through a corporate career,
sometimes barely getting the furniture in place in time to get
the house back on the market. She has always embraced every
opportunity with enthusiasm and a smile and, if confirmed, is
excited about opening this new chapter in our lives.
My daughter Shawna will begin her final year at New England
College next month, on her way to a career helping troubled
teens find their way, a path that makes us all very proud.
My mother, in a career that now spans 6 decades, has
dedicated her life to education, first as a public school
teacher and most recently training the next generation of
classroom teachers.
If confirmed, the organization I will lead as Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Installations and Environment
will manage issues that span the Air Force mission, from
ensuring that equipment used by our fighting forces is
available when needed and works as expected every time to
establishing the appropriate infrastructure that provides the
quality of life to our service members and that their families
deserve, to ensuring that the Air Force is a good neighbor to
the communities that host our military installations.
I am confident that my global business experience will
contribute to building on the success already achieved by the
Air Force team.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the other
members of the committee and your staffs who spent time with me
over the past several weeks. The thoughts shared with me were
insightful and the dedication this committee has to those who
stand in harm's way is evident. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with this committee in support of those who each
morning put on the uniform in the defense of the United States.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson. I
remember when you visited with me in my office here a week or
so ago. I was struck and I reflected on your enormous
enthusiasm in taking on this post. I reflected back some 30-odd
years when I walked across the doorstep of the Pentagon for the
first time in February 1969, when our Nation was in the grip of
a very severe war in Vietnam.
I remember an old fellow with a green eyeshade who used to
walk up and down the halls. He had been there since James
Forrestal was Secretary of Defense, if you can believe it. One
day he stopped me and he said: ``I see you run up those stairs
every day.'' I said: ``Yes,'' mainly because the Navy floor was
above the Army floor and I wanted to get through Army country
as fast as I could to get up to the Navy country. He said to
me: ``You know, you have got a front row seat on the most
extraordinary stage in the world.''
We have conflicts going now, fortunately not of the
severity that we were experiencing at that time in Vietnam,
when we averaged sometimes 100 casualties a week or more. We
have in mind today the seriousness of our losses, now
approaching 1,800 lives lost. I called a family yesterday, as I
and other members of this committee and Congress do, to express
our condolences for the losses.
These are the most serious of times, I say to each of you
as I reflect back over the opportunities I have had to be
associated with the men and women of the Armed Forces now some
60 years for me. It seems to me that the problems that face our
Nation and other nations in this struggle to preserve freedom
in the face of terrorism are really far more complex than
during the era of what we referred to as State-sponsored
aggression. It is now a diversity of different types of
aggression.
While our Nation has spared not a dime in equipping the men
and women of the Armed Forces, we are faced with crude weapons
cobbled together by unskilled, untrained people, but the
weapons work and cause devastating damage. I refer to the
improvised explosive devices (IED), which I will discuss with
you, Dr. Sega, in a moment.
Think about the challenges that face you, and let us do our
best to help the men and women of the Armed Forces and their
families, who are experiencing these risks on a daily basis.
With the completion of these opening statements, we will
now start our question period, and Senator Levin and I will go
back and forth here.
I want to say to you, General Schwartz, having had the
opportunity and really the privilege of working with you for
some several years now, in my judgment you are eminently
qualified to take on this very important command. In a
subsequent round of questions I will deal with some of your
specific duties.
The Nation and the world were greeted this morning by
statements made by Secretary Rumsfeld and General Casey;
General Casey being the on-scene commander in that area of
responsibility (AOR) in Iraq working with General Abizaid, who
is in charge of the entire AOR. I have met him, as has Senator
Levin and members of this committee. He has been in the
position that you have occupied, giving us reports in the times
that he is back here. But he made a statement yesterday
projecting into the future that I would like to refer to and
ask your views, because we respect highly the views of the on-
scene commander. He has the daily real-time information before
him.
But the overall conduct of the conflict still rests with
the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
a magnificent Chairman under whom you have been serving these
months. I would like to get the perspectives as best you can
relate them of the thinking, as we refer to it, in the tank now
and such reflections it has had on General Casey's comments.
Let us go back and carefully recite what was said, as
reported in the press, because I think the President, the
Secretary of Defense, and others have been very careful to not
unduly raise the hopes, be it of the families and the men and
women in these areas of conflict, but indeed of the Nation,
whose prayers are with these individuals day and night, about
what the future holds.
Let us reflect on it. The press reported General Casey as
saying: ``If the political process continues to go positively
and if the development of the security forces continues to go
as it is going,''--and that is the phrase I am going to
develop--``I do believe we will be able to take some fairly
substantial reductions after these elections in the spring and
in the summer''--and I ad lib here, presumably of 2006.
I want to ask as to whether or not the Chairman and the
members of the Joint Chiefs in their expressions of views, are
they consistent with that evaluation? I specifically call your
attention to a question asked by my distinguished colleague to
my left, Senator Levin, on June 29. He put this question to
General Pace: ``Can you provide unclassified information as to
how many of the roughly 160,000 members of the Iraqi security
forces are capable of taking on the insurgents without
assistance from coalition forces?''
The response, and it was sent to the committee in writing,
``Only a small number of Iraqi security forces are taking on
the insurgents and terrorists by themselves. Approximately one-
third of their army battalions are capable of planning,
executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations with
coalition support. Approximately two-thirds of their army
battalions and one-half of their police battalions are
partially capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations in
conjunction with coalition units. Approximately one-half of
their police battalions are forming and are not yet capable of
conducting operations. The majority of Iraqi security forces
are engaged in operations against the insurgency with varying
degrees of cooperation and support from coalition forces. Many
of these units have performed superbly in conducting operations
against the enemy and their operational capability is
continuing to improve. I have provided a classified graphic of
this data in my response to advance questions.''
The Washington Post in covering the remarks by Secretary
Rumsfeld and General Casey carried this interpretation of
presumably this unclassified document which was in response to
Senator Levin's request. I will read the context in which it
was given, and this starts out: ``Iraqi leaders have also said
consistently that U.S. troops should leave as soon as the U.S.-
trained Iraqi army is ready to fight the insurgency and defend
the country, but have estimated that it could take from 18
months to 5 years. `The great desire of the Iraqi people is to
see the coalition forces be on their way out as they take more
responsibility,' Jafari said at his news conference with
Rumsfeld after their noon meeting in Baghdad. But Jafari said a
withdrawal would require `picking up the pace of training Iraqi
forces, as well as carefully synchronizing the U.S. withdrawal
as Iraqi forces took charge of different parts of the country.'
''
Continuing the quote: `` `The withdrawal should be whenever
the Iraqi forces are ready to stand up,' Jafari said. ``We do
not want the multinational force to have a surprise departure.'
''
Now here is where it relates to the Joint Staff: ``Earlier
this month, a report prepared by General Peter Pace, the
incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded that
only a `small number' of the Iraqi forces were capable of
fighting insurgents without U.S. assistance. `Two-thirds of the
Iraqi forces are `partially capable' of counterinsurgency
missions if they have U.S. support,' Pace concluded.''
I think this comment by General Casey--and I do not say
this in criticism; I just say it as an observer who follows
this scene and carefully studies all of the documents that
Congress has before it together with the press--could well be
interpreted as a timetable of sorts.
I would like to ask you first, is there a report by General
Peter Pace, the incoming Chairman, or does this one answer
constitute what they refer to as a ``report''?
General Schwartz. Sir, there is a report which was
delivered last week to Congress, some of which was classified.
Chairman Warner. Yes.
General Schwartz. That provides additional details to the
question you have asked with regard to Iraqi security forces.
We can certainly discuss that in another forum.
Chairman Warner. This is marked unclassified and I presume
his answer was unclassified, but it basically states that,
because he said approximately two-thirds of the army battalions
and one-half of the police force are partially capable.
General Schwartz. Sir, if I may, I think it is important to
recognize that there are two pieces here, one on the Iraqi
security forces. You can be sure that the Iraqi battalion that
is engaged in Bag Bah or in Ramadi and what have you, while we
may characterize them as partially capable, in other words not
being able to operate completely independently of coalition
assistance, they are engaged in combat. That young lieutenant
in the Iraqi Armed Forces is up to his eyeballs in the fight.
My point is, while the Iraqis may not have the complete
logistics footprint that is necessary at the moment to operate
without our assistance or the intelligence might require
augmentation from the coalition, that they are carrying the
battle. So the word ``partial'' needs to be understood in the
right context.
With respect to General Casey's statement, sir, I do not
know what the complete context was, but I know, having heard
General Casey report to the Joint Chiefs, as you suggested,
repeatedly over the last few months, is that he believes that a
drawdown is desirable. It is appropriate for the Iraqi security
forces to assume the responsibility of securing their nation.
At the same time, he knows that that transition which is under
way as we speak will be condition-based, not event-based. I am
sure that if he were here today he would say the same.
Chairman Warner. You are correct, he did carefully use two
``ifs'' in there, but the second is ``if the development of the
security forces continues to go as it is going,'' and this is
what Congress has before it, together with that report, to give
the analysis of the Chairman and the Joint Chiefs as to how it
is going. This to me could be construed as somewhat in conflict
with General Casey.
I have taken generously of the time here, but what I will
do in the course of the day is to prepare a letter to the
Chairman and ask for his views to make certain that the
statement by General Casey is not inconsistent--hopefully that
conclusion can be reached--with what is expressed in his
reports to Congress.
General Schwartz. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. I will return to
questions to others later.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, you have raised a very vital
question, which I am glad General Schwartz is here to address.
We got a letter report from Secretary Rumsfeld, that I gather
is the report which is required by the supplemental
appropriations bill?
General Schwartz. That is correct, sir.
Senator Levin. That report is less forthcoming in its
unclassified part than was General Pace's answer to my
question. The American people and we need to have it in an
unclassified way so that we can make up our minds, but also in
order that the American public can make an assessment of just
how quickly the Iraqi forces are being trained.
Frankly, General Pace's report gave us some meat on the
bones. Secretary Rumsfeld's report that was required by law was
very sketchy, much more so than General Pace. So I would hope
that that message could get back to Secretary Rumsfeld.
We have to have enough unclassified information so that we
can talk in public and the American public can think about what
the progress is here. We need that. I think we are entitled to
it. The people are entitled to it and I would hope you would
pass that along to Secretary Rumsfeld.
General Schwartz. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Now, there seems to be an inconsistency with
the quote that the chairman read of the prime minister when he
said that--and I think it was the prime minister he was
quoting, although----
Chairman Warner. That is correct.
Senator Levin. Prime Minister Jafari?
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Senator Levin. The quote about picking up the pace of
training I believe was attributed to the prime minister.
Chairman Warner. That is correct.
Senator Levin. That is somewhat different from saying if
things continue as they are, as General Casey said.
Chairman Warner. That was why I brought this up, Senator.
You are quite correct. It seems to me those things should be
cleared up, and perhaps you and I could send a joint letter
today to try and get those statements.
Senator Levin. The stakes here are really huge. Every one
of us in this room knows it. So I would like to join with you,
and I welcome that offer, Mr. Chairman, in such a letter,
because there do seem to be at least two inconsistencies.
General Schwartz, let me ask you a couple questions that
directly relate to your confirmation. The ongoing mobility
capability study has not been completed, and you and I have
talked about this. A recent report stated that when it is
completed it will not make a specific recommendation as to how
many C-17 aircraft are needed. It would seem to me that the
study would be a lot more useful if it made some concrete
recommendations.
Is it your belief that the study should specify how many,
approximately at least, C-17s that we need and do you think it
is likely that there will be at least a fairly specific
recommendation in that regard?
General Schwartz. Sir, once again my exposure to this is as
the Director of the Joint Staff. The study at the moment is, I
would characterize it as, suggesting a range of potential
solutions. That is what the analysis has produced. It has again
not been vetted by the principals in the Department, and so the
outcome is still not completely certain.
But it is clear that either the study or its contribution
to the quadrennial defense review will have to result in a
position on how many mobility assets, what capability is
required, and how to proceed on a path of fielding that
required capability.
Senator Levin. The more specific the range, the more useful
it would be. That is the bottom line.
General Schwartz. Sir, that is clear. There is no question
about that. If confirmed, sir I would seek to nail that down.
Senator Levin. Thank you for that.
Shall I continue?
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Senator Levin. General, the Department of Defense is
proposing to relocate tens of thousands of personnel and much
of their equipment from forward-deployed bases in Germany and
Korea back to the U.S. This is going to increase airlift and
sealift needs. It does not appear that the administration took
this into consideration when developing the integrated global
presence and basing strategy, and we still do not have, the
year after the President formally announced it, an assessment
from the DOD of the impact of these moves on our mobility
requirements.
Has the Joint Staff determined the impact of that
relocation on mobility requirements?
General Schwartz. Sir, that is part of the analysis of the
mobility capability study. The adjustments which were
anticipated due to global posture initiatives were addressed in
that analysis, and that is part of the reason, sir, for the
range of required capability.
Senator Levin. When are we likely to get that?
General Schwartz. Sir, again I would anticipate, as in my
answer to Senator Inhofe, not later than the fall time frame.
Senator Levin. Just one more question for General Schwartz.
Chairman Warner. Go right ahead.
Senator Levin. The Air Force is making substantial changes
in the future force structure through a program called future
total force, and this is going to result in substantial
realignments of force, particularly within the Air Force
Reserve and the Air National Guard. How is the transition to
the future total force going to affect the forces working for
TRANSCOM?
General Schwartz. Sir, from my prior experience, the
mobility community has perhaps been the prototype for future
total force over the years, of having both units, Reserve units
or National Guard units, which own the airframes they fly and
having Active-Duty associates with those units. On the other
hand, we have also had situations where the Active-Duty own the
platforms and the Reserves provide additional maintainers and
air crew capability.
Future total force in my view was born in the mobility
community, and it will continue to thrive there.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin.
Dr. Sega, as I mentioned in my comments with respect to
this morning about the cutting edge that America is on every
bit of technology, sparing nothing for the equipping of the men
and women of the Armed Forces. Yet we are encountering in two
AORs, both Iraq and now somewhat growing in Afghanistan, a
troubling development--the improvised explosive device (IED)--
which is cobbled together from old artillery shells and other
things, and using sometimes cell phones for detonation. This
bit is out in the public domain. These roadside detonations
take place, causing enormous death and injury, death and injury
in the greatest proportions to the Iraqi civilian population.
It is just extraordinary.
I am very proud of the record that Senator Levin and I and
other members have compiled in supporting every possible means
by which to enable the Department of Defense and such other
departments of our government to pursue the research and the
development of countermeasures to deal with this weapon system.
I would like first to ask you to describe within the
Department of Defense the chain of command of the various
levels and the various organizations that are working on the
IED program, and where specifically your current position fits
in there. Specifically, what involvement do you and your staff
have in this very difficult challenge?
Dr. Sega. As you pointed out, Senator Warner, it is a
complex problem. The approach to address IEDs is one I think is
best viewed as a layered approach. Part of the effort and a
significant effort is in the protection in the event that an
IED explodes near up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled
vehicles and so forth.
Chairman Warner. My next question will go to the up-
armoring. First, I would like to kind of understand for the
record the chain of this decisionmaking and work process and
what you specifically have been doing.
Dr. Sega. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Then I will come back to my next question
concerning the IED, the instrument of destruction itself. Not
only the technology employed to try and detect them and
neutralize them before convoys and so forth get to them, and
where we are on that. Then second, the countermeasure of trying
to equip the troops, all the way from body armor through the
armoring of vehicles to hopefully prevent injury, and limit the
extent of the injuries and damage.
Dr. Sega. Sir, I would characterize the focus as in a Joint
IED Task Force.
Chairman Warner. That is under General Votel?
Dr. Sega. General Votel to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Where the new technology fits in is supporting that Joint
IED Task Force. It comes out of the roots of a Combatting
Terrorism Technology Task Force which we initiated on September
19, 2001, where we brought the technology community from the
Services, agencies, and OSD and then partners outside of the
Department of Defense together to see what we could bring to
bear in the war on terrorism. The focus was Afghanistan and
eventually has moved to issues of force protection, and
counterinsurgency has been the principal focus, to turn things
rapidly.
We appreciate Congress' support and the ability to move
rapidly with some of these technology pieces. We still have a
weekly forum in which we communicate with the community, some
forward in theater, some back, in terms of understanding the
innovative part, the new technology part, the needs, and how
the solutions are working in theater.
We set up the Yuma Proving Grounds for testing,
particularly in the IED area, and that is a joint activity. You
go down there any given week and you will find members down
there--to not only look at the technology----
Chairman Warner. I am familiar with that.
Dr. Sega.--but also tactics, techniques, and procedures.
Chairman Warner. That range or test ground is under whose
direct supervision?
Dr. Sega. Now it is moving under the Joint IED Task Force.
As we moved on, in time, some of these activities are being
combined. It is a joint problem, clearly, when you also enter
in aspects of this IED problem of intelligence, for example.
Then there is additional support into the joint IED effort.
But the focus, particularly in the ground-based activities,
is in the Joint IED Task Force under General Votel.
Chairman Warner. I look upon your organization, having had
some familiarity with it from my own experience in the
Pentagon, as an enormous reservoir of technical knowledge,
innovation, and creativity, and not only in your organization,
but the contacts that your organization has with a vast
industrial base. That system has been working year after year
after year in the Department of Defense on all types of
technology.
I am not here to criticize. I just want to make certain
that that extraordinary reservoir of talent, ideas, and
creativity, both in-house in your organization and with the
infrastructure of private sector people that you and your
predecessors have worked years with, is being utilized. Does
that have a clear path up, I guess through General Votel, and
on up, to the Deputy Secretary of Defense?
Dr. Sega. Yes, it does, sir.
Chairman Warner. Are you actively working the problem?
Dr. Sega. Yes, we are, sir. Many of the solutions that we
provide forward are not appropriate for this forum, but this
week I attended the Joint IED Task Force briefing and update to
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, so we are part of that
process.
Some things are not available in the near term, and we
still continue to work on them as mid-term and longer-term
solutions. That is our focus.
Chairman Warner. So you are a permanent member of the board
as such. I am just worried about all of these levels of
bureaucracy and everything. I think the Secretary tried to
streamline the process, giving General Votel and his task force
the direct access to the Deputy Secretary. Can you just assure
the committee that in your judgment professionally, one who
served in your position, that the structure is working and
working efficiently, and it is your judgment it needs no
further refinement or otherwise? Because I see all kinds of
layers, boards, and everything feeding into this.
Dr. Sega. Sir, I believe it is working and is becoming more
efficient, and the direct report from General Votel to the
Deputy Secretary of Defense is in place. This is a dynamic
environment, and we cannot let anything be static in terms of
addressing the problem.
Chairman Warner. All right. What about the up-armoring
situation? We started out with the best of intentions, the
HMMWV. We had the experience of the First Gulf War, in which in
100 hours mobility and swiftness, with magnificent leadership
by our military leaders, we concluded that phase of the first
conflict. The HMMWVs were in that conflict, without presumably
the heavy armor.
Now of course, we have had to deal with the real world as
it is today, and particularly the IEDs, and we are working on
the up-armoring. Is that another area in which your
organization and its tangential infrastructure support with the
private sector has the ability to feed in your ideas?
Dr. Sega. Sir, the responsibility of Director of Defense
Research and Engineering is to bring forward a technical
solution. So for the armor, some of it is different alloys of
steel; some of it is ceramics; some of it is reactive armor.
The needs of the theater are brought from the commanders in
the theater and then the acquisition is another part.
Chairman Warner. I understand that.
Dr. Sega. I did not play a role in terms of the purchasing
and activating the industrial base.
Chairman Warner. I have some very basic knowledge of
metallurgy and compositions and so forth. My basic question is
are you satisfied with the ability of your organization and its
infrastructure in the private sector to feed directly those
answers in as quickly as possible?
Dr. Sega. Sir, we have a good mechanism, and we are focused
on this every day. But I would not be satisfied until we can
completely get the job done. It is an evolving one, so I think
I would never be satisfied.
Chairman Warner. I was basically addressing procedures as
opposed to quick solutions. You are satisfied with the ability
of the integration of that information through the chain of the
up-armor?
Dr. Sega. Sir, it has gotten better, and it will continue
to get better, and we will work on that.
Chairman Warner. I thank you very much.
A question both to Mr. Bell and to Mr. Eastin, both of you
having served in these difficult areas of operation. Mr. Bell,
your service as the first chief of staff within the U.S. State
Department's Afghanistan Reconstruction Group in Kabul bears
discussion. Similarly, Mr. Eastin, your employment as a senior
consultant to the Iraq Ministry of Environment is commendable
and an important addition. I think it is extraordinary that the
judgment was made in this administration to bring each of you
back in in these important positions.
First to you, Mr. Bell. Can you describe with specificity
what your work was as the chief within the reconstruction from
the perspective of Afghanistan?
Mr. Bell. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The administration had
made a decision that there needed to be more focused efforts on
the reconstruction aspects of the assistance programs in
Afghanistan. Those programs had been concentrating initially on
relief and on humanitarian assistance programs, with one major
program on the construction of the road from Kabul to Kandahar.
It was obvious that to achieve stability within the
fledgling government that we had there in Afghanistan that we
needed to be able to accelerate the efforts in achieving
political stability, economic development, and some
infrastructure development. Not reconstruction but some
infrastructure development, because Afghanistan is a country
that, of all the countries that certainly I have been familiar
with, has the least amount of existing infrastructure.
So I was authorized by the State Department to recruit
world-class experts in reconstruction who had worked in those
capacities in whatever countries and whatever environments, and
was able to find people who had landmark influence over the
development of different countries in different capacities. We
actually had no more than 15 to 18 expert advisers over there
who were working with Ambassador Khalilzad, the President's
special envoy, working with the embassy and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (AID) teams, and working with the
government of Afghanistan on refocusing priorities to bring
about more of the infrastructure and economic stability efforts
to support the government's development.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Eastin, your views?
Mr. Eastin. My position in Baghdad was advising the
Ministry of Environment. I have a uniquely different
perspective on it than does Jack. The Ministry of Environment
and environment as an issue in Baghdad and in Iraq is almost
nonexistent. There has been no environmental program there. So
in effect, what I had the opportunity to do there was to advise
the minister on how to set up an environmental program, indeed
how to convince the people of Iraq that there was an
environment out there and that perhaps they ought not just
throw everything out the back door. They ought to treat it with
some respect.
One of the major problems in Iraq was the lack of some
environmental law there. The law is a left-over from Saddam's
command and control days and effectively was about a page and a
half long, and the penalties for violating it ranged from $3.48
per violation all the way up to $68. So if we are trying to
clean up the environment in Iraq, that did not seem to me to be
very much of a deterrent to industry in cleaning it up.
What we tried to do there is to get the people educated and
to try to move their legal system into the 21st century so that
incoming investment could be assured of the atmosphere in which
they were dealing and international investment in terms of the
World Bank and the United Nations environmental program could
be helped. In some small way, I think I have nudged them along
that way. It has been a very rewarding experience to me and
certainly challenging along those lines.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
I must go to the floor. There is a bill on there, and my
amendment hopefully can be brought up. I am going to ask
Senator Levin if he would conclude the hearing, and we will ask
each of you in due course to respond to written questions. We
have a procedure here so that the confirmation process can go
forward. Often the necessity to move on these matters is
important because the Senate is to conclude its work until
after the August recess.
It is my hope, and I think it is the hope shared by my
distinguished ranking member, that the confirmation process on
each of you can be completed prior to the Senate's August
recess. Nevertheless, the questions are an important part of
this record, and I am going to ask each of you to look to that.
Senator Levin, thank you very much. [Pause.]
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Dr. Sega, let me start with you. The Joint Unmanned Combat
Air System (JUCAS) program has been in development since you
have been in charge of defense science and technology (S&T) and
has received more than a billion dollars in S&T funding since
fiscal year 2002. It is one of the largest S&T programs in the
Department. It has undergone significant high-level attention
from the Department and from Congress.
The program was transferred to the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) because of concern about
divergent efforts within the Air Force and the Navy. More
recently, the Department has decided to transfer the program
back to the Air Force to manage the program on behalf of itself
and the Navy, due to difficulties in developing transition
strategies, clarifying roles of various organizations in the
program, and getting service buy-in for the program.
Can you tell us what the difficulties have been and what
efforts you made to address them?
Dr. Sega. Senator Levin, the underpinning technology in
JUCAS is the X-45 program, and that has had numerous successful
flights at Edwards Air Force Base, both single aircraft and
dual aircraft. The ability to demonstrate the unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV) technology and the autonomy required to lead
into the JUCAS, I believe is a positive story.
As we move into the JUCAS, we are developing a more capable
weapon system and we have two contracting teams that are
approaching it. At this point it is moving to three aircraft
each and, as you point out, it is transitioning from DARPA to
the Air Force as the lead, but the Navy and the Air Force
continue to be principal players in it. A management decision
was made. It should not affect the development of the vehicles.
Senator Levin. Why was it necessary to transfer this back
to one of the two Services? Why did it not work with DARPA in
control?
Dr. Sega. Sir, I do not know the details of all the
decisionmaking considerations that were in this, but the
program has now moved into more of a mature weapon system. The
demonstration of many of the component parts of this were led
by DARPA, and appropriately by DARPA. A decision was made that
it was moving toward the development of this next phase, but I
do not have the details.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Dr. Sega, were you involved in the establishment of the
program called Total Information Awareness?
Dr. Sega. No, sir, I was not.
Senator Levin. Was that a DARPA deal?
Dr. Sega. Yes, it was.
Senator Levin. But you did not oversee DARPA?
Dr. Sega. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. But you were not familiar with their
creation of that program?
Dr. Sega. It is one of many programs in DARPA, but I was
not intimately familiar with it at its origin, no. I believe it
may have preceded my tenure.
Senator Levin. Mr. Grimes, the information technology (IT)
budget is one of the fastest growing parts of the DOD budget.
We hear often of cases where investments are being made in
programs that are behind schedule, running into technical
difficulties, or not well coordinated between the Services.
Since the IT systems in the DOD, whether on the business
support or the warfighting side of the house, need to be
completely interoperable, would it make sense for the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, namely the NII, to have more control
over the development of the IT budgets of the Services?
Mr. Grimes. Senator Levin, as I understand it today each
individual service does program for their respective IT
programs. However, in place are standards and interoperability
testing that require these systems to interoperate. With
respect to business systems and warfighting, of course, IT is
now embedded in everything we do, every weapon system and
aircraft or what have you as I understand it. I am not familiar
with the budget process at this time, but will be glad to make
that one of my priority efforts to look into it.
Senator Levin. That would be helpful, if you would do that,
and then after confirmation, assuming that occurs, if you could
just within say a couple of months, 2, 3 months, get back to us
on that subject, because we just hear constant references to
technical difficulties. It may take some more centralized
guidance to make them interoperable. So if you could, just say
within 90 days, let us know what your thinking is on that, it
would be appreciated.
Mr. Grimes. If I am confirmed I will do that, sir.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
This question goes to Mr. Eastin and Mr. Anderson. If you
are confirmed, one of your tasks is going to be to implement
the decisions of the ongoing base closure round, assuming it is
confirmed, in a modified version or otherwise. This is going to
be a very challenging task, to put it mildly.
We have been through these rounds before. We know how
difficult it is. In recent years there has been more of an
emphasis on getting the property off the Department's hands as
quickly as possible. Now, speed and efficiency are admirable
goals, but when it comes to base closure those are not the only
important goals. It is important that we work with local
communities to support their efforts to deal with the economic
and the psychological impact of losing an installation which
has been part of their community often for decades.
As you work to turn over property that is closed or
realigned by the base realignment and closure (BRAC) process,
will each of you ensure that your offices cooperate fully with
local communities in supporting their reuse plans, as well as
in fulfilling the government's obligations to clean up any
contamination that we are responsible for?
Mr. Eastin. Senator Levin, if I may, I think one of our
responsibilities, just as you said, is to ease the impact on
the communities from which we will be departing. Part of that
is not only to just turn over the land, but also to turn it
over in a way that provides for some compatible use with what
it has been used for by the, in our case, the Army.
If I am confirmed, it will be one of my priorities to get
with each of the communities that have been impacted to see
that their reuse committees are treated fairly and the
disposition of the property is done efficiently and in an
environmentally sensitive way to get their jobs back and the
property on the tax rolls.
Mr. Anderson. Senator, first of all, I concur entirely with
what Mr. Eastin said. In my last 10 years or so I have been
involved in a number of brownfields redevelopment activities
throughout the world. I think the first step that you have to
take is an open communication back and forth with the local
community. You have to understand what their long-term goals
and objectives are for development. If you have that
communication and you work with local developers, you can move
through the process relatively quickly, find redevelopment
opportunities that meet everybody's needs, and move forward in
a much more efficient manner.
I understand your question and concern. It is very
important and you have my commitment that, if confirmed, that
will be a very high priority.
Senator Levin. Mr. Eastin, the Army is undertaking a
restructuring, commonly referred to as modularity, that will
increase the number of its combat brigades. Congress has been
supportive of this effort, but along with that support has come
some frustration that in order to do this quickly, to produce
extra combat brigades to rotate into Iraq, the Army is doing it
inefficiently.
Here is how and here is why, at least in one instance: that
in many cases the taxpayers are going to have to pay twice for
the facilities to accommodate these new or relocated brigades:
first a set of temporary facilities and then a set of permanent
facilities.
I would hope that if you are confirmed you would push
aggressively inside the Army's budget process to get those
permanent facilities into the 2007 budget and reduce or
eliminate where possible the need to purchase temporary
facilities that would have to be replaced in 5 to 7 years. So
would you look into that matter and give us your assessment?
Mr. Eastin. I will, Senator. I come to this with some
personal experience, having lived in one of these temporary
facilities for the last year or so. This is not something we
would like in the long term and, if confirmed, you will have my
commitment to work towards permanent housing rather than these
temporary facilities.
Senator Levin. This is for Mr. Eastin and Mr. Anderson. In
recent months and years we have seen an increase in
construction costs due to some broad economic forces, such as
rising demand for steel and concrete in China, which puts
pressure on worldwide supplies and prices, and also, of course,
the rising price of energy.
There are also specific factors such as increased force
protection requirements for our facilities compared to a few
years ago. Some of these things you may not be able to do much
about. However, one factor that I hope you would both look into
is whether or not the government is getting reasonable value
for its money compared to construction in the private sector.
We have heard anecdotally that some facilities, such as
administrative ones or even dining facilities, are fairly
similar to ones constructed for the private sector, but
nonetheless, cost the government more. You have private sector
experience, so I would ask you to use that experience, look
into this in your new positions, and let us know if you think
there is a problem here or not.
Mr. Eastin. If confirmed, I will do just that, Senator.
Thank you.
Mr. Anderson. I will also.
Senator Levin. Mr. Bell and Mr. Eastin, you have made
reference to your reconstruction experience recently in
Afghanistan and in Iraq. We keep hearing reports of a
significant amount of waste in those reconstruction efforts.
Just this morning I heard on National Public Radio (NPR)
another report of significant waste in Iraq's reconstruction
efforts.
We are talking here about serious amounts of money. I know
there has been some progress, but can you tell us whether or
not in your judgment there has been a significant amount of
inappropriate loss of American taxpayers' funds in this
reconstruction effort, either through lack of auditing or for
other reasons?
Mr. Bell, do you want to go first?
Mr. Bell. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator Levin. Part of the
impact when you undertake a reconstruction program in a country
like Afghanistan is that you are creating demand in a market,
in an area that is not accustomed to that demand, and there is
generally not that much supply of materials or qualified labor.
When we, for example, undertook reconstruction in
Afghanistan, it created major strains on the regional markets
for all of South Asia. Prices during the period of time I was
there basically quadrupled and were well on their way to going
up to eight times for the materials.
What needs to happen once you get into a startup phase like
that is that there have to be serious efforts made to attempt
to source materials and manage contracts on more of a global
basis, so that you can avoid those kinds of price pressures.
Typical supply chain management principles on pooling
purchases, inspecting the materials you are getting, and
distributing those materials in an efficient way adds a lot of
value to the reconstruction process. Those are things as you
move from a startup to a sustainment phase, whether it is in
military operations or in reconstruction, add enormous value to
the process.
I think there is no question about the fact that the amount
of materials that have been purchased and used in Afghanistan
for such things as cement, plywood, which is not a native
product to that part of the world at all, have created real
dislocations in the market, and we have paid heavily for that.
Other parts of the process that could sustain some serious
improvement would be working with the local officials to
establish construction standards. On the one hand, you do not
want to overengineer a product that you are trying to put into
rural areas that are inaccessible to motor vehicles, but on the
other hand you want to make sure that the materials you are
using and the construction techniques you are using in
Afghanistan, for example, would sustain and allow the people to
survive a 7 Richter scale earthquake, because they have those
throughout Afghanistan.
It is a difficult environment to operate in. Improved
management techniques over both the projects themselves, as
well as the application and the use of the materials, are
significant areas for improvement.
Senator Levin. Those are sort of market-driven problems?
Mr. Eastin. Yes.
Senator Levin. But also, we keep hearing stories,
particularly in Iraq, not so much Afghanistan but nonetheless,
stories of dollars disappearing, bribes, payoffs, kickbacks,
corruption, everything from just unaudited funds, disappearance
of funds, corruption, bribes. How much of that exists in the
reconstruction in Afghanistan?
Mr. Eastin. The U.S.-sponsored reconstruction generally
circumvents allowing the reconstruction funding and control to
flow through local hands, because corruption is endemic in that
culture and in that part of the world, and it takes some
considerable capacity-building within the local governments and
the national governments to avoid that.
I suspect that a lot of the criminal activity or the
corruption activity has to do with trying to establish monopoly
positions on the construction materials themselves. There are a
few cases, which are under investigation by the DOD Inspector
General over there, where there may have been criminal
activities in terms of deceit or fraud in the engagement of
contractors or, more importantly, subcontractors to contractors
of the government.
I would say in Afghanistan the situation is not like what I
have heard indirectly about Iraq. First of all, the amount of
resources being consumed over there in reconstruction pales by
comparison. So I suspect the situation you are reflecting on is
more Iraq than Afghanistan.
Senator Levin. Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. I can only speak to my experience there. We
had one reconstruction project that involved the Ministry of
Environment and that was its own building, which I am happy to
tell the committee is probably on time and under budget, as
near as I can tell maybe the only thing in Iraq that is on time
or under budget.
My ability to talk about a wider construction program and
what has gone on there in terms of corruption, overruns,
various other things, would be secondhand, so I am going to
have to defer on that if you do not mind. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Levin. Should we leave this mission in the
military, or should we give the State Department or some other
public or private entity the lead when it comes to
reconstruction?
Mr. Anderson. The Iraq Reconstruction Management Office,
which is now under State, and formerly was under the Coalition
Provisional Authority, is now running the reconstruction
program. It is going to be relying on the Corps of Engineers of
the Army rather substantially. So the Corps and the State
Department will be working on this.
Other decisions that might have gone into who does what
over there are far above my pay grade, Senator.
Mr. Bell. Senator Levin, I have been actually quite
actively involved in efforts since I came back from Afghanistan
addressing the lessons learned and what the appropriate roles
are. Without getting into too much detail, it obviously is
going to require cooperation and coordination between both
military and civilian government personnel in order to mount an
effective reconstruction program in many of these countries.
The trick there is to get the coordination right. It is not
a question of whether it is one or the other. It is a matter of
timing. It is a matter of the security conditions, and it is a
matter of providing emergency versus long-term reconstruction
assistance.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony,
for your service. Thank your families again for their support.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. Norton A.
Schwartz, USAF, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with
answers supplied follow:
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. Almost two decades 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
assignments as the Deputy Commander of the Special Operations Command,
Director for Operations of the Joint Staff, and currently as the
Director of the Joint Staff.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Absolutely. The Goldwater-Nichols Act, and the Special
Operations Command legislation that followed almost immediately
thereafter, are just as essential to the effective employment of our
military forces today as when they were enacted. Goldwater-Nichols
resulted in the more efficient employment of our Armed Forces by
addressing a number of critical issues, including insufficient military
advice and oversight of contingency planning, unclear chains of
command, and inadequate attention to both the quality and training of
officers assigned to joint duty. Similarly, the Special Operations
provisions helped bring about, among other things, much greater focus
on special operations matters and the development of capabilities and
necessary training to ensure the effective conduct of special
operations activities.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. Great progress has been made since the passage of the
Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986. The Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands,
and the Services are decidedly different as a result of the intent of
the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The corporate advice provided by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is timely, accurate, meaningful,
and indispensable to the Secretary of Defense and the President. Our
civilian leadership expects that our armed forces can and will carry
out our assigned missions in the most effective and cost efficient
manner possible. Furthermore, the Services now ensure their best
officers have joint experience, which benefits the Services, the
combatant commands, and the Department of Defense as a whole.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The demonstrated improvement in the joint warfighting
capabilities of the United States Armed Forces is the most important
aspect of the defense reforms. The Goldwater-Nichols Act enabled us to
focus on several key areas: joint doctrine, joint professional military
education, and coordinated military planning. The chains of command,
from the President and the Secretary of Defense all the way down to the
individual on-the-scene commander, have been clarified. Combatant
commanders have a better grasp of their planning, training, and
execution responsibilities. In addition, combatant commanders
understand the importance of articulating their resource needs and
priorities in Department of Defense budget formulation.
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. Absolutely.
Question. Do you believe that legislative proposals to amend
Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you think it
might be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. In the 19 years since passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act,
we have made great strides in institutionalizing ``jointness'' and
integrating unified, interdependent action within the Armed Forces.
There may be 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 welcome the
opportunity to share my thoughts and ideas with the committee as
appropriate.
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command?
Answer. The mission of the Commander, United States Transportation
Command is to provide air, land and sea transportation for the
Department of Defense (DOD), in peace and war. The Commander relies on
his Component Commands--Air Mobility Command (AMC), Military Sealift
Command (MSC), and the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution
Command (SDDC)--to accomplish this mission. The Commander also has the
Distribution Process Owner (DPO) mission to improve the worldwide DOD
distribution system. As DPO, the Commander works closely with the
Defense Logistics Agency and the Services to identify inefficiencies,
develop solutions and implement improvements. The U.S. Transportation
Command team blends Active and Reserve Forces, civilian employees and
commercial industry partners to provide the mobility forces and assets
necessary to respond to the full range of military operations.
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 1973, I
have had a variety of opportunities and experiences combined with the
good fortune to serve with some of the most outstanding soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines our Services have ever produced. I am a
product of these experiences--learning from great leaders--superiors,
peers, and subordinates alike.
In my current assignment as Director of the Joint Staff and in my
past assignment as the Director for Operations, the Joint Staff, I had
personal, direct and frequent contact with the Secretary of Defense,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, combatant commanders, and
Service Chiefs on major issues facing our military.
From the perspective that my service has afforded, I well know that
the number one priority of our National Military Strategy is winning
the war on terror. My experience--especially within joint and special
operations--provides a broad leadership perspective for USTRANSCOM
emphasizing agility, mobility, and teamwork in support of joint
warfighters.
If confirmed, I will be honored to lead the men and women of
USTRANSCOM as they continue--as true joint warfighters--to transform
Defense distribution.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform the duties of the Commander,
U.S. Transportation Command?
Answer. As Commander, I need a complete understanding of current
Defense Department and national transportation issues, including the
challenges facing the commercial transportation industry and our
national partners upon whom we so heavily rely. I will strive every
hour of every day to ensure I am prepared for this critical duty.
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 Commander, U.S.
Transportation Command to the following offices:
The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Defense has full power and
authority to act for the Secretary of Defense when serving as his
designated representative. As such, the Commander U.S. Transportation
Command will report to and through the Deputy Secretary when serving in
that capacity.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. Under Secretaries of Defense coordinate and exchange
information with DOD components, including combatant commands, which
have collateral or related functions. In practice, this coordination
and exchange is normally routed through the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. If confirmed as a combatant commander, I will act
accordingly.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman is established by Title 10 as the principal
military advisor to the President and Secretary of Defense. The
Chairman serves as an advisor and is not, according to the law, in the
chain of command, which runs from the President through the Secretary
to each combatant commander. The President directs communications
between himself and the Secretary of Defense to the combatant
commanders via the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff. This keeps the
Chairman fully involved and allows the Chairman to execute his other
legal responsibilities. A key responsibility of the Chairman is to
speak for the combatant commanders, especially on operational
requirements. If confirmed as a Commander, I would keep the Chairman
and the Secretary of Defense promptly informed on matters for which I
would be personally accountable.
Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. Although the Vice Chairman does not fall within the
combatant commander's chain of command, he is delegated full power and
authority to act for the Chairman in the Chairman's absence. If
confirmed as a combatant commander I will keep the Chairman informed,
but if the Vice Chairman is representing the Chairman I will keep him
informed as I would the Chairman.
Question. The Director of the Joint Staff.
Answer. As the current Director of the Joint Staff, I assist the
Chairman in managing the Joint Staff. Although the Director of the
Joint Staff does not fall within the combatant commander's chain of
command, the Director does enable important decisions to be made as the
combatant commander's staff interacts with the Joint Staff. The
Director is also a key interface with OSD principals, and interagency
leadership, and can assist combatant commanders in working issues below
the Chairman's level.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. Close coordination with each Service Secretary is required
to ensure that there is no infringement upon the lawful
responsibilities held by a Service Secretary.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services organize, train, and
equip their respective forces. No combatant commander can ensure
preparedness of his assigned forces without the full cooperation and
support of the Service Chiefs. As members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the Service Chiefs have a lawful obligation to provide military advice.
The experience and judgment the Service Chiefs provide is an invaluable
resource for every combatant commander. If confirmed as Commander U.S.
Transportation Command, I will pursue an open dialogue with the Service
Chiefs and the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Question. The other combatant commanders.
Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage open dialogue with the other
combatant commanders to foster trust and build mutual support. Today's
security environment requires us to work together to execute U.S.
national policy.
MAJOR CHALLENGES
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Commander, U.S. Transportation Command? If confirmed, what
plans do you have for addressing these challenges?
Answer. USTRANSCOM's major challenges are similar to the other
functional combatant commands: managing the competing imperatives of
current readiness versus longer term modernization, instituting
continuous process improvements and caring for people are common
elements for all leadership.
The current operations tempo demands very high utilization of the
Defense Transportation System. Continued operations at high readiness
to meet near-term needs can compete with longer-term goals of
modernization, recapitalization, and training. Supporting the
warfighter is paramount. This places a premium on extracting the most
efficient application of transportation resources so the investment in
high readiness is not underutilized. Too often when considering
readiness it is easy to focus on just the military transportation
resources and overlook the heavy reliance upon commercial sealift and
airlift. USTRANSCOM competes in the transportation marketplace with
other users in obtaining lift resources. Factors such as labor
availability, fuel cost, corporate restructuring and the available mix
of aircraft can have significant impact on our ability to obtain
sufficient lift. These factors often are beyond the control of
USTRANSCOM, so they must be closely followed to enable mitigation
strategies. I would closely monitor transportation resources, both
organic and commercial, for leading readiness indicators. I also would
forge and maintain close partnerships with industry to ensure continued
effective use of commercial transportation.
We will continue to face modernization issues with military
airlift, air tanker and sealift fleets. Current tempo consumes
readiness and ages platforms. If confirmed, I would expect to be
heavily engaged with the Services, COCOMs, and Congress in addressing
these challenges.
The current processes for deployment and distribution evolved from
historical doctrine, statutes, organizational arrangements and legacy
support systems. Gaps and seams continue to be identified that impede
warfighter support and hamper attempts to transform deployment and
distribution processes. The challenge to the Distribution Process Owner
is to align the end-to-end distribution processes and ensure in transit
visibility. Solutions to these issues simultaneously include processes
and procedures, information systems, doctrine, and organizational
relationships, so solutions will be complex. If confirmed, I would
continue to work with the Services, National Partners, and the other
combatant commanders to press forward with distribution transformation.
The real strength of USTRANSCOM--as with any military
organization--is evident in the unique talents and skills of its
people. There is no more important challenge to a commander than proper
stewardship of this resource. USTRANSCOM's components rely heavily on
Reserve elements. The USTRANSCOM staff includes the multi-service
active military and large elements of Reserve personnel, government
civilians, and contractors. The DPO designation has required the
addition of new skill sets. In the coming years Reserve availability,
pending base realignments and the shift to the National Security
Personnel System will present challenges and opportunities for the work
force. If confirmed, I would take an active role in preserving and
protecting USTRANSCOM's personnel resources.
MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Commander, U.S. Transportation
Command?
Answer. It's probably not fair to characterize these as problems,
but there are two areas of concern. First is the need to balance
engagement of our industry partners while maintaining readiness of our
military assets. It is important to continue to provide incentives to
industry to provide a robust commercial surge capability. At the same
time, our military assets need to be sufficiently employed to maintain
their readiness. The second concern arises due to the nature of the
global insurgency we now face. Assets that were once in relative
``sanctuary'' are now at greater risk. That risk must be weighed
against the operational requirements to ensure warfighter needs are met
while preserving transportation and distribution assets.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. There are challenges ahead. If confirmed, I will focus on
these concerns and other pressing issues and develop solutions.
DISTRIBUTION PROCESS OWNER
Question. In September 2003, following a review of logistics
operations for Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Secretary of Defense
designated the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), the
Distribution Process Owner (DPO). As the DPO, USTRANSCOM was tasked to
improve the overall efficiency and interoperability of distribution
related activities--deployment, sustainment, and redeployment support
during peace and war.
What is your understanding of USTRANSCOM's responsibilities as the
DPO?
Answer. When the SECDEF appointed the Commander, USTRANSCOM as DPO,
USTRANSCOM became the single entity to direct and supervise execution
of the strategic distribution system and improve overall efficiency and
interoperability of distribution related activities.
Essentially, DOD now has a single, accountable combatant commander
to lead distribution process improvement within the Department, able to
provide one ``distribution'' face and peer accountability to other war
fighting commanders, respond to their issues and challenges, and
integrate sustainment and distribution processes from an end-to-end
perspective. Process ownership means bringing synchronization and
alignment to what historically was a piecemeal process with multiple,
accountable parties.
Question. What progress has USTRANSCOM made in improving the
distribution process?
Answer. General Handy's vision for a transformed distribution
process is now proven. USTRANSCOM established a joint deployment and
distribution operations center (JDDOC) to provide a capability to
Regional Combatant Commanders to synchronize and integrate distribution
within their theaters. The JDDOC coordinates the arrival of personnel,
equipment, and supplies in theater. These regional centers, endorsed by
the COCOMs, provide a joint organization prioritizing, synchronizing,
integrating and coordinating theater transportation and distribution
functions from ``factory to foxhole.''
Question. Do you foresee any changes you would make, if confirmed,
to enhance the ability of USTRANSCOM to execute the responsibilities of
the DPO?
Answer. If confirmed, my ultimate goal is for DOD to develop a
world class supply chain and build stronger strategic alliances and
partnerships with distribution industry leaders, to provide improved
support to our fielded forces. To continue serving the warfighter, we
will build upon foundations already set to leverage commercial supply
chain management concepts and adapt our DPO initiatives accordingly.
USTRANSCOM will develop outreach programs for the sharing of ideas and
concepts with combatant commanders and our National Partners. This
program will likely include modifying the historical alignments for
planning and executing deployment and distribution operations
throughout DOD. We will also advocate refined functional roles and
responsibilities with National Partners to enhance USTRANSCOM's ability
to execute the DPO mission.
Question. To improve distribution capabilities available to the
CENTCOM commander for contingency operations, USTRANSCOM, in concert
with CENTCOM, established the Deployment and Distribution Operations
Center (DDOC). The DDOC provides the combatant commander a cadre of
experts from several organizations, including USTRANSCOM and DLA, and
provides a range of distribution related services, such as scheduling,
tracking, tracing, and arranging for redistribution within the theater
and back to home station. While the DDOC was originally established as
a temporary solution to a contingency challenge, its successes in the
field has prompted an assessment of the utility of operating the DDOC
on a permanent basis, both in CENTCOM and potentially within each of
the other combatant commander areas of responsibilities.
If confirmed, would you continue this review of the DDOC concept
and make recommendations to Congress on the future application of the
DDOC concept and the resources required to support that recommendation?
Answer. I would continue to support and evolve the DDOC concept as
part of our overall strategy to provide the most effective and cost
efficient support to our military forces. Open and continuous dialogue
with Congress will be central to evolving the DDOC concept and
resources required to support it. If confirmed, I will ensure
USTRANSCOM continues to codify processes and formalize applicable
doctrine.
STRATEGIC AIRLIFT
Question. The Mobility Requirements Study for Fiscal Year 2005 was
conducted with the previous National Military Strategy of two Major
Theater War as an assumption. For strategic airlift, the study
identified a requirement for 54.5 million ton-miles a day, with
available airlift at the time falling well short. Although not yet
released, the Mobility Capabilities Study is intended to update
strategic lift requirements in light of the new National Military
Strategy.
Based on your experience, do you perceive a continuing shortage in
intertheater airlift?
Answer. Recent world events and current operational experiences
have significantly changed the National Military Strategy, increasing
the demand for airlift, sealift and refueling requirements. OEF/OIF and
global war on terror operations daily demonstrate this changing
strategy and the impact on strategic and tactical airlift capability.
Reliable distribution and sustainment has increased demand for long-
haul airlift with defensive capability. The risk to troops moving cargo
over dangerous land routes has increased, redefining the way we operate
in the theater and increasing reliance on in-theater airlift as well.
While we are addressing today's needs adequately, we must look to the
future given organic airframe aging and forecast changes in the
commercial fleet.
Question. When will the Department complete the Mobility
Capabilities Study and provide the results to Congress?
Answer. OSD and JS completed the analysis portion of the Mobility
Capability Study, are briefing the Department's Senior Leaders and
finalizing the report. Upon completion, Congress will receive the
report.
STRATEGIC SEALIFT
Question. USTRANSCOM recently testified that 95 percent of the
equipment transported for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Iraqi Freedom was transported using strategic sealift.
Are there any initiatives that you believe are necessary, if
confirmed, in the area of strategic sealift?
Answer. The importance of Strategic Sealift cannot be illustrated
any better than through the outstanding performance of our partners in
the U.S. Maritime industry and the ships of the Military Sealift
Command (MSC). Together, these ships delivered 95 percent of the
materiel necessary to execute Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom. Of particular note is the performance of the Large Medium
Speed Roll-on/Roll-off ships (LMSRs). The LMSRs, which were delivered
to the Navy beginning in the late 1990s, have carried 44 percent of the
cargo delivered by MSC. As other ships operated by MSC, notably the
Fast Sealift Ships, and by the U.S. Maritime Administration's Ready
Reserve Force continue to age, we must plan for their recapitalization.
Considering the results of the Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS),
USTRANSCOM will work closely with Navy to see that our shipping needs
for both today's requirements and future challenges are met.
CIVIL RESERVE AIR FLEET
Question. With the expansion of military operations since September
11, 2001, the Air Force's mobility requirements have increased. The Air
Force has in the past, and may very well in the future, rely heavily on
the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) to supplement its organic airlift.
Will the changes in the commercial airline industry, characterized
by bankruptcies and a move toward smaller and shorter-range aircraft,
bring into question the future viability of the CRAF system?
Answer. A recent OSD study performed by the Institute for Defense
Analysis (IDA) has shown that despite consolidations and bankruptcies,
the U.S. airline industry will possess more than enough capacity for a
viable CRAF program past 2010. While it is true that mainline carriers
are replacing part of their fleets with smaller aircraft, with proper
incentives, the remaining wide-body aircraft in service with U.S.
carriers should satisfy our future CRAF requirements.
The same IDA study also mentioned the challenge of foreign
competition and possible foreign ownership of U.S. carriers as factors
in the future health of the American airline industry. I support the
well-founded position that DOD is best served by a voluntary, U.S.-only
CRAF. That makes it vitally important that we do what we can to
maintain a robust U.S.-only CRAF program, while accommodating the
industry trend toward globalization. If confirmed, I will work closely
with the U.S. air carrier industry to identify steps that can be taken,
either through policy or legislative changes, to ensure the viability
of the CRAF program.
JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL
Question. Initial reporting from recent military operations
indicate joint command and control capabilities have greatly improved
in recent years.
What is your assessment of the performance of USTRANSCOM's global
and theater command and control (C2) systems?
Answer. USTRANSCOM has done a superb job in delivering warfighters
and material to Iraq, Afghanistan, and a myriad other key locations
throughout the world to carry the global war on terror (GWOT) to our
enemies. Additionally, USTRANSCOM continues to provide emergency relief
and aid on numerous humanitarian missions. USTRANSCOM could not have
achieved that world-class performance without effective global and
theater command and control processes.
However, there are always opportunities to improve C2 capabilities
in the distribution pipeline. If confirmed, I will continue
USTRANSCOM's initiatives to improve distribution C2. These initiatives
include Information Technology enhancements in requirements visibility,
improving receipt reporting of forces and sustainment, and closer
integration of end-to-end distribution C2 processes between USTRANSCOM,
DLA, the warfighter, Services, and coalition and national partners.
Question. What interoperability challenges remain between service
to service and service to joint C2 systems?
Answer. Development and deployment of a standards-based
Distribution C2 enterprise architecture (EA) is absolutely essential to
achieving interoperability. The goal must be an EA where all
participants can ``plug and play.'' I will continue to support current
USTRANSCOM efforts to build and deploy a distribution EA that will
ensure all distribution C2 systems are consistently interoperable.
Question. What role should the USTRANSCOM Commander play in
ensuring the development of reliable, interoperable, and agile C2
systems?
Answer. Support for development of robust distribution C2
capabilities that employ USTRANSCOM's enterprise architecture (EA) and
portfolio management (PfM) capabilities is critical. The USTRANSCOM
Commander should collaborate with fellow combatant commanders, OSD, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Service and Agency
chiefs, coalition and national partners to provide improved
distribution capabilities to the warfighter.
AEROMEDICAL EVACUATION
Question. Following the cancellation of the C-9A aircraft for
medical evacuation in 2003, the Air Mobility Command adopted a new
operational approach to its worldwide mission of aeromedical
evacuation. The new concept employs other airlift, such as cargo and
aerial refueling aircraft, for the air evacuation of wounded and ill
patients. The committee believes that these aircraft are unsuitable for
the support of severely wounded or severely ill patients, and adopted a
provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006 that would require the procurement of two dedicated aircraft for
the purpose of aeromedical evacuation of severely injured or ill
personnel.
If confirmed, how would you ensure that the highest quality
standard of aeromedical evacuation is provided for severely wounded and
ill patients?
Answer. In principle, I support the transition to designated versus
dedicated airlift to meet the aeromedical evacuation (AE) mission
requirement in both peacetime and contingency operations. The AE team
has performed its mission in an outstanding fashion, giving life-
sustaining care while expeditiously moving our wounded and ill
patients. Using transportation assets in a flexible manner, USTRANSCOM
has been able to respond to urgent requests for AE more quickly than
possible using dedicated AE aircraft. To ensure the highest quality
standard of AE for severely wounded and ill patients, I will continue
to support the initiatives that have been introduced to support the
transition to use of designated organic airlift. These initiatives
include highly-trained Critical Care Air Transport Teams, which
provides intensive care unit (ICU) level care in the back of any of our
transport aircraft. USTRANSCOM recently added Patient Support Pallets
that offer an even broader capability to provide an improved patient
care environment in multi-use mobility airframes. Other initiatives
include more advanced care in the air by AE medical crews and
improvements in patient movement support items such as intravenous
pumps and oxygen delivery systems.
All of this effort has produced a patient handling system that has
saved lives and fulfills our obligation to our wounded in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and around the world. Everything we do must contribute
materially to fulfilling that profound obligation.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget request includes a new
research and development program for technology development directed by
USTRANSCOM. The new activity is designed to allow for examination and
improvement of the entire supply chain as part of USTRANSCOM's role as
Distribution Process Owner.
What unique processes and technologies does USTRANSCOM need to
develop through its own program?
Answer. Transformation of supply chain and distribution processes
and systems are increasingly dependent on our ability to leverage
technological innovation. Many of these changes bridge traditional
Service and Agency roles. As the Distribution Process Owner (DPO),
USTRANSCOM's modest research and development (R&D) program seeks to
enable responsive, flexible global power projection and tailored, agile
sustainment capabilities that together provide the critical deployment
and distribution support required by the Joint Force Commander. Basic
aircraft, ship, truck and railcar research should remain a Service
responsibility.
TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES
Question. Serving the needs of the combatant commanders both in the
near term and in the future is one of the key goals of the Department's
science and technology executives, who list outreach to commanders as
an activity of continued focus.
What do you see as the most challenging technological needs or
capability gaps facing USTRANSCOM in its mission to provide air, land,
and sea transportation to the Department of Defense?
Answer. The strategic landscape of the 21st century poses
unprecedented threats and challenges requiring compressed decision
timelines. We lack a well-integrated, networked, end-to-end deployment
and distribution capability required to optimize the performance of our
Nation's global expeditionary force. This force is highly reliant upon
high speed, secure and enduring communications capable of operating in
a transformed, network-centric environment. We must build an agile end-
to-end deployment and distribution system that provides a common
operating picture in a collaborative environment.
I see compelling, challenging requirements for bandwidth. We need
high speed, secure and enduring communications capable of operating in
the transformed, network-centric environment of the future. Our
communications system must support full spectrum battlespace awareness,
and high data rate communications. Now is the time to press forward
with these transformational initiatives given the status of our current
legacy communications constellations and the associated decision-making
opportunities.
We must also continue to address the protection of our personnel,
material, and cargo. Our adversary has little chance of defeating our
fighting forces on the conventional battlefield. They know an anti-
access strategy is their best option. Screening our cargo for
explosives, protecting our aircraft from small arms and man-portable
missiles, protecting our ships in the harbor and our convoys on the
ground are capability gaps we are addressing and must continue to
address in an aggressive manner.
Question. What would you do, if confirmed to make your technology
requirements known to the department's science and technology community
to ensure the availability of needed equipment and capabilities in the
long term?
Answer. USTRANSCOM's technology needs are outlined in the TRANSCOM
Transformation Technology Plan (T3P). Addressing these requirements
depends on key partnerships with Services, Defense Agencies and
national labs, other combatant commanders, (especially Joint Forces
Command), industry, academia, and select non-DOD government
organizations (such as the Departments of Homeland Security and
Energy). If confirmed, I will be actively engaged in existing
Department processes to capture USTRANSCOM's needs within Joint
Operational Concept, Focused Logistics, and R&D documents. I will
ensure USTRANSCOM aggressively participates in applicable technology
fora and host our own Force Projection and Sustainment Symposium.
USTRANSCOM will continue to make requirements known through the Joint
Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) by identifying
Future Force Capability Gaps and Technology Shortfalls for the Extended
Planning Period. USTRANSCOM will continue to vet R&D needs and proposed
projects with the Services, COCOMs, Defense Logistics Agency, the Joint
Staff and OSD to ensure the development and pursuit of born-joint
solutions to critical distribution gaps, while avoiding duplication of
effort.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
Question. USTRANSCOM has been active in the Advanced Concept
Technology Development (ACTD) process and currently has several
projects on the transition list, including Agile Transportation for the
21st century and Deployable Cargo Screening.
What are your views on the ACTD process as a means to spiral
emerging technologies into use to confront changing threats and to meet
warfighter needs?
Answer. I support the ACTD process. The process, as I understand
it, produced the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in 18 months
(1996 timeframe). More recently the ACTD process produced some 30
products in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and 51 products
in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Examples of ACTD products
supporting the current war effort include the Language and Speech
Exploitation Resources (Laser), Expendable Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(XUAV) and Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal (JEOD) efforts. In total,
products from more than 70 percent of all ACTDs have either
transitioned to programs of record or have met warfighter needs as
residual assets.
Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to enhance the
effectiveness of technology transition efforts within your command and
in cooperation with other Services and defense agencies?
Answer. Technology transition, and the early planning and
integration it requires, is a challenge equal to developing the
technology itself. In USTRANSCOM's Research and Development (R&D)
program the command has emphasized the requirement for a committed
program of record and transition strategy as criterion for project
selection.
To minimize transition risk, I intend to emphasize the importance
of an early, integrated partnership between scientists, program
managers, customers and the acquisition community. USTRANSCOM will
expand its collaboration efforts, emulate or adapt the best technology
transition practices of our deployment and distribution partners and
ensure pursuit of joint solutions to identified force projection and
sustainment shortfalls.
FAMILIES FIRST
Question. For over 10 years, U.S. Transportation Command and its
subordinate command, Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, have
worked to improve the process of moving service members' household
goods. Implementation of the new system--``Families First''--will use a
``best value'' approach to contracting with movers that will focus on
quality of performance, web-based scheduling and tracking of shipments,
encouragement of door-to-door moves, and full replacement value for
damaged household goods. Commander, U.S. Transportation Command,
recently announced that implementation of Families First had changed
from October 1, 2005, to February 1, 2006.
What is the reason for the delayed implementation of this program?
Answer. Families First is being implemented in three phases:
Phase I began initial implementation in March 2004.
Phase II is dependent upon the fielding of the web-
based Defense Personal Property System (DPS).
Phase III is scheduled for implementation in fiscal
year 2007.
Implementation of Phase II was delayed because of complications
associated with the availability of the DPS secure testing environment.
Testing is scheduled to begin 18 July 2005 with an implementation date
of 1 February 2006.
Although USTRANSCOM sought to avoid schedule slippage, the team
endeavored to use the additional time productively by:
Training the military staffs during non-peak season
(November vice July).
Informing all stakeholders of the changes implemented
by Families First.
Collecting additional customer satisfaction survey
scores.
Updating industry's internal systems and processes.
In the end, we need to deliver a capability that works. A slightly
later implementation date with the right program is much better than
disappointing our troops with an on time, but less effective program.
Question. What is your assessment of the progress being made in
implementing the Families First program, and what challenges remain?
Answer. USTRANSCOM and its component The Military Surface
Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) are making real progress
implementing the Families First personal property program. In Phase I
they implemented electronic billing and payment procedures and the
collection of customer surveys for performance based awards in Phase
II. Over the past several years they brought together key stakeholders:
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Military Services, U.S. Coast
Guard, Moving Industry, General Services Administration, Government
Accountability Office, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and
other Federal Agencies to create a single source for all information
related to the management and payment of shipments in the DOD program.
DPS has been delivered for testing in support of Phase II. Phase III
business rules and system requirements are being finalized for
development and implementation in fiscal year 2007.
As with any endeavor of this magnitude, there are challenges. From
my perspective, the remaining challenges include Service funding to
support full implementation of Families First, full participation by
the military and industry in Families First, and implementation of DPS.
Each of these challenges will be met head on. USTRANSCOM is committed
to bringing the benefits of this program to all stakeholders,
especially the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families
who will benefit the most.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in ensuring that
Families First is fully funded and implemented and would you make every
effort to ensure this program is implemented as soon as possible?
Answer. I will be an advocate for implementation of the Families
First program. I will ensure a continued open dialogue between all
stakeholders in the program to support issue resolution and will
implement a dynamic change management program to educate stakeholders
on the changes and benefits Families First promises for the moving
process. I will work with and support the Military Services in
programming funds for Families First and will seek adequate funding for
additional development and maintenance of DPS as required. Our military
families deserve no less.
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 Commander, U.S.
Transportation Command?
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 answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
MOBILITY CAPABILITY STUDY
1. Senator Inhofe. General Schwartz and Dr. Sega, I am concerned
about the Mobility Capability Study. Actually, when Secretary Teets
testified before this committee last March at the Air Force's posture
hearing, we had been informed that the Mobility Capability Study would
be ready ``shortly,'' but the timing keeps moving to the right. This
study was commissioned in order to determine exactly just how short we
are in strategic and tactical airlift resources. Other Members of the
committee and I have raised concerns about decisions made by the Air
Force with regard to programming and budgeting without the benefit of
this study. I am sure you are well aware of termination costs
associated with DOD's reversed decision to stop production of the C-
130J, with its domino effect on the cost of the Marine Corps' KC-130. I
am truly concerned that this study has not been completed. DOD and this
committee need the results to validate our airlift decisions and plan
for future mobility and refueling needs. Can you give us an idea of
when we might have the Mobility Capability Study finished and share any
of it preliminary findings?
General Schwartz. Your concern ``just how short we are in strategic
and tactical airlift resources'' is equally important to us and our
ability to project and sustain the forces. USTRANSCOM continues to work
with the study leads, OSD and Joint Staff on this complex issue. The
Department of Defense is working toward approval and release of the
Mobility Capability Study (MCS), which could influence many
programmatic decisions, including the C-130 variants you mentioned. MCS
analysis is complete. The results are being briefed to principals in
the Department. Associated documentation will be coordinated and
presented to the committee with an anticipated release date in the
fall. However, follow-on work will occur as the Quadrennial Defense
Review moves toward completion. Our goal is to produce actionable
recommendations that support the regional COCOMs and reflect the
strategic and operational environment. We share your concerns and will
continue to work toward an expeditious release of this study.
______
[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz,
USAF, follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 14, 2005.
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, U.S.C., section 601:
To be General
Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, 0000.
______
[The biographical sketch of Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz,
USAF, which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, USAF
Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz is Director, the Joint Staff,
Washington, DC. He assists the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by
supervising, coordinating, providing support for and administering the
work of the Joint Staff. General Schwartz accomplishes these
responsibilities by completing actions in the name of the Chairman, and
by providing guidance and direction to the Joint Staff. He develops and
coordinates, for the Chairman, all substantive aspects of the agenda
and briefing schedule for the meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He
functions as the Chairman's point of contact for the National Defense
University and all joint schools. General Schwartz also supervises
interaction of the directorates and activities of the Joint Staff with
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and other U.S. Government
agencies.
General Schwartz attended the U.S. Air Force Academy and graduated
in 1973. He is an alumnus of the National War College, a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations, and a 1994 Fellow of Massachusetts
Institute of Technology's Seminar XXI. He has served as Commander of
the Special Operations Command-Pacific, as well as Alaskan Command,
Alaskan North American Aerospace Defense Command Region, and the 11th
Air Force. Prior to assuming his current position, General Schwartz was
Director for Operations, the Joint Staff.
General Schwartz is a command pilot with more than 4,200 flying
hours in a variety of aircraft. He participated as a crewmember in the
1975 airlift evacuation of Saigon, and in 1991 served as Chief of Staff
of the Joint Special Operations Task Force for Northern Iraq in
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. In 1997, he led the Joint
Task Force that prepared for the noncombatant evacuation of U.S.
citizens in Cambodia.
Education:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1973...................................... Bachelor's degree in
political science and
international affairs, U.S.
Air Force Academy, Colorado
Springs, CO.
1977...................................... Squadron Officer School,
Maxwell AFB, AL.
1983...................................... Master's degree in business
administration, Central
Michigan University.
1984...................................... Armed Forces Staff College,
Norfolk, VA.
1989...................................... National War College, Fort
Lesley J. McNair,
Washington, DC.
1994...................................... Seminar XXI Fellow,
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 1973..................... September 1974.... Student,
undergraduate
pilot training,
Laughlin AFB, TX.
October 1974.................... January 1975...... Student, C-130
initial
qualification
training, Little
Rock AFB, AR.
February 1975................... October 1977...... C-130E aircraft
commander, 776th
and 21st tactical
airlift
squadrons, Clark
Air Base,
Philippines.
October 1977.................... December 1977..... Student, Squadron
Officer School,
Maxwell AFB, AL.
December 1977................... October 1979...... C-130ElH flight
examiner, 61st
Tactical Airlift
Squadron, Little
Rock AFB, AR.
October 1979.................... November 1980..... Intern, Air Staff
Training Program,
Office of the
Deputy Chief of
Staff for Plans,
Operations, and
Readiness,
Headquarters U.S.
Air Force,
Washington, DC.
November 1980................... July 1983......... MC-130E flight
examiner, 8th
Special
Operations
Squadron,
Hurlburt Field,
FL.
July 1983....................... January 1984...... Student, Armed
Forces Staff
College, Norfolk,
VA.
January 1984.................... April 1986........ Action officer,
Directorate of
Plans, Office of
the Deputy Chief
of Staff for
Plans and
Operations,
Headquarters U.S.
Air Force,
Washington, DC.
May 1986........................ June 1988......... Commander, 36th
Tactical Airlift
Squadron, McChord
AFB, WA.
August 1988..................... June 1989......... Student, National
War College, Fort
Lesley J. McNair,
Washington, DC.
July 1989....................... July 1991......... Director of Plans
and Policy,
Special
Operations
Command Europe,
Patch Barracks,
Stuttgart-
Vaihingen,
Germany.
August 1991..................... May 1993.......... Deputy Commander
for Operations
and Commander,
1st Special
Operations Group,
Hurlburt Field,
FL.
May 1993........................ May 1995.......... Deputy Director of
Operations,
later, Deputy
Director of
Forces, Office of
the Deputy Chief
of Staff for
Plans and
Operations,
Headquarters U.S.
Air Force,
Washington, DC.
June 1995....................... May 1997.......... Commander, 16th
Special
Operations Wing,
Hurlburt Field,
FL.
June 1997....................... October 1998...... Commander, Special
Operations
Command, Pacific,
Camp H.M. Smith,
HI.
October 1998.................... January 2000...... Director of
Strategic
Planning, Deputy
Chief of Staff
for Plans and
Programs,
Headquarters U.S.
Air Force,
Washington, DC.
January 2000.................... September 2000.... Deputy Commander
in Chief, U.S.
Special
Operations
Command, MacDill
AFB, FL.
September 2000.................. October 2002...... Commander, Alaskan
Command, Alaskan
North American
Aerospace Defense
Command Region
and 11th Air
Force, Elmendorf
AFB, AK.
October 2002.................... October 2004...... Director for
Operations, the
Joint Staff,
Washington, DC.
October 2004.................... present........... Director, the
Joint Staff,
Washington, DC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight information:
Rating: Command pilot.
Flight hours: More than 4,200.
Aircraft flown: C-130E/H, MC-130E/H/P, HC-130, AC-130H/U, YMC-130,
MH-53, and MH-60.
Major awards and decorations:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal.
Distinguished Service Medal.
Defense Superior Service Medal with oak leaf cluster.
Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters.
Defense Meritorious Service Medal.
Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters.
Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster.
Army Commendation Medal.
Effective dates of promotion:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Lieutenant......................... June 6, 1973
First Lieutenant.......................... June 6, 1975
Captain................................... June 6, 1977
Major..................................... Nov. 1, 1982
Lieutenant Colonel........................ March 1, 1985
Colonel................................... Feb. 1, 1991
Brigadier General......................... Jan. 1, 1996
Major General............................. March 4, 1999
Lieutenant General........................ Jan. 18, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
[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 Lt. Gen.
Norton A. Schwartz, 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.)
Norton A. Schwartz.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, United States Transportation Command, Scott Air Force
Base, Illinois.
3. Date of nomination:
June 14, 2005.
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, 1951; Toms River, NJ.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Suzanne E. (Ptak) Schwartz.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
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 held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
AF Academy Association of Graduates (member).
AF Academy Athletic Association (member).
AF Academy Society of Washington, DC (member).
AF Association (member).
Air Commando Association (member).
Airlift/Tanker Association (member).
National War College Alumni Association (member).
Order of Daedalians (member).
Military Officers Association of America (member).
Council on Foreign Relations (member).
Concord Village Homeowners Association (member).
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.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seminar XXI (AF Fellows).
Air Commando Association Hall of Fame.
Toms River High School Hall of Fame.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, 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.
Norton A. Schwartz.
This 5th day of May 2005.
[The nomination of Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, USAF, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Warner on July 28, 2005,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Ronald M. Sega by Chairman
Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. You previously answered the committee's advance policy
questions on the reforms brought about by the Goldwater-Nichols Act in
connection with your nomination in 2001 to be the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering.
Have your views on the importance, feasibility, and implementation
of the Goldwater-Nichols Act reforms changed since you testified before
the committee at your confirmation hearing on July 31, 2001?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-
Nichols Act provisions based on your experience as Director of Defense
Research and Engineering? If so, what areas do you believe might be
appropriate to address in these modifications?
Answer. I do not see a need to modify Goldwater-Nichols. However,
it is appropriate to periodically review organizational and management
frameworks to ensure continued validity.
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Under Secretary of the Air Force?
Answer. Subject to the Secretary of the Air Force'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; that is, to conduct the affairs of the
Department of the Air Force. The Under Secretary also serves as the
Department of Defense (DOD) Executive Agent for Space.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Secretary to prescribe for me
duties pertaining to Under Secretary of the Air Force's
responsibilities and Department of Defense Space management and
operations.
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. If confirmed, I will need to gain a more comprehensive,
detailed knowledge on current Air Force operational, personnel, and
fiscal issues. In my present duties as Director of Defense Research and
Engineering, I have an appreciation of DOD and some Air Force technical
issues, but will need a greater understanding of current Air Force
approaches to programs, processes, procedures, metrics, and evaluation
methods, in this new role.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. Section 8015 of title 10, United States Code, discusses
the responsibilities and authority of the Under Secretary of the Air
Force. Other sections of law and traditional practice also establish
important relationships outside the chain of command. Please describe
your understanding of the relationship of the Under Secretary of the
Air Force to the following officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for all matters
within the Department of Defense. The Secretary of the Air Force is
subject to the authority, direction and control of the Secretary of
Defense, and the Under Secretary of the Air Force works for the
Secretary of the Air Force. Since 2002, the Under Secretary of the Air
Force has been designated to perform the duties of the Department of
Defense Executive Agent for Space. In this role, the Under Secretary
develops, coordinates, and integrates policy, plans and programs for
space systems and major defense space acquisitions. If confirmed and
assigned to perform the duties of the Department of Defense Executive
Agent for Space, I look forward to working closely with the Secretary
of Defense on space-related matters.
Question. The Secretary of the Air Force.
Answer. The Under Secretary of the Air Force is subject to the
authority, direction and control of the Secretary of the Air Force. If
confirmed, I expect to be assigned a wide range of duties and
responsibilities by the Secretary. I look forward to working closely
with the Secretary as his deputy and principal assistant.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Answer. If confirmed and assigned the role of Executive Agent for
Space, I will work closely with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on matters concerning space
program milestone decisions and other areas related to acquisition,
technology and logistics programs impacting the Department of the Air
Force.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
Answer. The Chief of Staff is subject to the authority, direction,
and control of the Secretary of the Air Force, presides over the Air
Staff, and is a principal advisor to the Secretary. If confirmed, I
would foster a close working relationship with the Chief of Staff to
ensure that policies and resources are appropriate to meet the needs of
the Air Force.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. 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. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
Chairman through the Chief of Staff of the Air Force on appropriate
matters affecting the Air Force.
Question. The Under Secretaries of the other services.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to foster a close working
relationship with the Under Secretaries of the Army and Navy. I look
forward to sharing expertise that would assist in the management of the
Department of the Air Force and coordinating with the other services on
matters of mutual interest.
Question. The Commander, U.S. Transportation Command.
Answer. The Air Force provides the preponderance of military
airlift capability and if confirmed, I will work with the Commander of
U.S. Transportation Command to improve our ability to provide Global
Lift and other transportation needs.
Question. The Commander, U.S. Strategic Command.
Answer. Given the critical role the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command (USSTRATCOM) plays in several missions, if confirmed, I will
work with the USSTRATCOM Commander to understand his mission
requirements and to organize, train and equip the Air Force to support
USSTRATCOM operations. This support would be built on an established
relationship with Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, who has several
areas of responsibility to include: Space, Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance (ISR), and Strike.
Question. The General Counsel of the Air Force.
Answer. The General Counsel (GC) is the senior civilian legal
advisor to Air Force senior leaders and of all officers and agencies of
the Department of the Air Force. The GC serves as the chief ethics
official. If confirmed, I would look forward to developing a good
working relationship with the General Counsel.
Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.
Answer. The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) is the senior uniformed
legal advisor to Air Force senior leaders and of all officers and
agencies of the Department of the Air Force and provides professional
supervision to The Judge Advocate General's Corps in the performance of
their duties. If confirmed, I look forward to developing a good working
relationship with The Judge Advocate General.
Question. The Director of the National Reconnaissance Office.
Answer. As the DOD Executive Agent for Space, the Under Secretary
of the Air Force must continue to have a strong collaborative
relationship with the National Reconnaissance Office and therefore must
have a strong relationship with its Director. If confirmed, I will work
to foster a close working relationship with the Director of the
National Reconnaissance Office, as well as the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI). In light of the stand-up of the DNI, the DOD and
the Intelligence Community (IC) are in the process of re-defining their
relationship for national security space matters. If confirmed, I will
work with the DNI, IC, and Executive Office of the President (EOP) to
ensure the new policies and processes for coordinating space efforts
will be effective and meet the needs of all users.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition
acts as the Senior Acquisition Executive for the Air Force. If
confirmed, I would work closely with the Assistant Secretary on
acquisition matters, in particular as they relate to fulfilling the
Under Secretary's role as Executive Agent for Space.
Question. The other service acquisition executives regarding
management of their space-related programs.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Service
acquisition executives to ensure space acquisition planning,
programming, and budgeting activities are properly coordinated and
implemented.
MANAGEMENT OF SPACE ACTIVITIES
Question. The Under Secretary of the Air Force is traditionally
designated as the Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space. In
this role, the Under Secretary develops, coordinates, and integrates
policy, plans and programs for space systems and major defense space
acquisitions.
What is your view of the relationship of the Under Secretary of the
Air Force, as the Executive Agent for Space, to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks
and Information Integration with regard to space policy and systems?
Answer. The DOD Executive Agent (EA) for Space must work closely
with the other DOD offices tasked with developing space policy and
acquiring space systems. The DOD EA for Space responsibilities include:
planning, programming, and acquiring space systems. The EA for Space
position requires close coordination with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy for the development and coordination of DOD space
policy and with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and
Information Integration to ensure the proper development and
integration of our space systems and exploitation of their
capabilities.
Question. In your view, what are the authorities of the Executive
Agent for Space regarding: (1) the budgets, programs, and plans of the
various Service and Defense Agency space programs; and (2) milestone
decisions for space acquisition programs of the various Services and
Defense Agencies?
Answer. DOD Directive 5101.2 (DOD Executive Agent for Space)
articulates responsibilities for the Executive Agent and the DOD
Components and establishes the authority necessary for the Executive
Agent to prepare and recommend to the USD (P) and the Director, Program
Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) DOD-wide space planning and programming
guidance and to conduct an annual review of the `virtual' Major Force
Program (vMFP) in close coordination with the DOD Components and the
Intelligence Community. This Directive also establishes the Executive
Agent's authority to supervise the execution of DOD space Major Defense
Acquisition Programs.
Question. As the DOD Executive Agent for Space, how will you ensure
that each of the military services remains fully engaged in and
knowledgeable about space programs and the advantages that such
programs can bring to the warfighter?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to meet regularly with key leaders in
the Services and assess the effectiveness of several senior groups that
already exist for just this purpose, such as the National Security
Space Stakeholders, Space Partnership Council, Science and Technology
Summit, Defense Space Acquisition Board, to ensure that the military
services remain fully engaged.
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, I will work closely with DOD and Air Force
leadership, and this committee to identify major challenges for the Air
Force, which, in my view, include:
Build confidence in the institutional processes while
fighting the global war on terrorism
Maintain world-wide operational capability (Global
Strike, Global Mobility and Global Intelligence, Surveillance
and Reconnaissance)
Address the challenge of aging equipment, and balance
transformation with ongoing operations
Regain discipline and reliability in the cost,
schedule, and performance of Air Force acquisition programs
Enhance integration and reduce lifecycle costs of
operational Air and Space systems
Appreciate and respond to the globalization and
increasing rate of change of technology
Reinvigorate the technical workforce within the Air
Force and National Security community
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. Many steps have already been taken, but there is much work
to do. If confirmed, I plan to work with senior DOD and Air Force
leadership and emphasize the Air Force Core Values of Integrity First,
Service Before Self, and Excellence In All We Do, and apply these
values to the challenges confronting the Air Force. Specific plans will
need to be developed, but they should include consideration of the
following principles:
Providing warfighting capabilities in integrated joint
operations
Developing and taking care of people
Acquiring the best technology and equipment
Maintaining effective oversight and review mechanisms
Balancing cost of existing, enhanced, and new
operational capabilities
I will work with Air Force and DOD leadership, and this committee
to ensure the Air Force acquisition process is held to the highest
standards and executed with professionalism, integrity, and acts in the
best interest of the taxpayer.
With respect to the space programs, I will work closely with the
National Security Space organizations and the Director of National
Intelligence to integrate various capabilities and engage those in
operations, technology, acquisitions and logistics early in the process
to determine requirements that are consistent with technology maturity,
emphasizing systems engineering and technology maturity discipline in
the development process.
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. If confirmed, this is an area that I would need to examine
in more detail.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, this is an area that I would need to examine
in more detail.
PRIORITIES
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to work with Air Force leadership to
emphasize Air Force core values of Integrity, Service, and Excellence
while bringing the maximum capability to bear in the global war on
terrorism. I would make it a priority to recruit, train, and retain the
best and brightest airmen--Active, Reserve, Guard, and civilians. I
would also work to improve the acquisition process to develop and field
the capabilities we need to defend against emerging threats.
TRANSFORMATION
Question. General Moseley briefly outlined his vision for Air Force
transformation in a response to advance policy questions from the
committee during his recent confirmation process to be Air Force Chief
of Staff. General Moseley included ``enhancement of joint and coalition
warfighting capabilities'' and a continued pursuit of ``innovation to
lay the groundwork for Air Force transformation'' as components of his
transformation vision. As Director of Defense Research and Engineering
you were responsible for development of a strategy to promote technical
innovation in support of transformation for the Department. If
confirmed as Under Secretary of the Air Force, you would play an
important role in the process of transforming the Air Force to meet new
and emerging threats.
If confirmed, what would your goals be for Air Force
transformation?
Answer. As the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, I worked
with the Military Services and DOD Agencies to advance our technology
options in knowledge, speed, agility, lethality and survivability.
These technical capabilities when combined with new concepts, and
changes to existing processes can lead to transformation. I am aware of
several studies underway that when integrated into the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) will help to identify goals for Air Force
transformation. If confirmed, I will review the Air Force
transformation goals in this context to meet the needs of our National
Security Strategy, now and in the future.
JOINT WARFIGHTING SPACE
Question. The Air Force introduced the concept of Joint Warfighting
Space to provide military commanders the capability to rapidly launch
rockets with micro-satellites designed to support a specific area of
operations with communications and other sensors.
What is the status of current Air Force efforts to develop and
acquire a Joint Warfighting Space capability?
Answer. In my capacity as Director of Defense Research and
Engineering, my knowledge of Air Force efforts to develop and acquire a
Joint Warfighting Space Capability over the last 4 years has been
developed from a perspective focused on Air Force technology
developments. If confirmed, I will work with the Air Force,
Intelligence Community, and space community to gain a better
understanding of their programmatics supporting this initiative.
Question. Which entity within the Department of Defense has the
lead for these activities?
Answer. The Air Force as the DOD Executive Agent for Space has the
lead for these activities.
SPACE LAUNCH
Question. On May 2, 2005, Boeing and Lockheed Martin announced
plans to merge the production, engineering, test, and launch operations
associated with providing Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)
services to the U.S. Government. If approved by U.S. regulatory
authorities, the companies believe the merger could save $100-150
million per year for the U.S. Government while continuing to provide
assured access to space.
What is your view of the pending joint venture between Lockheed
Martin and Boeing to form a single provider for military space launch
capabilities?
Answer. My understanding is that the pending joint venture has yet
to formally file with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The Air Force
would support the Office of the Secretary of Defense in developing a
recommendation to the FTC upon request.
Question. How will the Department maintain assured access to space
with only a single provider?
Answer. Until the Department has been provided the details of any
change in the status of space capability providers, it would be
premature to comment. If confirmed, I will work with industry, DOD
leadership and this committee to ensure the Department has assured
access to space.
Question. Do you agree that the merger will result in cost savings
to the U.S. Government? If your answer is yes, do you agree with the
contractors' savings estimates?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the proposed merger.
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. Funding for the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (JUCAS) has
recently been reduced and management of the program has changed from
DARPA to an Air Force-led joint service program.
Do you support the 10-year goal established by Congress?
Answer. I agree with increased use of UAVs for a range of military
applications. Results from JUCAS work will help us understand the
capabilities, cost and schedule of unmanned aircraft systems. If
confirmed, I will look into the progress the Air Force has made in this
area and help provide a direction for the future.
Question. Are you satisfied with the current JUCAS program
objectives and schedule?
Answer. I only have general knowledge of JUCAS program objectives
and schedules. If confirmed, I will gain a more detailed understanding
of the JUCAS program.
Question. Do you feel the current level of investment is sufficient
to achieve JUCAS program objectives and schedule?
Answer. If confirmed, I will gain more detailed understanding of
the JUCAS program.
AIRCRAFT SUSTAINMENT AND MODERNIZATION
Question. The global war on terror has increased demands on the
tanker fleet, increasing annual KC-135 flying hours over 30 percent
since September 11. The Air Force has grounded 29 KC-135Es because of
corrosion problems in the engine struts and has requested authority to
retire these 29 aircraft, plus an additional 20 KC-135Es, in fiscal
year 2006.
Do you believe that any decision to retire KC-135Es should await
the results of the OSD-directed tanker replacement Analysis of
Alternatives? If not, why not?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specifics of the issues
surrounding the decision to ground and retire KC-135E aircraft. If
confirmed, I will work with the Air Force and DOD leadership, and this
committee to better understand the issues and the options to meet DOD
needs now and in the future.
AIRCRAFT RECAPITALIZATION
Question. Approximately one-third of the current Air Force aircraft
inventory is under some type of flight restriction, mainly due to aging
aircraft problems. The C-17 and F/A-22 were among the first of the
modern Air Force recapitalization efforts.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to further recapitalize the
Air Force aircraft inventory and how would you prioritize the
recapitalization effort?
Answer. Until such time as I am able to gain a better understanding
of all the issues, I am unable to recommend specific actions steps. If
confirmed, I will work with the Air Force and DOD leadership, and this
committee to balance the competing needs of the Air Force now and into
the future.
FUTURE CARGO AIRCRAFT
Question. The Army has included funds in the budget request to
begin a program to previously, fixed wing cargo delivery has been
included in the roles and missions of the Air Force.
What is your view of the proper roles and missions for the Army and
Air Force in supplying front line troops?
Answer. I am not familiar with all the aspects of the Army's Future
Cargo Aircraft (FCA). If confirmed, I will work with the Army, others
in the Air Force and DOD leadership, and this Committee to ensure that
the Air Force cargo delivery capabilities are complementary and
coordinated across the Department.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Question. The House Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Appropriations have recently proposed eliminating the
procurement of long lead items to support the low rate initial
production of five conventional take-off and landing variants of the
Joint Strike Fighter.
What are your views on this proposal?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details and rationale for this
proposal. If confirmed, I will work with DOD leadership and Congress to
ensure that the needs of the DOD and international partners are best
represented through effective acquisition and procurement strategies.
Question. If the House proposal is sustained, what do you think
would be the impact on the program's schedule and future Air Force
procurement decisions?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details in this area. If
confirmed, I will work with DOD leadership and Congress to ensure that
the needs of the DOD and international partners are best represented
through effective acquisition and procurement strategies.
LONG RANGE BOMBERS
Question. The B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s will begin to be retired in the
2030 time frame.
Do you believe that the United States needs to develop a new manned
bomber?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force is in the process
of completing an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the next generation
long range strike capability. Both manned and unmanned alternatives are
being considered. If confirmed, once the AoA is completed, I will work
with DOD leadership, and this committee to ensure that the Air Force
acts in the best interest of the national defense to support
operational capabilities described in the National Security Strategy,
upcoming QDR, and other policy documents.
Question. What role do you see for unmanned bombers?
Answer. It is my understanding that the exact mission sets and
timeframes best suited for manned and unmanned aircraft are being
studied by the Air Force. If confirmed, and after I have had an
opportunity to review the relevant data, I would be happy to discuss
the findings before this committee.
Question. When, in your view, must a decision on this issue be
made?
Answer. If confirmed, after I have had ample opportunity to review
the relevant data, I would be able to give you an indication of when
the decision must be made.
PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE
Question. What, in your view, is the definition of prompt global
strike?
Answer. As I understand the concept from Air Force briefings on
this topic, Prompt Global Strike (PGS) is a concept wherein we have the
capability to globally strike and precisely apply force against targets
swiftly to achieve desired weapons effects.
Question. What steps do you believe are needed to achieve the goal
of prompt global strike?
Answer. Several of the technical initiatives started in Defense
Research and Engineering, in collaboration with the Air Force,
emphasized speed, agility, lethality, and surveillance and knowledge.
The resulting technical capabilities could enable various options for
prompt time sensitive targeting support throughout the global
battlespace. However, I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the Air
Force's plans to achieve Prompt Global Strike. If confirmed, I will
examine this area.
SPACE RADAR
Question. There is currently discussion about whether to conduct a
Space Radar demonstration, and if so, whether the demonstration should
be atmospheric or orbital.
What is your view on the need for a Space Radar demonstration?
Answer. Until such time as I have a better understanding of the
total Space Radar program, any comment I would make would be premature.
If confirmed, I will work closely with DOD leadership and this
committee to ensure that, if required, we create a demonstration that
provides the best information with which to make informed Space Radar
decisions.
Question. If you believe a demonstration is needed, what type of
demonstration do you believe would provide the most useful information
to the program?
Answer. Until such time as I have a better understanding of the
total Space Radar program, any comment I would make would be premature.
If confirmed, I will work closely with DOD leadership and this
committee to ensure that, if required, we create a demonstration that
provides the best information with which to make informed Space Radar
decisions.
NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE POLICY
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in the
development of the new National Security Space Policy that is now being
drafted?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to taking a significant role
in the interagency collaborative process on this update to our national
space policy.
NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM
Question. If confirmed as Under Secretary of the Air Force, what
role would you play in the implementation of the National Security
Personnel System (NSPS)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Department of Defense
position and approach to implement NSPS within the Air Force.
Question. What are your views on the strengths and weaknesses of
the implementation steps undertaken within the Department thus far?
Answer. My views on implementation of NSPS within the Department
are somewhat influenced by the fact my current organization, AT&L, was
involved in acquisition workforce demonstration programs that supported
the development of NSPS. A key implementation step is an effective
training program that must be in place to educate the organization from
top to bottom.
Question. What do you believe will be the benefits of NSPS when
implemented, and what steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure a
smooth and effective transition?
Answer. NSPS is expected to provide DOD a more agile, dynamic, and
efficient workforce. If confirmed, I will help foster an environment of
support for our employees. For an example, to help ensure a smooth and
effective transition, it is important to provide quality training to
managers and employees in the program.
HEALTH BENEFIT COSTS
Question. The cost of the Defense Health Program, like the cost of
medical care nation-wide, is escalating rapidly. General Jumper
recently stated that the cost of military health care is ``the single
most daunting thing that we deal with out there today.''
If confirmed, how would you approach the issue of rising personnel
costs, including health care costs, as a component of the annual Air
Force budget?
Answer. While I am not completely familiar with this issue, I can
certainly understand the concern with rising costs. If confirmed, my
goal will be to ensure that our members and their families receive the
highest quality care, whether deployed or at home station, as the Air
Force maximizes its return on healthcare investments.
AEROMEDICAL EVACUATION
Question. The committee included a provision in the National
Defense Authorization Act for 2006--pending consideration by the full
Senate--that would authorize $200 million for up to two fully equipped,
dedicated, aeromedical evacuation aircraft for seriously wounded and
ill patients. In answers to advance policy questions submitted by
General Moseley prior to his confirmation as Air Force Chief of Staff,
he disagreed with the purchase of unique, dedicated platforms for
aeromedical evacuation. ``With the retirement of the C-9,'' he wrote,
``we have intentionally moved away from a small, dedicated AE fleet to
a concept that uses any available aircraft that can be configured to
provide AE capability.'' The committee is concerned that the use of any
available aircraft, in particular cargo and refueling aircraft, has
resulted in unnecessary suffering for wounded personnel, especially
those with severe injuries.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to implement a requirement
for dedicated medical aircraft, if such a requirement is approved by
Congress?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of options under
consideration. If confirmed, I will work with Air Force and DOD
leadership, and Congress to ensure that the Air Force is positioned to
meet the needs of the Department of Defense with timely and quality
aeromedical evacuation, consistent with legislation.
QUALITY OF LIFE PROGRAMS
Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you establish to
ensure that military quality of life programs are sustained and
improved for Air Force members and their families?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to strongly support for quality of
life programs and other activities that contribute to improving quality
of life for Air Force members and their families.
BATTLEFIELD AIRMEN
Question. Operations in Iraq have required Air Force personnel to
provide direct support to ground forces, including participation in
convoy duty. The adequacy of the training provided to deployed airmen
who may be required to defend a convoy and installations against
insurgents has been questioned.
What training is being provided to airmen who are assigned to, or
who volunteer to perform, convoy duty or other duties requiring
proficiency in small arms or crew served weapons?
Answer. I am not fully aware of the specific training that is
provided for this emerging mission. If confirmed, I will, within my
purview, ensure that our Airmen receive the necessary training and
resources for them to be successful.
Question. What is your assessment of the sufficiency of the
training currently being given to Air and Space Expeditionary Force
airmen deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. Training is a key element in any organization;
particularly, in organizations like the Air Force that must adapt to
new and emerging missions. The strength of our Armed Forces has been
the ability to react to ever-changing environments, rapidly develop
solutions, and implement them rapidly. The foundation of this
competency is grounded in basic and advanced training. If confirmed, I
will, within my purview, ensure that our airmen receive an appropriate
amount of training commensurate with the missions to which they may be
assigned.
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
Question. In section 574 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, the statutory responsibilities
and authority of the service Judge Advocates General were amended to
make it clear that interference by any officer or employee of the
Department of Defense with the ability of the Judge Advocates General
to give independent legal advice is not permitted. In the statement of
managers language accompanying this provision (H. Rept. 108-767), the
Secretary of the Air Force was directed to rescind his order of May 15,
2003, regarding ``Functions and Duties of the General Counsel and the
Judge Advocate General.'' Additionally, the General Counsel of the Air
Force was required to rescind all internal operating instructions and
memoranda issued in reliance on the Secretary's May 15, 2003, order.
What is the current status of the Secretary of the Air Force's
order of May 15, 2003?
Answer. The Secretary of the Air Force order of May 15, 2003, was
superseded with a new order as of July 14, 2005.
Question. What are your views about the responsibility of the Judge
Advocate General of the Air Force to provide independent legal advice
to the Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff, and the Air
Staff?
Answer. I believe it is critical that Air Force senior leaders
receive independent legal advice and counsel from the senior uniformed
judge advocate.
ACQUISITION ISSUES
Question. The Acting Secretary of the Air Force has announced that
the Air Force will no longer pursue leases of major equipment, but will
instead rely on the traditional acquisition system.
Do you support this decision?
Answer. Yes.
Question. At his confirmation hearing earlier this year, the Air
Force Chief of Staff testified that the Air Force has gone too far in
reducing its acquisition work force, undermining its ability to provide
needed oversight in the acquisition process.
Do you agree with the Chief of Staff's assessment?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If so, what steps do you believe the Air Force should
take to address this problem?
Answer. I believe that we need to review the acquisition processes
from the time the concept is developed to the time retirement decisions
are made on major weapons and weapons systems. It is equally important
to have the right mix of government civil service, military, and
contractor support personnel with the appropriate education,
experience, and training. We must also ensure that the mix we choose is
appropriately distributed throughout the decision-making process. If
confirmed, I will work with the acquisition community to determine a
proper course of action.
Question. Major defense acquisition programs in the Air Force and
the other military services continue to be subject to funding and
requirements instability.
Do you believe that instability in funding and requirements drives
up program costs and leads to delays in the fielding of major weapon
systems?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Air Force should
take to address funding and requirements instability?
Answer. I believe that performing a review of the Air Force
development and acquisition programs in the context of QDR is required.
Continuous involvement of the warfighter, technology, acquisition and
logistics communities is important in a systems development program. If
confirmed, I would work with Air Force and DOD leadership, Congress,
and our customer/stakeholder bases to define solid system baselines,
and develop stable funding plans.
Question. The Comptroller General testified earlier this year that
DOD programs often move forward with unrealistic program cost and
schedule estimates, lack clearly defined and stable requirements, use
immature technologies in launching product development, and fail to
solidify design and manufacturing processes at appropriate junctures in
development.
Do you agree with the Comptroller General's assessment?
Answer. I agree that there are challenges in defense acquisition.
The areas that I have been most familiar with include technology
maturity, systems engineering, integration, and requirements. The
desired result is a system that provides operationally safe, suitable,
and effective best-value products to the warfighter in the least amount
of time.
Question. If so, what steps do you believe the Air Force should
take to address these problems?
Answer. The Air Force has taken some good steps but there is more
work to be done. There is an ongoing DOD-wide acquisition review of
policies, regulations, and procedures, which will provide an assessment
that considers many aspects of acquisition including: requirements,
organization, legal foundation, decision methodology, oversight, and
checks and balances. I look forward to the study's recommendations.
MILITARY SPACE ACQUISITION POLICY
Question. The present generation of military space systems is being
modernized in virtually every mission area, including: (1) strategic
missile warning; (2) assured communications; (3) navigation; and (4)
intelligence and surveillance. At the same time, virtually every one of
these modernization programs has suffered substantial problems with
regard to cost, schedule, and technical performance.
To what do you attribute the execution problems on present space
development programs?
Answer. Some good steps have recently been taken, but more work
remains to be done. We need to return to a more disciplined approach to
acquisition. The areas that I have been most familiar with include
technology maturity, systems engineering, integration, and
requirements. The goal is to provide operationally safe, suitable, and
effective best-value products to the warfighter in the least amount of
time.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to correct
problems in the space acquisition process?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to ensure we
are taking the proper steps to address the problems we have seen in
space acquisition programs. To ensure that we have a robust space
acquisition approach we must continue our focus on mission success,
consistently apply sound space acquisition policies, reconstitute our
systems engineering capability, and--perhaps most importantly--develop
an educated, trained, experienced space acquisition workforce for the
future.
Question. Given past difficulties with space acquisition, what is
your level of confidence that the Space Radar and Transformational
Satellite (TSAT) programs will meet schedule and cost targets?
Answer. I have not examined the details on these programs to make
an informed decision. If confirmed, I will conduct a review of these
programs, determine the progress to date and challenges that lay ahead,
and work with Congress, Air Force and DOD leadership, and key partners/
stakeholders, to set a roadmap for the future.
AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Question. During testimony earlier this year on the fiscal year
2006 budget request, General Jumper noted that, ``The Air Force is
committed to providing the Nation with the advanced air and space
technologies required to protect our national security interests and
ensure we remain on the cutting edge of system performance,
flexibility, and affordability. Air Force Science and Technology (S&T)
investments are focused on achieving the warfighting effects and
capabilities required by the Air Force Concepts of Operations.'' In
your role as Director of Defense Research and Engineering, you focused
on three main initiatives for department-wide research efforts:
Knowledge and Surveillance, Energy and Power and the National Aerospace
Initiative.
If confirmed, how would you further the goals of these research
focus areas in meeting capabilities required by Air Force Concepts of
Operations?
Answer. The goals for these research focus areas were developed in
cooperation with the military services and DOD agencies, and are tied
to the desired Air Force capabilities defined in the Concept of
Operations master planning process. The knowledge gained in these areas
provided a foundation for future systems development options. If
confirmed, I would review, and if appropriate, integrate technology
into the Concept of Operations planning process.
Question. If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding
the importance of innovative defense science in meeting Air Force
missions?
Answer. I support a robust Air Force Science and Technology (S&T)
Program that provides for the innovation needed to enable Air Force
capabilities. If confirmed, I would continue to support an adequate and
stable investment in Air Force S&T that is in balance with an overall
investment strategy.
Question. For fiscal year 2006, the Air Force plans to dedicate
approximately $2.0 billion to science and technology programs, 1.6
percent of the total Air Force budget and $346 million to basic defense
research, or 0.3 percent of the total Air Force budget.
Do you believe that the current balance between short- and long-
term research is appropriate to meet current and future Air Force
needs?
Answer. The Air Force S&T Program spans a broad foundation of basic
research, applied research, and advanced technology development
efforts. The output of an S&T investment enables the development of
capabilities needed to respond to a rapidly changing world. If
confirmed, I will review the Air Force S&T Program with respect to a
balanced investment in the research, development, demonstration, and
transition of various technologies, and ensure that the Air Force S&T
Program supports the needs of the warfighter.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in ensuring
research priorities that will meet the needs of the Air Force in 2020?
Answer. If confirmed, I will strive to continue to ensure we have a
high correlation between S&T programs and warfighting capabilities, now
and in the future.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work to ensure that
appropriate S&T plans are utilized by the Air Force during the budget,
planning, and programming process?
Answer. My understanding is that the Air Force closely links
technologies in its S&T plan to warfighter capability needs and focuses
on those technologies of the highest priority to the warfighter. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with Air Force and DOD leadership,
and Congress to ensure a strong Air Force S&T Program.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the
last few years. Challenges remain in institutionalizing the transition
of new technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons
systems and platforms.
What challenges to transition do you see within the Air Force?
Answer. While I am unfamiliar with specific transition initiatives
currently underway in the Air Force, if confirmed, I will bring to the
Air Force some of the experiences gained in the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Some
examples included efforts to rapidly identify, mature, develop, test,
assess, acquire, and field technologies to satisfy immediate warfighter
needs. I expect to work closely with Air Force and DOD leadership, and
Congress to examine streamlining the technology transition and
acquisition processes.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that technologies are
rapidly transitioned from the laboratory into the hands of the
warfighter?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support a robust Air Force Science
and Technology (S&T) Program with the investment and focus needed to
bring technologies to maturity, and transition these technologies into
warfighting capabilities.
Question. What steps would you take to enhance the effectiveness of
technology transition efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support close collaboration with the
technology community and the warfighter to identify current needs and
to anticipate future operational needs arising from a changing national
and world security environment.
TECHNICAL WORKFORCE
Question. You have stated that ``the quality of our S&T workforce
and the management of the laboratory infrastructure in which they work
are very important factors in the overall research and engineering
equation. They are critical elements in our transformation. Our S&T
workforce has been downsized considerably in the last 12 years. This
has left us with a very knowledgeable workforce, but one that is also
reaching retirement age. We are at a critical point that requires a
focused effort to bring stability to the workforce that will attract
and retain talent.''
What is your current assessment of the health of the defense S&T
workforce and the management of the laboratory infrastructure?
Answer. We anticipate an attrition of an estimated 13,000 science,
math, engineering, and technology employees at the DOD labs within the
next 10 years. The Air Force Research Laboratory relies on a strong
technical workforce to conduct research for development of new weapons
systems, platforms, and capabilities to meet emerging threats. To
address the S&T workforce needs, the Department has several education
programs within the basic research program. Fellowship programs are
also available, such as the National Defense Science and Engineering
Graduate Fellowship Program. Additionally, the Department has recently
put forward to Congress for consideration an expansion of the Science,
Mathematics, and Research for Transformation, also called the National
Defense Education Act-Phase One. It is my understanding that the Air
Force is committed to continuing to shape its S&T workforce with the
vision to enhance excellence and relevance of Science and Technology
into the 21st century.
Question. If confirmed, what plans would you pursue to continue
work to ensure a future supply of experts in defense critical
disciplines to hold positions in defense laboratories?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work hard to make sure we
have the right mix of talent, expertise, and skill to meet our needs in
the Department of Defense, and to find innovative measures to attract
bright individuals from America's youth to science, math, engineering
and technology career fields. For example, the Science, Mathematics and
Research for Transformation (SMART)/National Defense Education (NDEA)
Act-Phase One program could provide an important option to address
critical shortfalls in the DOD scientific and engineering workforce.
SPACE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
Question. The previous Under Secretary of the Air Force, Peter B.
Teets, as the Department's Executive Agent for Space, issued a defense-
wide space human capital strategy in February 2004 in response to a
mandate in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
In December 2004, the Executive Agent issued an implementation plan for
the space human capital strategy that included defense-wide tasks
related to space personnel management, education and training, and
critical space positions. The Department is currently behind schedule
but has begun to implement the plan's tasks.
In your view, does the Executive Agent for Space possess sufficient
authorities to make necessary changes and advances in the management
and pursuit of space programs?
Answer. My understanding is that sufficient authorities exist, but
I would like to check into this area if confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, how would you promote the development of
the services' space cadres and ensure that the needs of the
Department's total force, including joint requirements, are met?
Answer. As Director, Defense Research and Engineering, we advanced
ways of increasing the number of professionals in defense-related
fields of Math, Science, and Engineering that are eligible to obtain a
security clearance. It is my understanding that as the DOD EA for
Space, I would chair the Space Professional Oversight Board which is
responsible for developing the DOD space cadre. This board was
chartered by my predecessor, with representation from all of the
stakeholders, and, if confirmed, I will review its effectiveness in
synchronizing and integrating the efforts of the Services in the
development of their DOD space cadres.
Question. If confirmed, how would you advance implementation of the
Department's space human capital strategy to ensure it is completed in
a timely manner?
Answer. Through the Space Professional Oversight Board discussed
above.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to improve the
expertise of the space acquisition workforce in both acquisition
management skills and space technical knowledge?
Answer. If confirmed, I would exercise oversight through the Space
Professional Oversight Board discussed above.
LABORATORY PERSONNEL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS
Question. A number of Air Force laboratories now operate under
congressionally-authorized personnel demonstration programs. These
programs are intended to provide lab commanders with flexibility in
managing their personnel, and to operate as test beds for innovative
personnel systems that could help the Air Force recruit and retain
highly qualified scientists and engineers. Lab demonstration programs
have not been modified since 2001.
How will you work to ensure that Air Force laboratory demonstration
programs and authorities are fully utilized?
Answer. My understanding is that the Laboratory Personnel
Demonstration or Lab Demo pilot personnel program authorized by
Congress has been effective in providing the Air Force with the
flexibility to help shape its Scientist and Engineer (S&E) workforce.
If confirmed, I would support having management flexibilities with the
vision to enhance excellence and relevance of our laboratories into the
21st century.
Question. What advantage, if any, do you believe there are in
laboratory mission performance when laboratory commanders are allowed
to exercise control over their own personnel systems?
Answer. I believe the authority granted by Congress under the
Laboratory Personnel Demonstration Project, or Lab Demo pilot personnel
program, provides commanders the flexibility needed to hire and retain
a technical employee with specific talents, expertise, and skills. This
infusion of talent helps revitalize and bring new ideas into the
scientific and engineering community--this not only improves mission
performance, but also provides a larger talent pool to continue
transformation.
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 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:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
INSTALLATION DEFENSE, PROTECTION AND SECURITY
1. Senator Warner. Dr. Sega, Mr. Eastin, and Mr. Anderson, in 2004,
the Department of Defense (DOD) initiated the defense-wide Guardian
Installations Protection Program (IPP). Upon completion, Guardian IPP
will provide warning and protection for 200 critical DOD installations
and facilities in the United States and abroad from potential chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) attacks. The committee has
fully supported this important initiative and, in fact, has authorized
an additional $10.2 million within the program to provide greater
protection of our military's mail system. Do you believe that our
military installations are vulnerable to potential CBRN attacks?
Dr. Sega. Our military installations worldwide remain subject to
terrorist attacks with chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear
(CBRN) weapons in addition to the potential effects of high-yield
explosive attacks (E). Currently, CBRN defense shortfalls are
identified as capability gaps in several General Accounting Office
(GAO) audits, a Joint Functional Needs Analysis for CBRN Defense, and a
Joint Baseline Capability Assessment for Consequence Management. As
part of the Air Force's ongoing efforts to institutionalize counter-
CBRNE improvements and integrate them into strategy, planning, and
operational capabilities, we continue to work with the Chemical and
Biological Defense Program officials in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the Joint Staff to increase our capabilities to prevent,
prepare, respond, and recover from potential CBRNE attacks. The Air
Force supports the Joint Guardian Installation Protection Program,
providing enhanced CBRN defense capability. Through material and
nonmaterial solutions, Guardian provides bases with the increased
capability to protect personnel, continue critical missions, and
conduct consequence management activities in the event of a CBRN
attack.
2. Senator Warner. Dr. Sega, Mr. Eastin, and Mr. Anderson, given
the significant capital our government has invested at these high-value
military installations, do you believe it is necessary to protect these
assets from possible CBRN attacks?
Dr. Sega. Yes. The President charted the course in the National
Security Strategy of 2002 when he stressed that the United States will
prevent our enemies from threatening our allies, our friends, and us
with weapons of mass destruction. As part of that charge on June 24,
2005, Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England signed out the
memorandum entitled Implementation of the Strategy for Homeland Defense
and Civil Support that calls for the ``protection of high priority
installations and personnel from chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear attacks.'' The Wing Commander must be able to execute the
installation's primary warfighting mission. To the best of my
abilities, I will help ensure the Air Force supports this strategy with
the appropriate resources.
3. Senator Warner. Dr. Sega, Mr. Eastin, and Mr. Anderson, as these
200 installations and facilities are under the jurisdiction of the DOD,
how do you intend to ensure the program is fully and effectively
implemented within your respective Service?
Dr. Sega. The Air Force has a number of efforts underway that are
responsive to the possibility of enemy attacks with chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear high-yield explosives (CBRNE),
both offensive and defensive, and designed to be effective both in the
homeland and forward regions. We are also closely linked with the
Chemical and Biological Defense Program. The Air Force is developing a
Counter-CBRNE Concept of Operations involving operational, logistical,
security forces, medical, intelligence, inspection, and training
disciplines. We must continue to assess our capabilities in this area
and will bring forward shortfalls for consideration of additional
resource commitments. Finally, we are increasing research in this area
through university research, defense industry collaboration, and
partnerships with coalition experts.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
DEPOT MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT FUND
4. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Sega, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Anderson, since the
Bush administration came into office, we have seen a renewed interest
in the Air Force's depots. A key to this overall reinvigoration has
been the Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan that will ensure
America's air and space assets are ready to rapidly respond to any
national security threat. Because of this plan, we have begun a
restoration of our Air Force's three depot facilities, one of which is
located at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. This modernization will
ensure the United States is able to maintain world-class aircraft
repair and overhaul facilities. Tinker Air Force Base is the largest
single employer in the State of Oklahoma. It is important to sustain
and upgrade Tinker's facilities and equipment along with that of the
other depot facilities. There is currently an amendment that I support
which calls for full funding of the Depot Maintenance Strategy and
Master Plan at a level of $150 million a year, over a 6-year period.
Secretary Gibbs supported fully funding the Depot Maintenance
Improvement Fund. Do you have any concerns about sufficiently funding
the Improvement Fund at the same percentage level as Secretary Gibbs?
Dr. Sega. The Air Force continues its commitment to managing world
class organic depot maintenance capability for our warfighters. I will
make every effort to meet our responsibilities to modernize and
transform our depot maintenance equipment, facilities, and personnel.
5. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Sega, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Anderson, will you
commit to this same level of funding?
Dr. Sega. The Air Force remains committed to managing world-class
organic depot maintenance capability for our warfighters. I will work
to meet our commitment to modernize and transform our depot maintenance
equipment, facilities, and personnel.
MOBILITY CAPABILITY STUDY
6. Senator Inhofe. General Schwartz and Dr. Sega, I am concerned
about the Mobility Capability Study. Actually, when Secretary Teets
testified before this committee last March at the Air Force's posture
hearing, we had been informed that the Mobility Capability Study would
be ready ``shortly,'' but the timing keeps moving to the right. This
study was commissioned in order to determine exactly just how short we
are in strategic and tactical airlift resources. Other Members of the
committee and I have raised concerns about decisions made by the Air
Force with regard to programming and budgeting without the benefit of
this study. I am sure you are well aware of termination costs
associated with DOD's reversed decision to stop production of the C-
130J, with its domino effect on the cost of the Marine Corps' KC-130. I
am truly concerned that this study has not been completed. DOD and this
committee need the results to validate our airlift decisions and plan
for future mobility and refueling needs. Can you give us an idea of
when we might have the Mobility Capability Study finished and share any
of it preliminary findings?
Dr. Sega. As I understand it, the primary analysis is complete and
the initial insights on inter-theater, intra-theater, Continental
United States (CONUS), Homeland Defense and Air Refueling capabilities
were briefed on June 6, 2005 to the Mobility Capability Study Executive
Committee (co-chaired by Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
Joint Staff), the senior oversight body and final approval authority
for the study.
I believe Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff
are now preparing the report for final coordination. We will fully
support their efforts to finalize this study.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE
7. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Sega, in the past Secretary Teets as the
Under Secretary of the Air Force also served as the Director of the
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). This arrangement, however, is no
longer the case. With the standing-up of the Director of National
Intelligence, the DOD seems to be in the process of redefining this
relationship for national security space matters. As DOD Executive
Agent for Space, your responsibilities would include planning,
programming, and acquiring space systems. Likewise the Director of the
NRO is designated as the DOD agency within the intelligence community
that designs, builds, launches, and operates the Nation's
reconnaissance satellites. What challenges do you see in coordinating
the efforts of the NRO with the rest of DOD space activities?
Dr. Sega. As the Under Secretary of the Air Force (USECAF) and the
Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space, my staff and I work
very closely with Dr. Kerr and his staff at the NRO to ensure space
activities are coordinated. There has been much progress made over the
past several years. Our goal is to ensure space programs meet
warfighter needs while remaining on schedule and within cost. Dr. Kerr
and I will work together to improve space planning, programming, and
acquisition to include policy, personnel, and industrial base
considerations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS
8. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, the Total Information Awareness (TIA)
program was established in Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) as part of the reaction to the events of September 11, 2001.
Although a few of the technologies included in the system were under
early-stage development at that point, the first budget request that
included funding for TIA was in fiscal year 2003, when you had been the
Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) for more than a
year. TIA was also the subject of a number of congressional inquiries,
newspaper articles--including the front page of the New York Times--was
the cause of the establishment of an internal and external review panel
by then Secretary Aldridge, and suffered a highly publicized
termination by Congress in fiscal year 2004. Given that history, the
fact that the Director of DARPA reports to you as DDR&E, and that you
were the head of all DOD science and technology programs at the time,
it is important that you clarify your role in the TIA program. How did
you participate in the establishment of the TIA program as part of
DOD's response to September 11?
Dr. Sega. Approval and establishment of the TIA program's major
elements predate my tenure as the DDR&E. The fundamental information,
database, prediction, terrorist detection, language translation, and
bio-metric technology research elements were established at DARPA
starting in the mid and late 1990s and made use of disparate programs
like the Small Business Innovative Research Program, University
Research Initiative, and others.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, DARPA
formed the Information Awareness Office and initiated the TIA Program
to consolidate these established technology projects, increase synergy,
and improve management.
9. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, how did you exercise your oversight
over DARPA in their development and execution of the program?
Dr. Sega. As Director of Defense Research & Engineering, I
exercised broad, top-level oversight for a very large, diversified
portfolio of science and technology programs sponsored by DARPA, the
military services, and the other Under Secretary of Defense
Acquisition, Technology & Logistics organizations.
10. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, how did you, as DDR&E, participate in
shaping DOD's public and internal review activities in response to
congressional and public interest in the program?
Dr. Sega. As DDR&E, my office supported the internal and external
reviews of Total Information Awareness (TIA).
I directly provided concurrence, with comments, to the Report of
the DOD Inspector General on TIA (December 2003) for the Under
Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
Additionally, my staff and I interacted with Ms. Lisa Davis, the
Executive Director and Designated Federal Official for the Technology
and Privacy Advisory Committee, which reported their findings and
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense in March 2004.
11. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, what major lessons did you learn from
these experiences and activities?
Dr. Sega. I concur with the recommendations of the Technology and
Privacy Advisory Committee. Advanced technology, and information
technology in particular, promises to improve United States (U.S.) and
allied counterterrorism capabilities; however, development and
execution of these new technologies must not compromise the privacy of
U.S. citizens.
These lessons underscore the need for greater oversight and
accountability in our technical programs. The Total Information
Awareness discussion helped address the broader issues on the balance
between a necessarily large, robust, and diverse technology portfolio
and the attendant need for oversight and accountability. It also added
impetus to my efforts to increase the level of detail captured by
management level metrics and to galvanize the oversight process within
and throughout the Director, Defense Research and Engineering
organization, to include more detailed office-by-office reviews within
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
12. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, how will experiences as DDR&E shape
your approach to performing the functions of Under Secretary of the Air
Force?
Dr. Sega. The Air Force, like all the Services, has a large,
diverse, and challenging set of technology goals. My tenure as DDR&E
clearly demonstrated to me both the need and value of increased
oversight and accountability in our management of ambitious technology
programs. I fully intend to advocate and emphasize the increased use of
metrics tied to strategic goals, and improved program tracking
techniques throughout the Air Force. As DDR&E, I focused on the
technology aspects of acquisition and in this new position I will
emphasize the broader acquisition issues as well.
SPACE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
13. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, the Space Commission, chaired by
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was established by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. There were several key
recommendations of the Commission but I would like to discuss two of
these, recommendations numbered 5, 8, in the Commission report.
Recommendation Number 5: ``An Under Secretary of Defense for Space,
Intelligence, and Information should be established.'' The Commission
recommended that this individual should be assigned the responsibility
to oversee the DOD's research and development, acquisition, launch and
operation of its space, intelligence, and information assets.
Recommendation Number 8: ``Assign the Under Secretary the Air Force as
the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office. Designate the Air
Force Under Secretary as the Air Force Acquisition Executive for
Space.'' The Commission recommended the appointment of a single
official within the Air Force with the authority for the acquisition of
space systems for the Air Force and the NRO based on the `best
practices' of each organization. The approach that the Secretary took
was to combine the responsibilities for space that the Commission had
recommended for the Under Secretary of Defense and all of the
responsibilities recommended for the Under Secretary for the Air Force,
and assign them all to the Under Secretary of the Air Force. In
addition, milestone decision for all space acquisition was assigned to
the Under Secretary of the Air Force. At the time many in Congress were
skeptical of this approach but decided to support the decision. Now the
consensus is that this was a good decision, and that progress has been
made in coordinating black and white space programs. Some improvements
have also been made in fixing a space acquisition program that has been
badly broken for the last 10 years. Now DOD is reversing its course,
splitting up the position, and again establishing a separate director
of NRO. What we need to understand is how this will affect the progress
that has been made in the last few years and will the management of
space revert to the problems previously identified by the Commission?
Dr. Sega. Working with both the DOD and NRO staffs over the last
few years, I recognized the many accomplishments and the substantial
progress we have made for the Nation, especially the Warfighter and
Intelligence Community (IC) support to the global war on terrorism,
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The cooperation
between the DOD and IC on the National Security Space Strategy, the
National Security Space Plan, and the National Security Space Program
Assessment helped to build unity of effort across our various agencies.
We are on the way to addressing the problems identified by the
Commission, and, in cooperation with Dr. Kerr, I am confidant that we
will make steady progress.
14. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, with this breakup how will black and
white space integration be maintained?
Dr. Sega. I am committed to integration and alignment of National
Reconnaissance Office and Department of Defense space programs. In
cooperation with Dr. Kerr, we must support both the Director of
National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense on space matters to
achieve unity of effort. We must strive for consistency in planning,
programming, and acquisition processes; application of lessons learned
across the community; coordination of approaches to processing, fusing,
and disseminating information to customers; and building and
maintaining a community of space professionals.
15. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, who will have milestone decision
authority for space acquisition programs?
Dr. Sega. In March of this year, the Under Secretary of Defense
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD/AT&L) redesignated all Air
Force Acquisition Category (ACAT) 1C programs as ACAT 1Ds and in so
doing, assumed Milestone Decision Authority responsibility for space
acquisitions. This action was taken as a result of vacancies in the Air
Force due to the departures of the former Secretary and Under Secretary
of the Air Force.
With my confirmation, the Air Force requested USD/AT&L redesignate
all ACAT 1D space systems as ACAT 1C programs and return Milestone
Decision Authority to the Air Force.
16. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, will there be a single individual with
milestone acquisition decision authority for black and white space?
Dr. Sega. Not to my knowledge.
17. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, will there still be a single approach
to space acquisition?
Dr. Sega. I will need to better understand the different oversight
and policy requirements levied for both the National Reconnaissance
Office (NRO) and Department of Defense (DOD) and how the DOD's National
Security Space Acquisition Policy, 03-01, is aligned with the NRO's
acquisition policy, NRO Directive (NROD) 7. I recognize that it is
important to continue to work together to ensure common practices.
18. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, how will joint programs, such as Space
Radar, or complementary programs be managed?
Dr. Sega. Several organizations are involved in current and future
space acquisition programs including all the military services, Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Management of these programs will
require an assessment on a case-by-case basis. Space radar will be one
of the first ones I review.
19. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, who will assume responsibility for
ensuring that there is not duplication and that there is full
coordination between black and white space?
Dr. Sega. The Nation must avoid duplicative systems. We strive to
make our national security space capabilities more efficient and
effective. Although some duplication is desirable for assuring
capability, I will work closely with Dr. Kerr and the Intelligence
Community to ensure we are integrating and aligning our efforts and
resources. Recurring events such as the Space Partnership Council,
Space Industrial Base Council, and the National Security Space
Stakeholder's meetings expand cooperation and lead to better
understanding of plans and activities in areas of mutual interest.
20. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, who will coordinate space launch
policies?
Dr. Sega. As Under Secretary of the Air Force and Department of
Defense Executive Agent for Space, I will work closely with the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, the Air Force, and other Services, the
National Reconnaissance Office, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and our commercial and industrial partners to
coordinate on space launch policies.
21. Senator Levin. Dr. Sega, will splitting up the position
provide, as the Space Commission realized was urgently needed,
``methods for resolving the inevitable issues between the defense and
intelligence sectors on the priority, funding, and control of space
programs?''
Dr. Sega. I will work with the Director, National Reconnaissance
Office (NRO) to coordinate efforts between Department of Defense (DOD)
and NRO. Over the last couple of years, a variety of management
initiatives have been put in place, such as creating a National
Security Space Vision, a National Security Space Strategy, and a
National Security Space Plan; and collaboratively developing
architectures between NRO and DOD space programs. Our future efforts
should also help ensure that the national security space programs
become more efficient and more effective.
______
[The nomination reference of Ronald M. Sega follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 28, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Ronald M. Sega, of Colorado, to be Under Secretary of the Air
Force, vice Peter B. Teets, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Ronald M. Sega, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Ronald M. Sega
The Honorable Ronald M. Sega, Director of Defense Research and
Engineering (DDR&E), is the chief technical advisor to the Secretary of
Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics (USD-AT&L) for scientific and technical matters, basic
and applied research, and advanced technology development. Dr. Sega
also has management oversight for the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA).
Dr. Sega has had an extensive career in academia, research, and
government service. He began his academic career as a faculty member in
the Department of Physics at the U.S. Air Force Academy. His research
activities in electromagnetic fields led to a Ph.D. in Electrical
Engineering from the University of Colorado. He was appointed as
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 and at the University of Houston as
the Assistant Director of Flight Programs and Program Manager for the
Wake Shield Facility. Dr. Sega became the Dean, College of Engineering
and Applied Science, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs in
1996. Dr. Sega has authored or co-authored over 100 technical
publications and was promoted to Professor in 1990. He is a Fellow of
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), the
Institute for the Advancement of Engineering (IAE), and the Institute
of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE).
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, Russia, in 1994-1995.
Dr. Sega has also been active in the Air Force Reserves. A Command
Pilot in the Air Force with over 4,000 hours, he has served in various
operational flying assignments, including a tour of duty as an
Instructor Pilot. From 1984 to 2001, as a reservists assigned to Air
Force Space Command (AFSPC), he held positions in planning analysis and
operational activities, including Mission Ready Crew Commander for
satellite operations--Global Positioning System (GPS) Defense Support
Program (DSP), and Midcourse Space Experiment (MSX), etc. He was
promoted to the rank of Major General in the Air Force Reserves in July
2001.
______
[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 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:
Under Secretary of the Air Force.
3. Date of nomination:
July 28, 2005.
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, OH.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Ann E. Flemke.
7. Names and ages of children:
Ronald John Sega, age 3.
Matthew Karl Sega, age 2.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of Colorado (08/1979-08/1982) Ph.D. Electrical
Engineering, 1982.
Ohio State University (06/1974-03/1975) M.S. Physics, 1975.
U.S. Air Force Academy (06/1970-06/1974) B.S. Math and Physics,
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.
2001-Present: Director. Defense Research and Enqineering, 3030
Defense Pentagon - RM 3C638, Washington, DC.
1996-2001: Dean, College of Engineering and Applied Science,
Professor (1982-present (on leave of absence)), Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Colorado at Colorado
Springs, CO.
1990-1996: Astronaut, NASA Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Road 1,
Houston, TX.
1982-Present: U.S. Air Force Reserve Officer.
2001-present: Major General, Reserve Assistant (RA) to the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
2000-2001: Major General, Mobilization Assistant (MA) to the
Commander Air Force Space Command (AFSPC).
1998-2000: Brigadier General, MA to the Commander, Space Warfare
Center.
1996-1998: Colonel, RA to the Director, Operations, AFSPC.
1993-1996: Colonel, RA to the Director, Plans, AFSPC.
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 - International Space Station Operations Architecture Study.
Conducted for NASA (MOBIS contract through Computer Sciences
Corporation).
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.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
Association of Space Explorers (ASE).
Eta Kappa Nu.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Order of Daedalians.
Reserve Officer Association (ROA).
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.
Fellow, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA),
2003.
Elected Member, International Society of Astronautics, 2002.
Fellow, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),
2001.
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.
Military Decorations:
Distinguished Service Medal
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 leave
cluster.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
J.R Clifford, R.M. Sega, G.D. Foos and A.A. Throckmorton, ``SEM
Examination of the Au-Al Intermetallic on IC lead Bonds,'' Scanning
Electron Microscopy/I 974, ITT Research Institute, Chicago, IL, 1974.
J.F. Morgan, R.M. Sega, R.J. Schraeder, H.R. Switer and S.L. Blatt,
``3 He-and 4 He-Induced L-subshell Ionization of Gold: Coulomb
Deflection Effects,'' Physical Review cents Volume 16, Number 5,
November 1977.
D.J. Redman, R.M. Sega and R Joseph, ``Alpha Particle-Induced Soft
Errors in Microelectronic Devices, Part One,'' Military Electronics/
Countermeasures, March 1980.
D.J. Redman, R.M. Sega and R. Joseph, ``Alpha Particle-Induced Soft
Errors, Part Two,'' Military Electronics/Countermeasures, April 1980.
R.M. Sega and V.M. Martin, ``Determination of Electromagnetic Wave
Absorption and Reflection Through Thermography,'' The Infrared
Observer, Number 2180, June 1980.
R.W. Burton, R.M. Sega and V.M. Martin, ``Experimental
Determination of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Absorption on Complex
Shapes,'' Proceedings of the Nuclear Electromaqnetic Pulse Meeting (NEM
1980), Anaheim, CA, August 1980.
V.M. Martin, R.M. Sega, C.V. Stewart and R.W. Burton, ``Application
of Infrared Thermography in the Analysis of Induced Surface Currents
due to Incident Electromagnetic (EM) Radiation on Complex Shapes,''
Infrared Systems, SPIE Volume 256, September 1980.
R.M. Sega and R.W. Burton, ``Experimental Determination of
Electromagnetic Energy Absorption on Complex Shapes,'' Proceedings of
the National Radio Science Meetinq (URSI), Boulder, CO, January 1981.
R.M. Sega and V.M. Martin, ``Experimental Determination of
Electromagnetic Energy Absorption on Complex Shapes; A Progress
Report,'' Proceedings of the 1981 International Union of Radio Science
(URSI), Los Angeles, CA, June 1981.
R.M. Sega, V.M. Martin, D.B. Warmuth and R.W. Burton, ``An Infrared
Application to the Detection of Induced Surface Currents,'' Modern
Utilization'' of Infrared Technology VII, SPIE Volume 304, August 1981.
R.M. Sega and R.W. Burton, ``Correlation of Known Surface Current
Values With Measurements Utilizing Infrared Techniques,'' Proceedings
of the National Radio Science Meeting, Boulder, CO, January 1982.
R.M. Sega, C.V. Stewart and R.W. Burton, ``Induced Surface Currents
Obtained Through Infrared Techniques Correlated with Known Values for
Simple Shapes,'' Proceedings of the IEEE Region 5 Conference, Colorado
Springs, CO, May 1982.
R.M. Sega, V.M. Martin and R.W. Burton, ``Microwave Induced Surface
Current Measurement via Infrared Detection,'' 1982 IEEE International
Symposium Digest Antennas and Propagation, Albuquerque, NM, May 1982.
R.M. Sega, ``Infrared Detection of Microwave Induced Surface
Currents on Flat Plates,'' Technical Report RADC-TR-82-308, December
1982.
R.M. Sega and R.W. Burton, ``Surface Current Analysis on Flat
Plates,'' Proceedings of the National Radio Science Meeting, Boulder,
CO, January 1983.
V.M. Martin, R.M. Sega and S.K. Angell, ``Fiber Optic Microwave
Power Probe: A Preliminary Report,'' Fiber Optic and Laser Sensors,
SPIE Volume 412, April 1983.
K.W. Harper, R.W. Burton, J.P. Jackson and R.M. Sega, ``Infrared
Detection of Electromagnetic Field Magnitudes at the Surface of
Irradiated Dielectrics,'' 1983 IEEE International Symposium Digest -
Antennas and Propagation, Houston, TX, May 1983.
J.P. Jackson, D.A. Kelley, R.M. Sega and R.W. Burton,
``Determination of Microwave Induced Resonant Patterns in Symmetrical
Targets by Infrared Detection of Joule Heating,'' Proceedings of the
1983 International Union of Radio Science (URASI) Meeting, Houston, TX,
May 1983.
V.M. Martin, S.K. Angell and R.M. Sega, ``A Fiber Optic Microwave
Power Probe,'' 1983 International IEEE Symposium Digest - Antennas and
Propagation, Houston, TX, May 1983.
R.M. Sega, M.H. Hellbusch, J.P. Jackson, R.W. Burton and V.M.
Martin, ``An Infrared Investigation of Surface Currents on Metal
Plates,'' Proceedinqs of the 1983 International Union of Radio Science
(URSI, Houston, TX, May 1983.
R.M. Sega and G.J. Genello, ``Infrared Thermography Techniques for
EMI/EMC Measurements,'' Proceedings of Electromagnetic Compatibility
1983, Arlington, VA, August 1983.
J.P. Jackson, R.W. Burton and R.M. Sega, ``Thermal Patterns of
Induced Surface Currents on Flat Plates,'' Proceedings of the National
Radio Science Meeting, Boulder, CO, January 1984.
M.T. Avalos and R.M. Sega, ``Optimizing an Electromagnetic Field
Sensor for Microwave Amplitude and Phase Detection via Fiber Optic
Transmission Link,'' 1984 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Svmposium,
San Francisco, CA, May 1984.
R.M. Sega, ``Infrared Detection of Microwave Scattering and
Diffraction,'' Proceedings of the National Radio Science Meeting,
Boston, MA, June 1984.
S.K. Rogers, RM. Sega and S.A. Woods, ``Microwave Measurement for
Wavefront Reconstruction via Infrared Detection,'' Thermosense, SPIE
Volume 520, November 1984.
W.C. Diss and R.M. Sega, ``Techniques for Measuring Microwave
Interference Using Infrared Detection,'' Technical Report, RADC, 1984.
R.M. Sega and C.A. Benkelman, ``Measurement of Antenna Patterns at
94GHz Using Infrared Detection,'' Millimeter Wave Technoloqy III, SPIE
Volume 544, April 1985.
R.M. Sega, ``Infrared Detection of Metallic Surface Currents,''
Final Technical Report, Rome Air Development Center, May 1985.
R.M. Sega and G.D. Wetlaufer, ``Optimizing Thin Magnetic Material
for the Thermographic Detection of Microwave Induced Surface
Currents,'' 1985 North American Radio Science Meeting and International
IEEE/AP-S Symposium, Vancouver, Canada, June 1985.
R.M. Sega and J.D. Norgard, ``An Infrared Measurement Technique for
the Assessment of Electromagnetic Coupling,'' Proceedinqs of the
Nuclear and Space Radiation Effects Conference, Monterey, CA, July
1985.
R.M. Sega, ``Chemical Laser Research on the Iodine Monofluoride
(IF) System,'' Final Technical Report, Air Force Office of Scientific
Research, September 1985.
R.M. Sega and J.D. Norgard, ``An Infrared Measurement Technique for
the Assessment of Electromagnetic Coupling,'' IEEE Transactions on
Nuclear Science. Vol. 32, No. 6, December 1985.
R.M. Sega and J.D. Norgard, ``Infrared Detection of Microwave
Scattering from Cylindrical Structures,'' Proceedings of the National
Radio Science Meeting, Boulder, CO, January 1986.
D.W. Metzger, RM. Sega, J.D. Norgard and P. Bussey, ``Experimental
and Theoretical Techniques for Determining Coupling Through Apertures
in Cylinders,'' 1986 Nuclear Electromaonetic Pulse Meeting,
Albuquerque, NM, May 1986.
J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``Infrared Measurement of Scattering
and Electromagnetic Penetrations Through Apertures,'' Nuclear and Space
Radiation Effects Conference, Providence, RI, July 1986.
``Infrared Diagnostic for High Power Microwave Application,''
Technical Report, Defense Nuclear Agency, October 1986.
C.A. Benkelman, J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``Infrared Measurements
of Millimeter Wave Antenna Patterns,'' GACIAC/IIT Research Institute,
Conference on Millimeter Wave/Microwave Measurements and Standards for
Miniaturized Systems, Huntsville, AL, November 1986.
R.M. Sega, D. Fredal and J.D. Norgard, ``An Infrared Diagnostic
Technique for High Power Microwave Measurements,'' Conference on High
Power Microwave Technology for Defense Applications, Albuquerque, NM,
December 1986.
R.M. Sega and J.D. Norgard, ``Infrared Measurement of Scattering
and Electromagnetic Penetrations through Apertures,'' IEEE Transactions
on Nuclear Science, Vol. NS-33, No. 6, December 1986.
J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``Three-Dimensional Field Determination
of Cavity Resonance and Internal Coupling,'' Proceedings of the
National Radio Science Meetino, Boulder, CO, January 1987.
V.M. Martin, RM. Sega and R. Durham, ``A Fiber Optic Microwave
Power Probe,'' Optical Enoineerino, Volume 26, Number 2, February 1987.
J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``Closed-Form Series-Expansions for the
Quasi-Static Capacitance Matrix of an Insulated Shielded-Pair
Transmission Line,'' Electromaqnetic Compatibility 1987. Proceedings of
the 7th International Zurich Symposium, Switzerland, March 1987.
D. Fredal, R.M. Sega, P. Bussey and J.D. Norgard, ``Hardware and
Software Advancement for Infrared Detection of Microwave Fields,''
Infrared Image Processing and Enhancement, Volume 781, May 1987.
J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``Microwave Fields Determined from
Thermal Patterns,'' Thermal Infrared Sensinq for Diagnostic Control:
Thermosense IX, SPIE Volume 780, May 1987.
R.M. Sega, D. Fredal, and J.D. Norgard, ``Initial Feasibility Tests
of and Infrared Diagnostics for High Power Microwave Applications,''
Proceedings of the 1987 SPIE Symposium, Orlando, FL, May 1987.
J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``Measured Internal Coupled
Electromagnetic Fields Related to Cavity and Aperture Resonance,''
Proceedings of the 1987 NSRE Conference, Snowmass, CO, July 1987.
R.M. Sega and J.D. Norgard, ``Expansion of an Infrared Detection
Technique Using Conductive Mesh in Microwave Shielding Applications,''
Infrared Technology XIII, SPIE Volume 819, August 1987.
J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``Resonant Coupling Through a Slot to a
Loaded Cylindrical Cavity, Part I: Preliminary Experimental Results,''
RADC Technical Report, October 1987.
R.M. Sega, ``A Transient Electromagnetic Detection and Shielding
Study,'' Technical Report to Universal Energy Systems (Air Force Office
of Scientific Research), October 1987.
R.M. Sega, J.D. Norgard and G.J. Genello, ``Measured Internal
Coupled Electromagnetic Fields Related to Cavity and Aperture
Resonance,'' IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol. NS-34, No.6,
December 1987.
D.W. Metzger, R.M. Sega and J.D. Norgard, ``Numerical Calculation
and Experimental Verification of Near Fields from Horns,'' Proceedings
of the National Radio Science Meeting, Boulder, CO, January 1988.
P.E. Bussey, J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``Three-Dimensional
Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Internal Cylindrical Fields
Coupled Through a Slot Aperture,'' Proceedings of the National Radio
Science Meeting, Boulder, CO, January 1988.
J.P. Jackson, E. Arthurs, L.A Schwalbe, R.M. Sega, D. Windish, W.H.
Long and E.A Stappaerts, ``Accelerated Aging of Cellulose by Laser
Irradiation,'' Materials Research Society Symposium, Los Angeles, CA,
March 1988.
R.M. Sega, J.D. Norgard and A.L. Sapp, ``Infrared Images of
Microwave Scattering from a Ferrite Coated Cylinder,'' Thermosense X,
SPIE Volume 934, April 1988 (invited paper).
J. Randa, M. Kanda, D. Melquist, R.M. Sega and J.D. Norgard, ``High
Frequency Electric Field Probe Development,'' IEEE EMC Expo 1988,
Washington, DC, May 1988 (invited paper).
R.M. Sega, J.D. Norgard and M.G. Harrison, ``Infrared Comparisons
of the Electromagnetic Scattering from Conducting and Dielectric
Cylinders,'' Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse Meeting, Menlo Park, CA, May
1988.
D.C. Fromme, R.M. Sega and J.D. Norgard, ``Experimental
Determination of Scattering from E-P0l and H-Pol Slotted Cylinders,''
IEEE AP-S/URSI Symposium, Syracuse, NY, June 1988.
J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``Penetration of Electromagnetic Plane
Waves through Elliptical Apertures in Finite Cylinders,'' Technical
Report, Rome Air Development Center, September 1988.
J.P. Jackson, E. Arthurs, L.A. Schwalbe, R.M. Sega, D.F. Windish,
W.H. Long and E.A. Stappaerts, ``Infrared Laser Heating for Studies of
Cellulose Degradation,'' Applied Optics, Volume 27, Number 18,
September 1988.
R.M. Sega and J.D. Norgard, ``Communication Systems Preliminary
Study,'' Technical Report to the District Attorney, EI Paso County, CO,
October 1988.
R.M. Sega, R. Lawconnel, R. Motes, J. McNally and T. McNeil,
``Laser Ablation Analysis of 1-2-3 Material,'' Science and Technology
of Thin Film Superconductors, Plenum Press, New York, 1988.
D.C. Fromme, R.M. Sega and J.D. Norgard, ``Coupled Electric Field
Distributions of Long Axially Slit Cylinders,'' Proceedings of the
National Radio Science Meeting, Boulder, CO, January 1989.
J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``Measured and Predicted Coupling of
Electromagnetic Radiation into a Cylindrical Cavity through a Small
Aperture,'' Electromagnetic Compatibility 1989. Proceedings of the 8th
International Zurich Symposium, Switzerland, March 1989;
R.M. Sega, J.D. Norgard, D.C. Fromme and K.J. Lanacone, ``Internal
and External Electric Fields Visualization in the 2-5 and 8-14 micron
Bands,'' Thermosense XXI, SPIE, Volume 1094, March 1989.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, D.C. Fromme, D.W. Metzger and K.J.
Lanacone, ``Electromagnetic Code Validation by the Infrared Measurement
Method,'' 5th Annual Review of Progress in Applied Computational
Electromagnetics, March 1989.
A.A. Bensaoula, T. Robin, J. Hughes, J.S. Liu, R. Sega, A. Ignatiev
and A. Bensaoula, ``Deposition of the High Temperature Superconductor
BiSrCaCuO Thin Films,'' 8th Annual Symposium on Electronic Materials,
Processing and Characterization, Richardson, TX, June 1989.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, K.J. Ianacone, M.G. Harrison, T. Pesta and
M. Seifert, ``Scattering Effects of Electric and Magnetic Field
Probes,'' Proceedings of the 1989 NSRE Conference, Marco Island, FL,
July 1989.
J.D. Norgard, D. Metzger, R.M. Sega, M. Pararas, T. Pesta and M.
Seifert, ``Electric and Magnetic Field Probes Measurement Accuracy,''
Proceedings of the Narrow Band (HPM) and Wideband RF Propaaation I
Phenomenology/Methocjology Workshop, Livermore, CA, October 1989.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, K.J. Ianacone, M.G. Harrison, T. Pesta,
and M. Seifert, ``Scattering Effects of Electric and Magnetic Field
Probes,'' IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol. NS-36, No. 6,
December 1989.
M. Smith, R.M. Sega, J.D. Norgard, ``Infrared Detection of
Electromagnetic Penetration through Narrow Slots in a Planar Conducting
Surface,'' Proceedings of the National Radio Science Meeting, Boulder,
CO, January 1990.
J.D. Norgard, J.R Curry and R.M. Sega, ``Three-Dimensional Cavity
IEMP,'' Hardened Electronics and Radiation Technology Conference,
Monterey, CA, February 1990.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M.G. Harrison, T. Pesta, and M. Seifert,
``Scattering Effects of Electric & Magnetic Field Probes,'' Proceedings
of the HPM Symposium, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA,
February 1990.
A. Ignatiev, R. Sega and H.D. Shih, ``Thin Film Semiconductors and
their Growth in the Ultra-Vacuum of Space,'' Space 1990 Conference,
Montreau, Switzerland, March 1990.
J.L. Wosik, T. Robin, M.F. Davis, J.C. Wolfe, K. Forster, S.
Deshumukh, A. Bensaoula, R. Sega, D. Economu and A. Ignatiev,
``Dependence of Millimeter-wave Surface Resistance on Deposition
Parameters of Laser Ablated
YBa2Cu3O6+ cents,'' Proceedings of the
2nd Conference on the Science and Technology of Thin Film
Superconductors, Denver, CO, April 1990.
R.M. Sega, J.D. Norgard and M.G. Harrison, ``Determination of
Electromagnetic Field Distributions using IR Focal Plane Arrays,''
Proceedings of the Nuclear Electromagnetics Conference, Albuquerque,
NM, May 1990.
J.D. Norgard, D.W. Metzger, R.M. Sega, M. Seifert and T. Pesta,
``HPM Field Sensors - Probe Measurement Accuracy,'' Proceedings of the
1990 HPM Technology Conference, West Point, NY, June 1990.
D.C. Fromme, R.M. Sega and J.D. Norgard, ``Correlation of Infrared
Measurement Results of Coupled Fields in Long Cylinders with a Dual
Series Solution,'' Proceedings of the 1990 NSRE Conference, Reno,
Nevada, July 1990.
J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``B-Dot Probe Measurements,'' RADC-TR-
90-289, November 1990.
J.D. Norgard, D.C. Fromme and R.M. Sega, ``Correlation of Infrared
Measurement Results of Coupled Fields in Long Cylinders with a Dual
Series Solution,'' IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol. NS-37,
No. 6, December 1990.
A. Ignatiev, R. Sega and T. Banner, ``Space Vacuum Processing,''
29th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA 91-0310, Reno, NV, January 1991.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M.G. Harrison and H.H. Pohle, ``Infrared
Focal Plane Arrays for Microwave/Millimeter Wave Electric Field
Diagnostics,'' Proceedings of the High Power Electromagnetics
Technology Symposium, Albuquerque, NM, May 1991.
R.M. Sega and A. Ignatiev, ``A Space Ultra-Vacuum Experiment--
Application to Material Processing,'' Proceedings of the AIAAIIKI
Microgravity Science Symposium, Moscow, USSR, May 1991.
R.M. Sega, A. Ignatiev and T.F. Banner, ``The Wake Shield Facility
as a Free-Flyer,'' Proceedings of the 16th Annual AIAA Technical
Symposium, Houston, TX, June 1991.
R.M. Sega, ``Advanced Data Acquisition, Processing and Transmission
Center (ADAPT-C),'' Technical Monograph, Air War College, Maxwell AFB,
AL, June 1991.
C.R. Justiz and R.M. Sega, ``A Fully Coupled Flow Simulation around
Spacecraft in near Earth Orbit,'' Proceedings of the 21st Fluid
Dynamics, Plasma Dynamics, and Lasers Conference, AIAA 91-1 500,
Honolulu, HI, June 1991.
J.D. Norgard, D.W. Metzger, R.M. Sega, J. Cleary and M. Seifert,
``Infrared/Microwave Correlation Measurements,'' Proceedings of the
1991 SPIE Symposium, San Diego, CA, July 1991.
D.W. Metzger, J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``Near Field Patterns
from Pyramidal Horn Antennas: Numerical Calculation and Experimental
Verification,'' IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
Volume 33, Number 3, August 1991.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M.G. Harrison and H.H. Pohle, ``Infrared
Focal Plane Arrays for Electric Field Diagnostics,'' Proceedings of the
National Radio Science Winter Meeting (URSI), Boulder, CO, January
1992.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M.G. Harrison and H.H. Pohle, ``Mutual
Magnetic Coupling Effects in Multi-Transmission Line Codes,''
Proceedings of the HEART Conference, Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, NM, February 1992.
R.M. Sega, ``Considerations for Design of Telerobotic Space
Systems--Application to a Hand Controller Study,'' AIAA Space Programs
and Technologies Conference, AIAA 92-1448, Huntsville, AL, March 1992.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M.G. Harrison, M. Seifert and J. Cleary,
``Infrared Detection of Free-Field and Cavity Perturbations of
Electromagnetic Probe Measurements,'' Thermosense XIV: Thermal Sensing
and Imaqing Diagnostics Applications, SPIE, Orlando, FL, April 1992.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M.G. Harrison and H.H. Pohle, ``Cross
Sectional & Longitudinal Energy Distributions of Electromagnetic Fields
Coupled through Rectangular Apertures in Cylindrical Waveguide
Cavities,'' Proceedinqs of the International Microwave Symposium,
Albuquerque, NM, June 1992.
C.R Justiz, R.M. Sega and C. Dalton, ``A Hybrid Flow Model for
Charged and Neutral Particles Around Spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit,''
AIAA 27th Thermophysics Conference, AIAA 92-2935, Nashville, TN, July
1992.
J.D. Norgard, D.W. Metzger, R.M. Sega, M.G. Harrison, R.J. Komar,
H.H. Pohle, A. Schmelzel, M.D. Smith, J.J. Stupic, M. Seifert and J.
Cleary, ``Infrared Measurements of Electromagnetic Fields,''
Proceedings of the Eurotherm Seminar 27, ChatenayMalabry, France, July
1992.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M.G. Harrison and H.H. Pohle, ``Infrared
Mapping of Transient Electromagnetic Fields Radiated by High Power
Microwave Pulsed Sources,'' Proceedings of the 1992 Nuclear and Space
Radiation Effects Conference (NSRC), New Orleans, LA, July 1992.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M.G. Harrison and H.H. Pohle, ``Infrared
Determination of Electromagnetic Fields Coupled through Longitudinal &
Transverse Slot Apertures in Cylindrical Cavities,'' Proceedings of the
1992 Joint IEEE-APS, URSI & Nuclear EMP Symposia, Chicago, IL, July
1992.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega and R.L. Musselman, ``Frequency Independent
Interferometry,'' Proceedings of the 1992 Joint IEEE-APS. URSI &
Nuclear EMP Symposia, Chicago, IL, July 1992.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M.G. Harrison and H.H. Pohle, ``Infrared
Mapping of Transient Electromagnetic Fields Radiated by High Power
Microwave Pulsed Sources,'' IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol.
NS-39, No. 6, December 1992.
J.D. Norgard, D.W. Metzger, R.M. Sega and M.G. Harrison, ``Infrared
Measurements of Electromagnetic Fields,'' Journal of Societe Francaise
Thermiciens, Editions Europeennes Thermique et Industrie, Revue
Generale de Thermique, December 1992.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, A. Matini, M.G. Harrison, ``Infrared
Detection of Magnetic Fields,'' National Radio Science Meeting (URSI),
Boulder, CO, January 1993.
C. Justiz, R Sega, C. Dalton, A. Ignatiev, ``Return Flux
Contamination of an Outgassing Spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit,'' 31st
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA 93-0725, Reno, NV, January 1993.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega and M.G. Harrison, ``Efficient
Electromagnetic Test Technology using Infrared Imaging Methods,''
Proceedings of the Test Technology Symposium VI, Laurel, Maryland,
March 1993.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega and M.G. Harrison, ``The Capacitance Matrix
& Surface Charge Distributions of a Shielded Twisted Pair Cable Using a
Quasi-Static Perturbational Method,'' Proceedings of the EMC/Zurich
Symposium, Zurich, Switzerland, March 1993.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, A. Matini and M.G. Harrison, ``Absorbing
Screens for Infrared Detection of Surface Currents,'' Proceedings of
the Thermosense XV International Conference, Orlando, FL, April 1993.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, E. Bacca, J.J. Sadler, W. Prather,
``Infrared Measurements of Electromagnetic Fields in a Compact,
Efficient Circular Waveguide Microwave Antenna using a Combined Mode
Converter/Radiator,'' Proceedings of the APS/URSI Radio Science
Meeting, Ann Arbor, MI, June 1993.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, J.J. Sadler and W. Prather, ``Infrared
Measurements of Electromagnetic Fields,'' Proceedings of the PIERS
Symposium, Pasadena, CA, July 1993.
J.D. Norgard, J.J. Sadler, R.M. Sega, E. Baca and W. Prather,
``Infrared Measurements of Electromagnetic Fields in Shaped-End
Circular Waveguide Microwave Antennas,'' National Radio Science Meeting
(URSI), Boulder, CO, January 1994.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, J.J. Sadler, ``Infrared Measurements of
Waveguide Modes and Radiation Patterns of Beveled-Cut Shaped-End
Microwave Antennas,'' Proceedings of the Thermosense XVI International
Conference, Orlando, FL, April 1994.
J.D. Norgard, J.J. Sadler, R.M. Sega and W. Prather, ``Infrared
Images of Scattered Electromagnetic Fields from Scale Model Aircraft,''
Proceedinhs of the EURO Electromagnetics/NEM/HPEM International
Symposium, Bordeaux, France, May 1994.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M. Seifert and T. Pesta, ``Infrared Images
of Electromagnetic Fields,'' Proceedings of the Dual-Use Technology
Conference, Uthica, NY, May 1994.
C. Justiz, A. Ignatiev and R. Sega, ``The Wake Shield Flight
Experiment Preliminary Results of Shuttle Flight One,'' 19th Rarefied
Gas Dynamics Conference, Oxford, England, June 1994.
J.D. Norgard and R.M. Sega, ``High Power Microwave (HPM) Antenna
Design Using Infrared Imaging Techniques,'' Proceedings of the
Quantitative Infrared Technoloqy Symposium, Sorrento, Italy, June 1994.
C.R. Justiz, R.M. Sega and C. Dalton, ``A Method for Near Field
Computation of Coupled Weakly Ionized Plasma Flows in Low Earth
Orbit,'' Journal of Computational Physics, 118, October 1994.
C.R. Justiz, R.M. Sega, C. Dalton and A. Ignatiev, ``DSMC- and BGK-
Based Calculations for Return Flux Contamination of an Outgassing
Spacecraft,'' Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Volume 8,
Number 4, October-December 1994.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M. Seifert and A. Pesta, ``Measurements of
Absolute Electromagnetic Field Magnitudes Using Infrared Thermograms,''
National Radio Science Meetinq (URSI), Boulder, CO, January 1995.
M. Desai, R. Forrest, C. Horton, A. Ignatiev, M. Sterling, J.
Strozier, C. Justiz, and R.M. Sega, ``Vacuum and Flow Field Results
from the Wake Shield Facility Flight Experiment,'' American Institute
of Physics Conference Proceedings 325, Albuquerque, NM, January 1995.
R.M. Sega, J.D. Norgard and S.M. Hill, ``Electromagnetic
Interference in the Attitude Control System of the Wake Shield Facility
- A Space Shuttle Experiment,''Proceedings of the 11th International
EMC/Zurich Symposium, Switzerland, March 1995.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M. Seifert, A. Pesta and T. Blocher,
``Code Validation of Aircraft Scattering Parameters Using IR
Thermograms,'' ACES Conference, Monterey, CA, March 1995.
R.M. Sega, ``Comparison of the U.S. and Russian Extravehicular
Activity Suits as Evaluated in their. Respective Underwater Training
Facilities,'' Internal NASA Report, April 1995.
J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, M. Seifert and A. Pesta, ``Absolute
Calibration of IR Thermograms,'' SPIE/Thermosense XVII International
Conference, Orlando, FL, April 1995.
R.M. Sega, ``Operations in Star City, Russia--Supporting the Joint
U.S./Russian Space Program,'' Internal NASA Report, May 1995.
A. Ignatiev, M. Sterling, T. Bonner, W. Creasy and R. Sega, ``The
Wake Shield Facility: A Space Platform for the Use of the Ultra-Vacuum
of Space,'' AIAA 1995 Space Proqrams and Technologies Conference,
Huntsville, AL, September 1995.
J.E. Will, J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, C.F. Stubenrauch, K.
MacReynolds, and M. Siefert, ``Complex Antenna Pattern Measurements
using Infrared Imaging and Microwave Holography,'' National Radio
Science Meeting (URSI), Boulder, CO, January 1996.
A. Ignatiev, R. Sega, A. Bensaoula, S. Brock, N. Combs, A.
Freundlich, C. Horton, S. Pel and M. Sterling, ``III-V Compound
Semiconductor Film Growth in Low Earth Orbit on the Wake Shield
Facility,'' American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings,
Albuquerque, NM, January 1996.
J.E. Will, J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, C.F. Stubenrauch, K.
MacReynolds, and M.F. Seifert, ``Complex Antenna Pattern Measurements
Using Infrared Imaging and Microwave Holography,'' URSI Winter Meeting
(U of Colorado), Boulder, CO, January 1996.
J.E. Will, J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, C.F. Stubenrauch, K.
MacReynolds, and M.F. Seifert, ``Phase Measurements of Electromagnetic
Fields using Infrared Imaging Techniques and Microwave Holography,''
SPIE/Thermosense XVII International Conference, Orlando, FL, April
1996.
J.E. Will, J.D. Norgard, C.F. Stubenrauch, K. MacReynolds, M.F.
Seifert, and R.M. Sega, ``Near-Field Phase Reconstruction Using Plane-
to-Plane Iterative Fourier Processing and Infrared Thermograms of
Electromagnetic Fields,'' AMEREM/HPEM/NEM Conference, Albuquerque, NM,
May 1996.
J.E. Will, J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, A. Pesta, J. Cleary, C.F.
Stubenrauch, and Katie MacReynolds, ``Near-Field to Far-Field Antenna
Pattern Measurements Using Infrared Imaging and Microwave Holography
Techniques,'' Dual-Use Technologies & Applications Conference, Syracuse
University, Syracuse, NY, June 1996.
J.D. Norgard, J.E. Will, R.M. Sega, C.F. Stubenrauch, K.
MacReynolds, and M. Seifert, ``Complex Electromagnetic Magnitude and
Phase Measurements using Infrared Imaging and Microwave Holography,''
PIERS Conference, Innsbruck, Austria, July 1996.
J.D. Norgard, J.E. Will, C.F. Stubenrauch, K. MacReynolds, M.F.
Seifert, and R.M. Sega, ``Complex Near-Field Antenna Measurements Using
Infrared (IR) Thermograms,'' ANTEM Conference, Montreal, Canada, August
1996.
J.D. Norgard, J.E. Will, C.F. Stubenrauch, K. MacReynolds, M.F.
Seifert, and R.M. Sega, ``Infrared (IR) Imaging Techniques for the
Measurement of the Magnitude of Complex Near-Field Antenna Patterns,''
QIRT Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 1996.
J.D. Norgard, J.E. Will, C.F. Stubenrauch, K. MacReynolds, M.F.
Seifert, and R.M. Sega, ``Infrared (IR) Imaging Techniques for the
Measurement of the Magnitude of Complex Near-Field Antenna Patterns,''
AMTA Conference, Seattle, WA, October 1996.
C.L. Enlow, D.L. Cooke, W.A. Pakula, M.D. Violet, D.A. Hardy, C.B.
Chaplin, RK. Kirkwood, M.F. Tautz, N. Bonito, C. Roth, G. Courtney,
V.A. Davis, M.J. Mandell, D.E. Hastings, G.B. Shaw, G. Giffin, and R.M.
Sega, ``High-Voltage Interaction in Plasma Wakes: Results from the
Charging Hazards and Wake Studies (CHAWS) Flight Experiments,'' Journal
of Geophysical Research, Vol. 102, No. AI, Pages 425-433, January 1,
1997.
J.E. Will, J.D. Norgard, R.M. Sega, C.F. Stubenrauch, K.
MacReynolds, and M.F. Seifert, ``Phaseless Measurements of Antenna Near
Fields from Infrared Images Using Holographic Phase Retrieval
Techniques,'' SPIE/Thermosense XVII International Conference, Orlando,
FL, April 1997.
J.D. Norgard, J.E. Will, C.F. Stubenrauch, K. MacReynolds, M.F.
Seifert, and R.M. Sega, ``Infrared Imaging of the Magnitude of Complex
Near-Field Antenna Patterns,'' MTT Symposium, Denver, CO, June 1997.
J.E. Will, J.D. Norgard, C.F. Stubenrauch, K. MacReynolds, M.F.
Seifert, and R.M. Sega, ``Infrared Imaging of the Phase of Complex
Near-Field Antenna Patterns,'' MTT Symposium, Denver, CO, June 1997.
J. Cox, R Sieck, W. Rice, C. Shelly, R Sega, F. Kurtz, W.
Whittington et ai, ``International Space Station Operations
Architecture Study,'' Final Report to NASA, August 2000.
R.M. Sega, ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,'' ITEA
Journal of Test and Evaluation, June/July 2003.
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.
Many presentations on Defense research and engineering (R&E)
topics, primarily to technical audiences. Some examples:
NDIA 6th Annual Science and Engineering Tech
Conference
Test Week 2005--Test and Evaluation Conference
National Space Symposium
Precision Strike Conference
DARPA TECH Conference
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, 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.
Ronald M. Sega.
This 1st day of July 2005.
[The nomination of Ronald M. Sega was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on July 29, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Phillip Jackson Bell by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. Almost two decades 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 implementation of the Goldwater-
Nichols reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe that implementation of these reforms has been
successful and consistent with congressional intent.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The definition of joint warfighting commands with joint
combat support and combat service support organizations is proving to
be extremely important in our current warfighting environment. In
addition, the placement of the acquisition and logistics policy
functions under the control of civilian leadership strengthens the
acquisition and logistics community's effectiveness in delivering the
capabilities required by the joint warfighters.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special
Operations reforms can be summarized as strengthening civilian control
over the military; 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; enhancing the effectiveness of
military operations; and improving the management and administration of
the Department of Defense (DOD).
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, and I believe the Department is achieving those goals.
Question. Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend
Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe
it might be necessary to address in these proposals?
Answer. I have not considered any prospective legislative changes.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee to determine
if legislative proposals may be appropriate.
DUTIES
Question. Section 133b of title 10, United States Code, and DOD
Directive 5134.12, provide that the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Logistics and Materiel Readiness is to serve as the principal
advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) and the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of
Defense on logistics and materiel readiness in the Department of
Defense. Additionally, among other responsibilities, the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness is the
principal logistics official within the senior management of the
Department of Defense.
If confirmed as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics
and Materiel Readiness, what would you view as your principal
responsibilities to the Secretary of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I would fulfill the statutory
responsibilities of being the principal advisor on logistics and
materiel readiness issues to the Secretary and the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and serving as the
principal logistics official within the senior management of the DOD.
In this capacity, I would monitor and review all logistics,
maintenance, materiel readiness, strategic mobility, and sustainment
support programs.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what other duties do you
expect that the Secretary would prescribe for you?
Answer. I do not know at this time what additional duties the
Secretary might prescribe.
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 believe my experience in both the public and private
sector qualifies me to perform the duties of this position.
In my current position, I am engaged in efforts relating to the
logistics and material readiness programs in Iraq and elsewhere. Some
of these efforts relate to, LOGCAP contracts and IRRF contract
management activities. The Army has transitioned from a peace-time
``Cold War'' logistics and material readiness system through a start-up
phase of military operations, to a phase of sustained support of our
military forces on a war-time footing. On a more strategic level, I am
participating in efforts to integrate logistics and acquisition efforts
through such programs as life cycle management.
In my position as Chief of Staff of the State Department's
Afghanistan Reconstruction Group, I invested a significant amount of
time working with both U.S. Government agencies and with Government of
Afghanistan senior officials to address supply chain management
problems that were creating obstacles and adding significant costs to
our reconstruction efforts in that country.
Most of my private sector career over the last 30 years has focused
on strategic transformations of large, complex organizations that
depend on effective logistics and material readiness programs for their
survival and success. Several are significant logistics partners with
some of the largest companies in the world, as well as supporting the
important DOD logistics efforts. I was CFO of the largest railroad in
the U.S. when we began testing bar code and RFID shipment tracking
technology, and served as the lead official on aircraft acquisitions in
major airlines and was well versed on the issues of CRAF fleet
operations.
Equally important, private sector companies are applying and
evolving ``Best Management Practices'' (BMP) in the logistics and
material readiness area that DOD seeks to adopt in its business
transformation efforts.
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 believe I am prepared to commence these duties if
confirmed.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. If confirmed, what would your relationship be with:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I would serve as the principal advisor to the
Secretary of Defense on logistics and materiel readiness in the DOD.
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 Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Answer. If confirmed, I would serve as the principal advisor to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
on logistics and materiel readiness in the Department of Defense, and
would also perform such duties relating to logistics and materiel
readiness as the Under Secretary assigns. Those duties include
monitoring and reviewing all logistics, maintenance, materiel
readiness, and sustainment support programs within the Department of
Defense, in accordance with applicable DOD policies.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness.
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness so we can both carry out our
statutory obligations relating to readiness.
Question. The Director for Logistics (J4), the Joint Staff.
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Director for
Logistics (J4), the Joint Staff, would be based on my role as principal
advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on logistics and materiel
readiness in the Department of Defense, and his role as principal
advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on logistics and
materiel readiness. If confirmed, I would need to work with him as well
as the U.S. Transportation Command Commander to identify and implement
more cost effective approaches to logistics and materiel readiness.
Question. The Director for Operational Plans and Joint Force
Development (J7), the Joint Staff.
Answer. If confirmed, I would coordinate and exchange information
with the Director for Operational Plans and Joint Force Development,
the Joint Staff, to ensure that DOD logistics and materiel readiness
policies are coordinated with operational planning and joint force
development requirements.
Question. The Director for Force Structure, Resources, and
Assessment (J8), the Joint Staff.
Answer. If confirmed, I would coordinate and exchange information
with the Director for Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment (J8),
to ensure DOD logistics and materiel readiness policies are coordinated
with force structure and resource requirements.
Question. Commander, U.S. Transportation Command.
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to work closely with the
Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, to ensure a seamless
distribution process to meet warfighter requirements.
Question. The Defense Logistics Agency.
Answer. If confirmed, I would exercise authority, direction, and
control over the Defense Logistics Agency through its Director.
Question. The Army Materiel Command.
Answer. If confirmed, I would coordinate and exchange information
with the Commanding General, Army Materiel Command, to ensure DOD
logistics and materiel readiness policies are coordinated with Army
materiel requirements.
Question. The Naval Sea Systems Command.
Answer. If confirmed, I would coordinate and exchange information
with the Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, to ensure DOD logistics
and materiel readiness policies are coordinated with Navy materiel
requirements.
Question. The Naval Air Systems Command.
Answer. If confirmed, I would coordinate and exchange information
with the Commander, Naval Air Systems Command, to ensure DOD logistics
and materiel readiness policies are coordinated with Navy materiel
requirements.
Question. The Marine Corps Systems Command.
Answer. If confirmed, I would coordinate and exchange information
with the Commander, Marine Corps Systems Command, to ensure DOD
logistics and materiel readiness policies are coordinated with Marine
materiel requirements.
Question. The Air Force Materiel Command.
Answer. If confirmed, I would coordinate and exchange information
with the Commander, Air Force Materiel Command, to ensure DOD logistics
and materiel readiness policies are coordinated with Air Force materiel
requirements.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel
Readiness?
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate that the major challenges would
be:
(1) providing to our engaged forces the most effective
support possible within the resources provided by Congress;
(2) improving the cost-effectiveness of DOD logistics and
material readiness efforts; and
(3) integrating strategic logistics planning with acquisition
strategies and programs.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would plan to:
(1) accelerate ongoing actions to improve asset and cost
visibility across our support structure;
(2) work closely with other key organizations to identify and
implement supply chain improvement; and
(3) work with DLA, the U.S. Transportation Command, and the
Military Departments to implement a logistics performance
improvement effort, focused on customer outcomes and cost
effectiveness.
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS LOGISTICS CHALLENGES
Question. A number of supply distribution problems occurred during
the beginning phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom. These problems, which
included limited asset visibility, a shortage of ground transportation
vehicles, limited communications, and in-theater distribution
difficulties, constrained the ability of the DOD to provide effective
and timely logistics support to the warfighter.
Based on your experience as a member of the Army leadership, what
did you observe as the top logistics challenges in support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom?
Answer. Army logistics soldiers moved forces farther and faster
than during any War in history and should be commended for their
support of OIF. As a result of several factors--this rapid tactical
progress, operations in a difficult environment and asymmetric tactical
threats, and the changing nature of tactical operations--the Army has
faced challenges during OIF. Early on, information flow for
logisticians was inadequate in locating and identifying critical
supplies and parts. The lack of a reliable joint service database in
the tactical supply chain caused major breaks in asset visibility and
continuity of support. Next, supply and distribution chains were
segmented, with multiple owners, aged systems and sometimes
incompatible processes. This contributed to either not having the right
supplies at the right place or being unable to respond with precision.
Question. What solutions would you propose, for the near term and
beyond, to ensure a more seamless flow of equipment and supplies from
factory to foxhole in support of contingency operations and the global
war on terrorism?
Answer. The development of joint logistics capabilities, including
integrated databases and effective tracking systems is key to providing
efficient logistics support. Programs to improve procurement and
distribution surge capabilities are critical in supporting a fast
changing tactical environment. Finally, we need to develop more
responsive life cycle management programs geared to support the
requirements of ongoing tactical operations.
DEGRADATION OF EQUIPMENT READINESS DUE TO OPERATIONS TEMPO
Question. The committee has received testimony from senior DOD
officials and the military services citing the effects of operations
tempo on the materiel readiness of equipment deployed in support of
contingency operations.
What is your understanding of the extent to which current
operations are impacting the service life of major equipment items?
Answer. A number of factors involved in current operations are
impacting the service life of major equipment items. The operations
tempo is one. Others include the unusually harsh operational
environment and the need to up-armor vehicles, the additional weight of
which is accelerating the degradation of equipment performance, and
deterioration of components.
Question. If confirmed, what would your approach be to regenerating
materiel readiness that has been degraded by operations tempo?
Answer. If confirmed, I would lead efforts to ensure that repair
and maintenance requirements are adequately forecasted and defined,
that comprehensive planning and parts provisioning is done, and that
programs are properly resourced and managed. I would also work to
ensure that accurate, timely information is flowing regarding materiel
readiness and maintenance procedures are streamlined to reduce cycle
time.
BALANCED SCORECARD AND LOGISTICS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Question. The Defense Department's logistics leadership has adopted
the Balanced Scorecard concept as one of the important components of
logistics performance management. The process of adapting and
implementing the Balanced Scorecard in the Department of Defense is
almost 2 years old.
In your view, what are the benefits of the Balanced Scorecard for
logistics performance management?
Answer. The Balanced Scorecard benefits logistics performance
management by allowing us to focus on results oriented metrics in
primary areas. This approach will enable us to better assess how
effectively and efficiently we are supporting the warfighter.
Question. Do you believe that implementation of the Balanced
Scorecard in the Department of Defense can be accelerated?
Answer. Yes, and if confirmed I will work toward acceleration.
CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Question. Congress and the Department of Defense have significantly
increased emphasis on the prevention and management of corrosion in
equipment and materiel of the services. Actions to address corrosion
challenges include establishment of a central corrosion program
management office and the institutionalization of corrosion prevention
and mitigation as a key component of the Department's Planning,
Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process.
What is your understanding of the challenge to the readiness of the
military services as a result of corrosion in equipment and materiel
and the extent to which the services are coordinating their efforts.
Answer. Corrosion is one of several factors contributing to
degrading operational readiness. While severe operational environments
cannot be avoided, efforts to minimize or mitigate corrosion are
important. The recent formation of the DOD Corrosion Policy and
Oversight Office (and the associated Corrosion Prevention and Control
Integrated Product Team (CPCIPT)) is greatly improving the coordination
of anti-corrosion effort among the services.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your relationship with the
director of the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office?
Answer. I would continue L&MR's close relationship with the
director of the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office. The ADUSD/
Materiel Readiness and Maintenance Policy coordinates with the director
frequently, has him brief corrosion requirements and status during
Materiel Readiness Senior Steering Group (MRSSG) meetings, and has a
senior staff member as an active member of the CPCIPT.
Question. If confirmed, how would you assess the implementation and
effectiveness of corrosion prevention and control efforts in programs
under your purview and, working with other responsible officials,
address identified areas of concern?
Answer. If confirmed, I would lead L&MR efforts to identify
corrosion mitigation improvements such as identifying changes needed in
parts design, material and manufacture, and preventive maintenance
procedures to mitigate corrosive effects.
RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION
Question. Congress has supported the DOD's Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) program in order to improve the visibility and
identification of, and access to, equipment and supplies.
What experience and familiarity do you have with RFID technologies
and their implementation?
Answer. As indicated earlier, I was the CFO of the largest railroad
in the U.S. during the time testing was undertaken on both bar coding
and RFID technologies for shipment tracking. The superiority of RFID
was demonstrated early for external markings on cars, containers, and
modular packages on shipments, while bar coding remained more cost
effective for individual piece parts not exposed to outdoor conditions.
More recent developments in passive RFID technology offer significant
improvements in the cost effectiveness of this technology.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
standardized training on the use of RFID and other tracking
technologies is being provided to all necessary military and civilian
logistics personnel?
Answer. RFID is an evolving technology which holds great promise
for the Department of Defense. DOD has been using active RFID on an ad
hoc basis for the last 12 years, and like our commercial counterparts,
DOD has just begun implementation of passive RFID technology. As with
any new and/or emerging technology, the true benefit is derived from
standardizing this enabling technology platform across the services.
DOD's July 30, 2004 RFID policy sets the parameters for standard
implementation of both active and passive RFID across the Department,
and provides the foundation to ensure that DOD will reap the full
benefits of RFID.
If confirmed, I would lead efforts to ensure implementation of RFID
technology across the services and to ensure that adequate training is
provided to successfully implement RFID technologies.
DATA VALIDATION FOR DEPOT MAINTENANCE PUBLIC-PRIVATE WORKLOAD
DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Question. Section 2466 of title 10 U.S. Code directs the Secretary
of Defense to submit a report to Congress by April 1 of each year
outlining the percent distribution of depot-level maintenance and
repair workload between the public and private sectors for the
preceding fiscal year and the projected distribution for the current
and ensuing physical years. One of the continuing problems noted in the
preparation of this report is the validity and accuracy of data
submitted by the services. As a result, the actual percentage of work
completed at public depots is less than what is reported by the
department in some cases.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure the accuracy of
DOD public-private workload distribution reporting?
Answer. If confirmed, I would accelerate efforts to ensure timely
and accurate reporting in compliance with Section 2466.
FLEET READINESS CENTER INITIATIVE
Question. The Secretary of Dfense's proposed base closure and
realignment actions include a recommendation which permits the Navy to
establish aviation Fleet Readiness Centers. These centers would
integrate intermediate and depot maintenance levels.
What challenges, if any, does the establishment of Navy aviation
FRCs present for the Department in the accounting and reporting of
depot level work under the provisions of 10 USC 2466, and how would you
address those challenges if confirmed?
Answer. Section 2466 states that not more than 50 percent of the
total depot maintenance and repair funding for each Military Department
or Defense Agency may be used to contract for performance by non-
Federal Government personnel. The implementation of Fleet Readiness
Centers (FRC) should not directly impact 2466 in the near term. Federal
Government personnel would still perform at least 50 percent of the
depot level work regardless of where that work is performed within an
FRC or one of the FRC sites. It is anticipated that the challenges, if
any, will involve the budgeting and reporting of depot maintenance
workload under the FRC construct. If confirmed, I would work closely
with the Navy to ensure they have a disciplined reporting mechanism in
place to meet 10 USC 2466 requirements.
REFUELING AIRCRAFT
Question. In September, 2004, the Commander of the U.S.
Transportation Command grounded 29 KC-135E aerial refueling aircraft
because these aircraft had not received an extended interim repair of
the engine struts. The cost of the extended interim repair of the
struts for these aircraft is estimated to be $8.4 million for all 29
aircraft.
What role do you believe the Office of the Secretary of Defense
should play in monitoring situations, such as this one, that could have
long-term, negative impacts on needed aerial refueling capabilities?
Answer. I believe the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Logistics and Materiel Readiness should monitor, review and assess the
strategic policy implications of all logistics, maintenance, materiel
readiness, and sustainment support programs in the Department of
Defense.
Question. Do you believe the Office of the Secretary of Defense
should become more involved in inventory management and depot loading
for systems critical to national security?
Answer. If you mean day-to-day management decisions regarding
inventory management or depot loading, that is the responsibility of
the military service and in some cases, the Defense Logistics Agency.
However, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is responsible for
overall management, integration, and direction of Defense logistics
systems to include monitoring operational capabilities and performance
for critical systems and for identifying corrective actions needed.
OUTSOURCING OF MILITARY MAIL OPERATIONS
Question. The efficiency of DOD systems for delivery of U.S. mail
to and from overseas locations has frequently come under criticism. In
2000, following a 2-year review of military postal operations, the DOD
Military Postal Service (MPS) concluded that ``much, if not all, of the
MPS mission could potentially be outsourced.'' Private contractors with
in depth experience in logistics/supply chain visibility and security
have asserted that outsourcing of overseas military mail operations
can, in time, yield enormous savings in manpower and costs, as well as
improved mail service. Additionally, the vulnerability of military mail
as a means of potential terrorist attacks on military personnel is a
matter of importance that the committee has addressed in section 1061
of S. 1042, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006.
Question. What is your assessment of the feasibility and potential
savings associated with ``outsourcing'' of military mail functions to
private contractors?
Answer. Important parts of the existing military postal system are
already outsourced. Important transportation links of the system are
already outsourced as well. Major mail processing activities in a
number of facilities are outsourced to perform duties such as mail
processing, loading/unloading of vehicles and aircraft, and redirection
of mail for units that moved. However, consideration of outsourcing of
operations must proceed carefully, because there is a complex array of
laws and regulations that govern the operation of the military postal
system.
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. I will always be prepared to offer my best professional
judgment.
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 Logistics and Materiel 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 James M. Inhofe
DEPOT MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT FUND
1. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Sega, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Anderson, since the
Bush administration came into office, we have seen a renewed interest
in the Air Force's depots. A key to this overall reinvigoration has
been the Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan that will ensure
America's air and space assets are ready to rapidly respond to any
national security threat. Because of this plan, we have begun a
restoration of our Air Force's three depot facilities, one of which is
located at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. This modernization will
ensure the United States is able to maintain world-class aircraft
repair and overhaul facilities. Tinker Air Force Base is the largest
single employer in the State of Oklahoma. It is important to sustain
and upgrade Tinker's facilities and equipment along with that of the
other depot facilities. There is currently an amendment that I support
which calls for full funding of the Depot Maintenance Strategy and
Master Plan at a level of $150 million a year, over a 6-year period.
Secretary Gibbs supported fully funding the Depot Maintenance
Improvement Fund. Do you have any concerns about sufficiently funding
the Improvement Fund at the same percentage level as Secretary Gibbs?
Mr. Bell. Depot maintenance infrastructure is critical to ensure
maintenance depots can be both responsive and cost effective providers
of DOD materiel readiness. The depot maintenance transformation
investments should be focused on improving cost-effectiveness, reducing
cycle times, and creating a safer work environment. I have no concern
with funding programs which provide such returns on investment.
2. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Sega, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Anderson, will you
commit to this same level of funding?
Mr. Bell. I fully support the Department's funding the
modernization and transformation of their depot maintenance equipment,
facilities, and personnel between fiscal year 2004-2009.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
INTER-SERVICE WORK AT DEPOTS
3. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Bell, I was pleased to read in your
responses to the advance policy questions that you would accelerate
efforts to ensure timely and accurate reporting in the Depot
Maintenance Public-Private Workload Distribution Report to ensure that
the distribution of work at our service depots stays in compliance with
the law. My concern, though, is how will you ensure that logistics
management contracts for large-scale weapon systems like the next
generation tanker or the Future Combat System, for example, will not be
outsourced in their entirety to the private sector?
Mr. Bell. I will work to ensure that logistics support plans for
all weapon systems are carefully reviewed to meet title 10 core
capability requirements for public sector depots and that these
essential capabilities are regularly reviewed and adjusted when needed.
In addition, I will endeavor to expand the use of public-private
partnerships as a means of leveraging the unique repair and
manufacturing capabilities of the DOD's organic depots in mutually
beneficial arrangements with logistics management contractors.
4. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Bell, I also noted in your responses to
the advance policy questions that you had thought through to some
extent how you would lead efforts to regenerate materiel readiness in
systems that have been degraded by the high level of operations tempo
in the war on terror. Our service depots will no doubt be a major part
of your plan to regenerate combat power. I'd like to hear your thoughts
on the amount of inter-service work that could be performed at the
depots. For example, would examining how much Army work could be done
at a Marine Corps depot, or how much Navy work could be done at an Air
Force depot, be part of your analysis?
Mr. Bell. Our service depots face the dual challenge of
recapitalizing aging weapon systems while regenerating combat systems
affected by the high operations tempos of Operations Iraqi Freedom and
Enduring Freedom. Accommodating these workloads will require exploiting
the full range of the DOD's organic capabilities. To that end, I will
to explore all opportunities for interservice work to qualified sources
of repair.
5. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Bell, do you see this as an area where
further growth is possible?
Mr. Bell. Yes, especially in addressing the Army and Marine Corp's
reset (regeneration) requirements for wheeled and tracked vehicles.
______
[The nomination reference of Phillip Jackson Bell follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 28, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Phillip Jackson Bell, of Georgia, to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, vice Diane K. Morales,
resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Phillip Jackson Bell, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Phillip Jackson Bell
Jack Bell was sworn in as Deputy Under Secretary of the Army on
April 4, 2005. In this role, he assists the Secretary of the Army and
the Under Secretary of the Army in fulfilling the Army Title X
responsibilities for recruiting, organizing, supplying equipping,
training, and mobilizing the Army; managing its $98.5 billion budget;
and supporting its 1.3 million Active-Duty, National Guard, Army
Reserve, and civilian personnel.
Prior to this appointment, Mr. Bell served as the first Chief of
Staff of the State Department's Afghanistan Reconstruction Group (ARG)
in Kabul, Afghanistan, advising the President's Special Envoy and
Ambassador to Afghanistan, and Ministers of the government of
Afghanistan on efforts to accelerate political stability,
reconstruction, and economic development, including private sector
development.
Before that, Mr. Bell had a successful career in the private
sector, specializing in change management in large complex
organizations facing major challenges in their operational, market,
and/or competitive environments. His work included service as Chief
Financial Officer and other senior management positions at U.S.
Airways, American Airlines, Burlington Northern Railroad, Adobe
Systems, and Conner Peripherals. He also served as a venture advisor to
and board member of start-up information technology companies in
Silicon Valley. Earlier, he was a consultant with McKinsey & Company,
working on similar challenges with such clients as the World Bank,
Office of Management and Budget, and the Peace Corps.
Mr. Bell began his career as an officer in the United States Marine
Corps. He served tours in Vietnam, Okinawa and the Caribbean rising to
the rank of Captain. He was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal with
Combat ``V,'' the Presidential Unit Citation, the National Defense
Service Medal, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Vietnam
Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.
Mr. Bell earned a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration from
Northwestern University, and a Master of Arts Degree in International
Relations from the University of South Carolina.
______
[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 Phillip
Jackson Bell 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.)
Phillip Jackson (Jack) Bell.
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Material
Readiness.
3. Date of nomination:
June 28, 2005.
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 31, 1941; Portsmouth, VA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Virginia Phillips Inman Bell.
7. Names and ages of children:
Scarlett Lee Talamantes, age 40.
Christopher Jackson Bell, age 39.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of South Carolina, 1963-1964, MA in International
Relations, 6/1964.
Northwestern University, 1959-1963, BS in Business Administration,
6/1963.
Marietta High School, 1954-1959, diploma in College Prep 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.
Deputy Under Secretary of the Army, Pentagon, April 2005-present.
DOD consultant (Afghanistan support and lessons learned----
Pentagon, January 2005-April 2005.
Chief of Staff, Afghanistan Reconstruction Group, U.S. State
Department, Kabul, Afghanistan, November 2003-June 2004.
Board member, advisor, and audit committee member, Centurion
Wireless Technologies, Lincoln, NE, November 1996-September 2004.
Board member and audit committee member, Asyst Technologies, Inc.,
Milpitas,CA, June 2000-January 2005.
Executive VP, CFO, and Chief Administrative Officer, Adobe Systems,
Inc., San Jose, CA, November 1996-August 1998.
Executive VP & CFO, Conner Peripherals, Inc., San Jose, CA,
September 1993-February 1996.
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.
McKinsey & Company, inc. consulting assignments with U.S.
Government Departmetns and Agencies: Department of the Army; U.S.
Postal Service; Peace Corps; and Office of Management and Budget.
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, Tehama Golf Club, Carmel, CA.
Member, Sharon Heights Golf and Country Club, Menlo Park, CA.
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.
2,000--2003 Bush-Cheney 2004.
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 w/Combat ``V''.
Presidential Unit Citation.
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.
Armed Forces Service Medal.
Vietnam Service Medal, with three bronze campaign stars.
Vietnamese Campaign Medal.
Richardson Foundation Fellowship, University of South Carolina.
Austin Scholarship, Northwestern University.
Lockheed Management Club Scholarship.
Beta Gamma Sigma.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Civil War Heavy Explosive Ordnance, University of North Texas
Press, 2003.
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 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.
Jack Bell.
This 6th day of July 2005.
[The nomination of Phillip Jackson Bell was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on July 28, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to John G. Grimes by Chairman
Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. Almost two decades 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 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.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms
can be summarized as strengthening civilian control over the military;
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; 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 these goals.
Question. Do you believe that legislative proposals to amend
Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe
it might be appropriate to address in such 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 for Networks and Information
Integration (ASD)(NII)?
Answer. If confirmed, my understanding is that I will have two
major duties. The first is to advise the Secretary of Defense on
information integration, information resource management, networks,
network-centric operations and command and control (C2) and
communications matters across the Department. The second is to provide
leadership, management, policy and governance to the development,
deployment, support and integration of DOD-wide information
infrastructure and supporting networks and C2 and communication
capabilities in support of the Defense Mission. In that capacity, I
would serve as the information architect for the DOD enterprise
information environment, and provide oversight and policy guidance to
ensure compliance with standards for developing, maintaining, and
implementing sound integrated and interoperable architectures across
the Department, including intelligence systems and architectures.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have over 45 years of direct government and industry
involvement in C\4\ISR policy, programs and technology to include
participation on four Defense Science Board Task Forces. I have a broad
base of experience that has been multi-dimensional in terms of
functions, industries and markets and has included both the commercial
and government sectors. My industrial experience has been centered on
C3I and also includes specialized technical, engineering and testing
support to the Defense Agencies. I have had a great deal of experience
in project management as well as success in streamlining organizational
structures and improving business processes that have transformed
organizations into much more efficient and effective operations. If
confirmed, I believe I would be effective and supportive of Defense
Transformation, which is one of the key elements of the Secretary's
Defense Strategy. This approach can be characterized as both results
and continuous improvement driven.
In the area of education, I am a graduate of the University of
Arizona and the U.S. Army War College and have a master's degree in
Public Administration from the Shippensburg University. In addition I
was fortunate enough to study at the Harvard University National and
International Security Policy Program.
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(NII) and the DOD CIO.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the ASD(NII)?
Answer. I believe that I am fully capable of performing the duties
of the ASD(NII).
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe for you?
Answer. The ASD(NII) is principal adviser to the Secretary of
Defense for non-intelligence space and information superiority. As
DOD's Chief Information Officer, the ASD(NII) is also responsible for
oversight of all DOD information systems and information management
activities. As I mentioned above, I expect the two major duties that
the Secretary of Defense will prescribe for me will be to first, serve
as the information architect for the DOD enterprise information
environment, and provide oversight and policy guidance to ensure
compliance with standards for developing, maintaining, and implementing
sound integrated and interoperable architectures across the Department,
including intelligence systems and architectures. The second is to
advise the Secretary of Defense on information integration, information
resource management, networks, network-centric operations, command and
control (C2) and communications matters across the Department.
RELATIONSHIPS
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 matters pertaining to information
integration, networks and network-centric operations and DOD-wide
command and control (C2) and communication matters.
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 Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work very closely with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to ensure that intelligence
systems are fully integrated with the Department's current and future
communication and information systems, and information sharing is
provided across DOD, the Intelligence Community, and other government
entities.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Answer. With respect to acquisition of IT, if confirmed, I expect
to work closely with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics so that we can both carry out our statutory
obligations.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) will be based on my role as principal staff
assistant in the areas of information integration, networks, and
network-centric operations, command and control (C2), communications
matters and as the DOD CIO and her role as the Comptroller of the
Department of Defense.
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 in relation to the other Assistant Secretaries of
Defense.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Homeland Defense will be similar to that in relation to
the other Assistant Secretaries of Defense, with particular emphasis on
improving the integration and flow of information to and among
participating agencies in support of homeland defense and reducing the
vulnerabilities of our critical information infrastructures.
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 in the areas of
information integration, networks, and network-centric operations,
command and control (C2), communications matters and as the DOD CIO and
his role as the chief legal officer of the Department of Defense.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. If confirmed, I will coordinate and exchange information
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on information
integration, networks, and network-centric operations and command and
control (C2) and communication matters to ensure all policy and
guidance issues under my cognizance are supportive of the combatant
commanders and military services.
Question. The regional combatant commanders.
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the regional combatant
commanders will be based on my role as principal staff assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for networks and information integration, net-
centric operations, and command and control (C2) and communication
functions and as CIO, and I will coordinate and exchange information
with them on matters of mutual interest to ensure management policy and
guidance for network-centric operations are supportive of their
warfighter roles and missions.
Question. The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the USD(I) to ensure that
DIA's programs follow DOD guidance in the areas of information
architecture, interoperability, and acquisition.
Question. The Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the USD(I) to ensure that
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's (NGA) (formerly NIMA)
programs follow DOD guidance in the areas of information architecture,
interoperability, and acquisition.
Question. The Director of the National Security Agency.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the USD(I) to ensure that
NSA's programs follow DOD guidance in the areas of information
architecture, interoperability, and acquisition and directly with the
Director, NSA on matters pertaining to information assurance.
Question. The Director of the National Reconnaissance Office.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the USD(I) to ensure that
NRO's programs follow DOD guidance in the areas of information
architecture, interoperability, and acquisition and directly with the
Director, NRO on matters pertaining to space information superiority.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the ASD(NII)?
Answer. I believe there are four major challenges that will
confront the ASD(NII) and DOD CIO. The first challenge is the
successful execution of the major communication and information systems
programs which, as a whole, are intended to build the foundation of
network-centric operations. Building this foundation is key to the
Secretary's strategic initiative to fundamentally transform the way our
forces fight and how the DOD does business.
The second challenge, which is closely related to the first, is the
successful integration of the programs that are being developed and
deployed to produce network-centric capabilities to support network-
centric operations.
The third challenge is the smooth and seamless transition of legacy
systems to the future, or ``to be'', network-centric GIG.
The final challenge is to promote and support dramatic improvements
in the efficiency and effectiveness of DOD business processes. If
confirmed, I plan to work very closely with other Principal Staff
Assistants and DOD Components to ensure that the Department's efforts
in this area are highly successful.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. Assuming that I am confirmed, my approach to addressing the
first two challenges would be threefold. First, I would conduct
periodic and in-depth reviews of all key programs to ensure that cost,
schedule, and technical objectives are met and, if not, that recovery
plans are developed and implemented. Second, I would continue to
develop a strong end-to-end systems engineering function in the
OASD(NII) to ensure that systems and services being developed fully
meet the objective operational capabilities. Third, I would continue to
develop robust governance processes to ensure that the evolving
elements of the information infrastructure are consistent with the
principles of network-centric warfare operations and that policies are
enforced.
To meet the third challenge of transitioning of current to future
systems, I would direct the development of comprehensive and high
confidence execution plans for each element of the information
infrastructure.
Finally, in regards to business process improvement, my
understanding is that the Defense Business Systems Management Committee
has established a broad based initiative to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of business process across the Department. If I am
confirmed, I would be a member of the committee and work to ensure that
the goals and objectives of this initiative are met, and preferably,
exceeded.
Question. What do you assume will be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the ASD(NII)?
Answer. At the present time, I do not believe that I am
sufficiently informed on the relevant details to be knowledgeable of
specific problems. However, I do know from past experience that
problems occur in the management of highly technical programs like the
ones for which the ASD(NII) has oversight responsibility. These are
related to the timely development of supporting technologies, meeting
cost and schedule objectives and successfully integrating the elements
of a system into the operational environment. If I am confirmed, I
would ensure that I become fully aware of and directly involved in
solving problems.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use the comprehensive program review
process discussed above to discover and solve problems. Early
recognition of problems through frequent program reviews is a very
effective way to ensure success.
PRIORITIES
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the ASD(NII)?
Answer. If confirmed, my priorities would be in direct support of
the Secretary of Defense's transformational objectives and closely
related to the challenges that I outlined above and enable the
achievement of network centric operations throughout the Department.
TRANSITION OF C\3\I TO NII
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003 authorized the position of Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence (USD(I)). The establishment of this position in early 2003
resulted in significant changes to the organization of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and
Intelligence, that has now been designated as the ASD(NII).
In your view, how has the establishment of the USD(I) affected the
mission and organization of the ASD(NII) organization?
Answer. Prior to the establishment of the USD(I), the mission of
ASD(C\3\I) was to enable the information age transformation of the
Department of Defense by building the foundation for network-centric
operations. In the creation of the USD(I) certain personnel responsible
for policy, requirements review and acquisition oversight of
intelligence programs were transferred from the ASD(C\3\I) to the
USD(I). My vision regarding net-centric operations is that it is
critical to continue the existing partnership with the USD(I) on these
matters.
Question. What do you see as the appropriate relationship between
ASD(NII) and USD(I) in performing the Chief Information Officer
responsibilities regarding the Combat Support Agencies which have
intelligence support missions?
Answer. At this point I am not sufficiently informed to offer an
opinion. However, I can assure you that I would continue to foster a
close and cooperative relationship with the USD(I). If I am confirmed,
I would be happy to discuss this topic with the committee at a later
date.
SYSTEMS INVENTORY
Question. For fiscal year 2005, the department will spend over $13
billion to operate, maintain, and modernize over 4,000 non-integrated
business systems.
If confirmed, what involvement do you anticipate that you would
have in reviewing DOD's business systems inventory to identify and
eliminate duplicative, non-compliant business systems within the
various functional areas, such as logistics and financial management?
Answer. As the ASD(NII)/DOD CIO I will be a member of the Defense
Business Systems Management Committee that will review DOD's business
systems inventory to identify and eliminate duplicative, non-compliant
business systems in addition to establishing strategic direction and
plans for the Business Mission Area (BMA); approving metrics and
targets for tracking of business systems transformation progress;
approving the BMA Strategic Plan; overall Business Enterprise
Architecture; and the transformation program baseline.
Question. If confirmed, what do you believe your role would be in
developing and maintaining a complete and accurate inventory of DOD's
business systems?
Answer. As the DOD CIO, it will be my responsibility to ensure that
the Department has a complete and accurate inventory of DOD's business
systems.
SYSTEM PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
Question. Over the years DOD auditors have been critical of the
Department's lack of oversight and accountability over its business
systems development projects.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to improve business
systems project management oversight and monitoring within the
department?
Answer. I am not yet fully familiar with the Department's efforts
to appropriately oversee and be accountable for its business systems
development projects. However, if confirmed, I will review the
procedures currently in use and assess what further actions need to be
taken. I will give particular emphasis to ensuring that robust
governance processes are in place, and that oversight and monitoring
reflects an enterprise-level perspective in preference to a system by
system-level perspective.
CONTROL OVER SYSTEMS INVESTMENT
Question. The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005, established the Defense Business Systems
Management Committee as the approval authority for the management of
business systems investments. Each of the military services and defense
agencies, however, continue to receive their own funding for business
systems.
In your opinion, as DOD proceeds with its efforts to develop and
implement a business enterprise architecture, would appropriating funds
for business systems modernization directly to the designated approval
authorities responsible for these modernization efforts, as opposed to
the individual components, enhance the likelihood of successfully
modernizing DOD's business systems environment?
Answer. I am not sufficiently informed at this time to render my
opinion as to whether appropriating funds for business systems
modernization directly to the designated approval authorities
responsible for these modernization efforts would enhance the
likelihood of successfully modernizing DOD's business systems
environment. However, if confirmed, I will pursue this question in
conjunction with the Department's ongoing effort to establish a single
process for investment review of all defense business systems.
INFORMATION OPERATIONS
Question. Joint Vision 2020 describes ``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) will be a major
element of warfare in the future.
What is your vision of the role of information operations in the
conduct of military operations?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense has directed that Information
Operations (IO) become a core military competency. The President
assigned United States Strategic Command as the integrator for IO in
support of other combatant commanders. The Department has made
significant progress toward this goal and is committed to transforming
our military capabilities to keep pace with emerging threats. IO is an
important part of this transformation. In fact, IO has become a key
part of current and planned military operations. It enhances the
warfighting capability by giving combatant commanders non-kinetic
capabilities to employ, contributing to integrated force options. In
fact where non-kinetic capabilities are effectively integrated, the
commander's options increase not only for the fight at hand but for
ensuing operations in those instances where the Commander will be
charged with `winning the peace.' It's easier to operate where the
infrastructure for communications has not been broken by the effects of
the kinetic option. Ensuring robust defense of our networks is a high-
priority during both peacetime and conflict.
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. It is my understanding that IO efforts across the
Department are more unified and cohesive than ever. All combatant
commanders have incorporated IO activities in their operations and
planning, as appropriate. Services have enhanced their efforts to
organize, train, and equip to support combatant commander requirements
to include developing a dedicated career force and improving Joint and
Service education and training.
Question. In your view, what lessons have been learned regarding
information operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom?
Answer. Although this does not fall under the area of
responsibility now assigned to the ASD(NII), I understand that during
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, IO capabilities
significantly contributed to achieving the combatant command
objectives. IO capabilities were very effective when integrated into
the combatant commanders' theater operations. IO achieves its maximum
effectiveness when integrated into, and executed as part of, the
combatant commanders' overall campaign plan under the combatant
commander's authority.
NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES)
Question. The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) established
an architectural framework within the Global Information Grid (GIG) to
collect and disseminate mission critical data through a series of
common applications supporting the entire defense enterprise. This
approach, known as Net Centric Enterprise Services (NCES), is intended
to eliminate stovepipes, treat data as an enterprise asset and ensure
that the right information gets to the right people at the right time.
This approach will require the services and support organizations
within the defense community to work together to provide data and use a
number of common enterprise applications.
Do you support the concepts behind the net-centric enterprise
services program? If so, how do you think the Department might be able
to accelerate the services' acceptance and transition to NCES?
Answer. Yes, I am in full support of NCES. NCES--a key enabler of
information sharing across the Department and eventually with our
partners--will provide a suite of core capabilities in support of all
DOD missions. For example, its information services will enable the
discovery of data, the ability to collaborate, and the reuse of
information services by all DOD users. Integrating enterprise services
with a ubiquitous Internet Protocol network will enable any authorized
user to have assured, trusted access to shared data, when needed and
where needed to accelerate decision making. The immediate benefit is
improved agility of the DOD to field new information capabilities, to
empower the warfighter and improve decision superiority.
If confirmed, I will continue the efforts already underway in the
Office of the ASD(NII)/DOD CIO with the military services to determine
programs of record that will be able to use the NCES core services as
opposed to building their own services--as early adopters of these new
enterprise assets. This will promote net-centricity by sharing
information.
DATA SHARING AND NCES
Question. Data sharing is critical to maximizing the effectiveness
of network-centric warfare and serves as the foundation of the NCES
vision. Historically, services and/or agencies have owned data
collection platforms and consequently ``own'' the underlying data. Many
of these data owners have been reluctant to post or otherwise share
this underlying data except on a need to know basis, often requiring
time consuming and cumbersome permission processes that are
inconsistent with and contrary to concepts of net-centricity and
effective warfare in the information age.
If confirmed, how would you encourage the data and information
sharing that is required not only for NCES but also to maximize the
effectiveness of network-centric warfare?
Answer. As your question recognizes, data sharing is dependent upon
a robust technology infrastructure provided by programs like NCES and
the Department's Information Assurance initiatives to enable assured
access. However, data sharing is even more dependent on changing the
cultural attitudes and institutional processes of the Department. DOD
Directive 8320.2, which codifies the Department's data sharing focus,
recognizes the need for these changes. If confirmed, I will continue
the work the Office of the ASD(NII)/DOD CIO has already begun in
working with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and USD(AT&L) to
embed data sharing mindset and practices into our training--both
military and civilian. In addition, I will work with AT&L, Comptroller,
USD(I) and the other DOD components to modify our institutional
processes to promote data sharing. Finally, I intend to continue the
Department's advocacy and awareness campaign--ensuring that all members
of the Department hear and understand the importance of data sharing.
TESTING AND EVALUATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
Question. As information technology systems and infrastructure grow
more sophisticated, networked, and software-intensive, DOD's ability to
test and evaluate them becomes more difficult.
What concerns do you have, if any, with DOD's ability to test new
information technology systems/infrastructures such as the Navy-Marine
Corps Intranet (NMCI) and the Global Information Grid-Bandwidth
Expansion (GIG-BE)?
Answer. Both developmental and operational testing are important to
the overall acquisition process, and make important contributions to
the development and implementation of IT systems. The testing process
instills a discipline into the developmental cycle similar to that
produced when the principles of good system engineering are applied.
It is my understanding that the current process provides excellent
results, if testing is done against well-formed requirements. Since
requirements are a key ingredient in a successful test event, my focus
would be on ensuring that well vetted requirements that consider the
individual needs of the Services/components/agencies and the collective
needs of the Department are developed.
Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to
build and maintain a robust test and evaluation capability?
Answer. I believe that the Department's test and evaluation (T&E)
processes and procedures are exceptional. The T&E community has
supported the acquisition processes move to a spiral acquisition
process where we develop capability and test that capability in small
increments that are all aimed at the final capability need. Since this
approach is gaining widespread acceptance within the IT Program
Management community, I hope to continue to foster the work already
underway between the testing and acquisition communities to ensure that
the successful testing of system increments drives us to ultimate
success with the final system.
In addition, the Department has already recognized the need to
continue to strengthen Test & Evaluation not just for information
technology systems but all its systems that will be operating in a
networked DOD. This effort lead by the Director, Operational Test &
Evaluation, has developed and published the initial version of a
Testing in a Joint Environment Roadmap. Implementation planning is
underway under the leadership of DOT&E in full partnership with
USD(AT&L), USD(P&R), the Joint Staff, the military services, Joint
Forces Command. The implementation plan covers changes in: the Test &
Evaluation methods and processes; the T&E infrastructure; DOD's
policies and regulations; and DOD's organization and resource
considerations. One of the major elements of the implementation plan is
how to create, maintain and use a distributed test (and training)
infrastructure. It is seldom practical, and rarely affordable, to
create a purely live test environment with all of the elements of the
Department whether the day-to-day activities (e.g. NMCI) to deployed
joint task forces. This capability will effectively integrate live,
virtual, and constructive representations of the necessary elements in
order to generate a realistic environment. This capability will also
provide a persistent, repeatable, operationally realistic environment
in a timely and cost-effective manner for any system or combination of
systems and set of operations (or workflows).
Question. If confirmed, what would your plans be to ensure adequate
test and evaluation of components of the Global Information Grid (GIG)?
Answer. Again, I think that it is critical that the GIG
requirements be well-defined, and that the requirements support the
direction my predecessors have laid out in the GIG architecture. When
we do this, I am confident that the Department's T&E capability will
reveal the strengths and weaknesses of our implementation of the GIG.
Question. If confirmed, how would you assess the current and
potential future threats to military forces dependent on the IT
systems?
Answer. It is my understanding that there are significant threats
to military forces dependent on IT systems. These threats are growing
in their sophistication and will continue to do so in the future.
However, DOD's capability to combat and mitigate these threats has also
increased. The Department is implementing a variety of enterprise-wide
security solutions and increasing our capabilities to protect, detect
and monitor potentially malicious activity through the efforts of
entities such as the Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations.
INFORMATION SECURITY
Question. The Department of Defense has a significant portion of
its budget devoted to information assurance activities. The National
Security Agency has a significant portion of its budget devoted to
administering the Information Systems Security Program.
What is the relationship between the Department's information
assurance activities and NSA's Information Systems Security Program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to working closely with the
NSA, and as ASD(NII) I will continue to serve as the principal advisor
to the Secretary of Defense on Information Assurance. Since the
issuance of National Security Directive 42 in July 1990, the Secretary
of Defense and the Director NSA respectively have served as the
Executive Agent and National Manager for National Security
Telecommunications and Information Systems Security.
Question. If confirmed, what oversight responsibilities would you
have with regard to the administration of the Information Systems
Security Program?
Answer. In general, I anticipate I will have oversight
responsibility for information assurance (IA) policy development and
implementation, resource and program management, acquisition and
security compliance. Specifically, I will provide IA support to the DOD
components in order to assess the threats to, and vulnerabilities of,
information technologies; serve as the focal point for IA research and
development; develop and maintain a systems security engineering
process that implements the IA component of the GIG architecture;
ensure interoperable IA solutions; and ensure IA awareness, training,
education and certification of systems and personnel.
INTEROPERABILITY
Question. In the aftermath of each significant military operation
over the past 25 years, the lessons learned process has revealed
significant problems associated with the interoperability of
communications, as well as information technology networks. Much of
this has to do with systems developed by the Services that are not
interoperable with other Service or joint systems. Blue Force tracking
is such an example.
In your view, what role should the ASD(NII) play in formulating and
enforcing standards for all defense communications and information
technology systems to reduce or eliminate interoperability problems?
Answer. If confirmed, my role as the DOD Chief Information Officer
is to ensure the interoperability of information technology systems
throughout the Department of Defense and to prescribe standards that
apply across the Department. I do this by working with the DOD
Components to formulate the minimum set of IT standards needed to
achieve interoperability among forces. I will also work with the Joint
Staff, USD (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), and the USD
(Comptroller) to build-in and enforce interoperability requirements
through the Joint capabilities development process, the Defense
acquisition process, and the planning programming and execution
process. Compliance with interoperability standards is independently
validated and certified prior to program milestone decisions.
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
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 role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the
implementation of the Clinger-Cohen Act with regard to IT that is
embedded in major weapon systems?
Answer. I am not yet fully familiar with how the Clinger-Cohen Act
is implemented with regard to IT that is embedded in major weapons
systems. However, if confirmed, I will assess the status of Clinger-
Cohen Act implementation, and take actions to ensure that the oversight
adds value to IT projects, and does not result in redundant oversight
processes.
Question. What do you see as the appropriate relationship between
the ASD(NII) and the service acquisition executives in this effort?
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the service acquisition
executives will be based on my role as Principal Staff Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for networks and information integration, net-
centric operations, and command and control (C2) and communication
functions and as CIO, and I will work with the service acquisition
executives to ensure that the oversight role of ASD(NII)/DOD CIO is
both as effective and efficient as possible.
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 your role be 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
within CONUS and as part of worldwide operations to conduct operations
and warfighter training to effectively execute those operational
missions.
Question. What steps, if any, would you recommend the Department of
Defense take to improve its spectrum management policies?
Answer. Clearly, the Department's continued efforts toward
leveraging information technology toward Network-Centric Warfare
requires assured and seamless spectrum access. The Department's efforts
are enabling dynamic spectrum management, optimizing spectrum
utilization and providing spectrum bandwidth on-demand. The
Department's efforts to improve spectrum management policies are driven
by expanded requirements by warfighters for spectrum-dependent
technologies and the demands of a geographically dispersed,
technologically advanced military. A key factor for consideration in
addressing this challenge is the finite nature of spectrum as a
resource that the Department is addressing through more efficient use
of its allocated spectrum.
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. The ASD(NII) is responsible for ensuring that the
Department is a responsible steward of the frequency spectrum. To the
best of my knowledge, the Department has focused more attention on
critical spectrum management issues in recent years. If confirmed, I
plan to continue to focus on accurately projecting future requirements
for spectrum use for warfighter access and to enable efficient and
effective operation.
The increased focus on improved spectrum management processes, in
part, has been driven by real-world lessons learned as part of ongoing
stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, in which the
Department has been able to leverage the capabilities of its Network-
Centric Operations. Spectrum management is critical in a battlespace
environment that is increasingly dependent on wireless technology.
The Department's implementation of the President's Spectrum Policy
Initiative will improve spectrum access for DOD's mission-critical
requirements. The Department continues to face the ongoing worldwide
contention for spectrum access. Effective implementation of the
spectrum policy recommendations of this initiative will improve our
effective use of the spectrum and enhance DOD's global spectrum use and
interoperability. The strategic spectrum planning requirements of the
Initiative also build on ongoing efforts within the Department to find
efficiencies in spectrum usage that are in line with DOD's mission and
standards of capability.
COORDINATION BETWEEN CIO AND CFO
Question. Chapter 25 of title 40 of the United States Code (40
U.S.C. Sec. 1426) establishes accountability within each executive
agency for accounting, financial, and asset management systems, and for
ensuring financial and related program performance data are provided on
a reliable, consistent, and timely manner. The law directs the head of
each executive agency to consult with both the Chief Information
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer in establishing appropriate
policies and procedures.
If confirmed, how do you see your role as CIO with respect to the
CFO?
Answer. I am unfamiliar with the details at this time, but it is my
understanding that there have been significant improvements in
collaboration between the CIO and the CFO, resulting in a better and
more integrated process. To the extent possible, if confirmed, I intend
to advance that process for even closer cooperation.
Question. What mechanisms do you believe are needed to ensure
proper coordination between the CIO and CFO?
Answer. It is my understanding that as a part of the CFO's
initiative to improve the efficiency of business processes across the
Department, she has implemented a portfolio management approach, which
I believe to be a very sound approach. The idea of domain leaders seems
to be a good integrating step, and I will support and expand upon that
approach if I am confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, what specific plans would you have as the
CIO to ensure progress is made in providing accurate and timely
financial and performance data?
Answer. I believe the validity of financial statements is the CFO's
job, while the CIO's responsibility is to support the CFO's important
responsibility in the area by ensuring that efficient and effective
information systems are developed that will provide accurate and timely
performance and financial data.
Question. What role do you expect to play in the implementation of
such plans?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe my responsibility will be to
provide oversight authority for all implementation; however, I will not
be the implementer.
defense information systems agency (disa) oversight
Question. The ASD(NII) has oversight over the Defense Information
Systems Agency (DISA).
If confirmed, how do you plan to exercise your oversight authority
to ensure that DISA provides the most effective support in the most
efficient manner?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I would exercise my oversight authority
by using the same approach I have used in the past to provide
management oversight of large organizations such as DISA. I would
ensure that the Agency has established a set of long-term goals and
annual operating objectives with supported action plans that are both
measurable and relevant. Relevancy is established by ensuring that
these goals and objectives are closely aligned with DOD's network-
centric vision, mission, strategies and goals. Quantitative measures
would be established for each goal and mission. The Agency's top-level
objectives would be cascaded down to all levels of the organization to
assure total alignment.
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges and problems
that DISA currently faces in meeting its mission?
Answer. DISA is at the forefront of the Department's net-centric
operations and warfare. It provides the infrastructure for the GIG and
the GIG's enterprise services, e.g., the warfighting and business
domains. DISA is the primary DOD organization for the provisioning and
management of the Enterprise Information Environment Mission Area
(EIEMA) in the GIG construct. Success here depends upon the maturation
of the NetOps concept for operation and defense of the GIG, agile
acquisition techniques and management to take advantage of the fast-
paced world of information technology, agile and competent E2E systems
engineering to provide joint interoperable systems, and continued
movement toward increased capabilities commensurate with the pace of
change in IT. I believe DISA is organized to successfully handle these
challenges. My job will be to ensure they can continue to provide the
Department the support needed.
SERVICE COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING PROGRAMS
Question. A number of Service and Joint communications and
networking programs are encountering significant technical and funding
problems, leading to developmental delays and cost overruns.
In your view, what role, if any, should the ASD(NII) play in the
oversight of Service or Joint communications and networking systems
acquisition programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would exercise oversight authority over
those programs delegated by USD(AT&L). This includes providing day-to-
day oversight, as the Milestone Decision Authority for Major
Acquisition Information Systems and those other initiatives that are of
special interest. I believe communications and networking programs
supporting a joint mission or operating in a joint environment fall
into one of these categories.
Answer. If confirmed, I would also continue to lead or participate
in the current oversight review processes, ensuring these programs are
reviewed on a reoccurring basis either through the Defense Acquisition
Board process, IT Acquisition Board, or ASD(NII's) Net-Centric Program
Review process. The ASD(NII) should lead the policy development and
program oversight as the milestone decision authority for all major
communications and networking programs. The ASD(NII) has the
responsibility for providing policies, oversight, guidance,
architecture, and strategic approaches for all communications and
information network program and initiatives on an enterprise-wide basis
across the Department, whether terrestrial, space-based or wireless.
Through the Department's acquisition process, the ASD(NII) can
enforce these responsibilities through influencing the analysis and
planning, acquisition strategy, and capability delivery of the
programs. Additionally, my staff and I will continue regular program
oversight reviews to look at programs status, program risks and risk
mitigation actions that should be taken.
I will continue to implement a collaborative systems engineering
effort to ensure joint interoperability across all major programs that
constitute the Global Information Grid (GIG). This effort is generating
the DOD Net Centric Implementation Document that will provide system
level guidance on Networking and Information Technology (IT) programs
across the GIG.
Question. What role, if any, should the ASD(NII) play in the
management of the Joint Tactical Radio System program and the Army
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical and similar programs?
Answer. If confirmed as the ASD(NII), I will play an active role in
developing the appropriate management concept and structure for the
Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), Warfighter Information Network-
Tactical (WIN-T) and similar programs to ensure these programs provide
support to the warfighter. I will continue ASD(NII) oversight
activities, in partnership with USD(AT&L) acquisition process, to
ensure the best possible management structure for vital
transformational programs. My intent is to heavily influence this
program from a technical, interoperable, and networking standpoint to
ensure it meets warfighter needs and DOD net-centric objectives.
Our tactical networks are very important in supporting our
warfighters in the field. JTRS, WIN-T, and Future Combat System provide
the Army's next generation battle application and networking,
increasing the warfighter's effectiveness considerably. The Air Force
and the Department of Navy are developing their tactical networks as
well. If confirmed, I will continue in-depth review processes to assure
that all DOD communications and networking programs meet DOD
objectives, manage risk, avoid duplication, and ensure support to the
warfighter.
JOINT BATTLE MANAGEMENT COMMAND AND CONTROL (JBMC2) ROADMAP
Question. What role should the ASD(NII) play in the development of
the JBMC2 roadmap?
Answer. My understanding is that the Office of the ASD(NII) has
actively supported USD(AT&L) and the Commander US Joint Forces Command
in the development of both versions of the JBMC2 Roadmap. If confirmed,
I would continue the organization's involvement and support if this
effort, particularly in matters relating to data standards and
architectures, IT and C4 policies, and specific network-centric systems
under the purview of the ASD(NII)/DOD CIO.
Question. In your view, how should the JBMC2 Roadmap be used to
shape Service and Agency investment decisions?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan, in my role as the C3 Principal Staff
Assistant, to ensure the Roadmap becomes a vehicle for describing the
Department's plans for transitioning C2 functions that currently
support stovepipe Military Service tasks to one that supports the Joint
Task Force Commander. I believe the Roadmap should describe how we are
transitioning from a system-to-system connections environment to the
net-centric environment and how we are designing our C2 processes
around the Joint warfighter's needs.
INDUSTRIAL BASE AND WORKFORCE
Question. Do you have any concerns over the continued ability of
the Department of Defense to procure needed networking and IT systems
from secure and reliable sources in the near or far term?
Answer. Yes, I am concerned. Globalization of the information
technology and telecommunications industries creates security and
technological leadership challenges for DOD. As we become increasingly
dependent upon IT products developed overseas and infrastructures owned
and operated by foreign companies, adversaries are provided with the
opportunity to destroy our war fighting capability by exploiting our
supply chain, denying service and undermining the integrity of our
command and control. To mitigate these risks, DOD has initiated a
multi-pronged mission assurance strategy that consists of Information
Assurance/defense-in-depth, hardware assurance and software assurance.
ASD(NII) has a critical role in ensuring comprehensive and effective
development and implementation of this strategy.
Question. Do you have any concerns over the continued ability of
the Department of Defense to attract and retain the technical talent
necessary to perform the various IT and networking missions of the
Department?
Answer. Within the military services, military IT occupations are
viewed as attractive career fields by new recruits. A 2004 RAND study
recently reconfirmed this, finding that IT recruits were of higher
quality, signed on for longer enlistment terms and generally had lower
attrition than their non-IT counterparts. Military retention rates are
being maintained through a combination of tools including retention
bonuses and opportunities for continued education, training and
developmental assignments.
DOD's civilian IT workforce demographics mirror those of the
overall Federal workforce; both have a large retirement-eligible
population. We are using a proactive, holistic approach to address the
various aspects of acquiring and sustaining a pool of skilled IT
professionals and working with DOD's Chief Human Capital Officer, the
Office of Personnel and Management, and our counterparts on the Federal
CIO Council to implement innovative recruitment and retention
initiatives. We expect these tools, the continued use of IT special
salary rates, and your continued support for our education, training
and certification programs, such as the Information Resources
Management College and the Information Assurance Scholarship Program,
will ensure that DOD maintains a cadre of highly skilled IT personnel.
Question. In your view, what is the role, if any, of the ASD(NII)
in ensuring that the Department of Defense has reliable access to
needed sources of technology and technical talent?
Answer. The ASD(NII) has a key role in articulating to vendors and
private industry the emerging technical tools and capabilities needed
to implement net-centricity within the Department of Defense. Some of
these requirements, such as collaboration tools required for data
management, are still in the infancy stage; however, they are
continuing to mature.
The ASD(NII) is also responsible for establishing and implementing
Department-wide IT workforce initiatives, in coordination with the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the
components, to ensure the IT mission requirements of the Department are
met. ASD(NII) works in partnership with stakeholders from DOD critical
communities, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Services, the Office of
Personnel Management and the Federal CIO Council to address current and
emerging skill requirements impacting the IT workforce.
ASD(NII) also has a critical role in creating a long-term research
and development strategy that enhances the industrial base and ensures
that the United States remain a technological leader.
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
Answer. 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.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to
appear before this committee and other appropriate committees of
Congress?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes, I do.
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 Networks and Information Integration?
Answer. Yes, I do.
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 do.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
DOD AND INTERAGENCY COMPUTER OPERATIONS
1. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Grimes, in the aftermath of September 11, as
we investigated and explored methods to prevent another such attack on
our great Nation, it became apparent that agencies within our
government had various pieces of information about the terrorists. We
have since learned that our agencies need better interoperability and
increased communication between information systems of some agencies.
While this is only one part of providing better security for our Nation
it is a critical in today's ever-expanding information environment.
What potential systems needs do you foresee as we improve this
interoperability within DOD and between DOD and other government
agencies, should you be confirmed?
Mr. Grimes. It is my understanding that the Department is
implementing a Data Strategy to make information visible, accessible,
and understandable and that will enhance information sharing between
authorized users. A companion document, the Information Assurance (IA)
Component of the Global Information Grid Architecture, was developed by
the National Security Agency (NSA) under departmental direction. This
document provides the vision for assuring the security and integrity of
both the information and information environment. Both documents were
extensively coordinated with the Intelligence Community.
If confirmed, I will continue to use these strategies as a basis
for enabling and facilitating the broadest possible collaboration and
authorized access to information within the Department. Essential to
these strategies is our Global Information Grid, which is based on
commercial standards and practices and provides robust connectivity and
interoperability across the Department and with other Federal
departments and agencies.
Your question though is broader. I strongly support your position
that we need this same broad authorized access to all government
information, supported by collaborative services across and among all
of our government agencies. It is my intent to work closely with the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to complete the implementation
of these capabilities within our organizations. If confirmed, I intend
to work with the DNI to provide the basis for implementing these data
and information assurance strategies across the Federal Government,
thus enabling authorized access to all government information.
2. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Grimes, how can we ensure that as the
agencies upgrade their computer systems, we won't find ourselves again
with pre-September 11 information firewalls?
Mr. Grimes. It is my understanding that the Department is
implementing a Data Strategy focused on making information visible, or
discoverable, similar to the World Wide Web. The complication occurs
when you add the requirement to adequately protect our information and
our information environment. The National Security Agency (NSA) has
done a superb job in developing an approach to protecting information
in an environment where the guidance is no longer ``need to know'' as
in the past, but is built upon the idea of ``need to access.'' This
approach is documented in the Information Assurance (IA) Component of
the Global Information Grid Architecture. At this time, the Department
has the support of the Intelligence Community on Increment 1 of this IA
vision. I believe these two strategies, data and IA, provide a basis
for broad, authorized information sharing. If confirmed, I am anxious
to drive their implementation within DOD and will work with the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and other Federal agencies to
enable authorized access to all government information.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Dayton
DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY
3. Senator Dayton. Mr. Grimes, there are reports that a good deal
of the IBM/Tivoli software sold to Defense Information Systems Agency
(DISA) has been shelved as being inappropriate and/or ineffective in
addressing problems with the accurate and timely processing of
transactions. Could you please explain the situation and discuss what
DISA proposes to do to address it?
Mr. Grimes. It is my understanding that DISA uses the IBM/Tivoli
software extensively for the foundation of enterprise systems
management (ESM) across our operating sites. ESM functionality
supported by IBM/Tivoli products includes: distributed monitoring,
software distribution, console consolidation, and event management and
notification. System/data base administrators and Operational Support
Teams (OSTs) currently use the IBM/Tivoli software for system
management and monitoring. In addition, the IBM Tivoli Monitor for
Business Integration software successfully monitors message queue (MQ)
transactions in DISA's distributed server environment.
The product currently in use for IBM's Tivoli Monitor for Business
Integration is version 5. Although we are satisfied with the
performance of this product in the distributed server environment, we
have experienced deficiencies with the product in the mainframe
environment only. Consequently, we are working with the vendor to
validate the functionality of the latest version for this specific
environment.
4. Senator Dayton. Mr. Grimes, last year, Congress provided DISA
with a $1 million appropriation for a Transaction Monitoring
Improvement Project. Could you please update the committee on the
status of that project, and explain how the course of action DISA has
chosen or will choose will address the ongoing problems DISA is having
with the accurate and timely processing of the many critical
transactions they execute every day?
Mr. Grimes. It is my understanding that DISA is pursuing a
competitive acquisition for an end-to-end transaction monitoring
solution. This solution will provide end-to-end monitoring of a
transaction through its entire path in both DISA's distributed and
mainframe environments. At a very high level, a transaction path
consists of three primary components:
Client
Network
Host (Server/Mainframe)
The scope of DISA's end-to-end transaction monitoring project
requires visibility of a transaction as it crosses anyone of these
components.
This will include the ability to locate and troubleshoot
transaction latency and capture detailed transaction data in a central
collection server for historical analysis and trending. This will
enable DISA to pro actively identify and respond to end-user
transaction delays or potential transaction failures. The Request for
Proposal was advertised in June 2005. At present, DISA is hosting oral
presentations with vendors in the competitive acquisition range, to
give them an opportunity to present their proposed solution. Contract
award is scheduled for September 2005. Product rollout will occur in
fiscal year 2006.
5. Senator Dayton. Mr. Grimes, if a transaction fails to reach its
destination how do you discover that and what is the average time to
fix?
Mr. Grimes. It is my understanding that various mechanisms are used
to discover failed transactions within DISA's networks. The IBM Tivoli
Monitor for Business Integration notifies DISA support teams of message
queue (MQ) transaction failures. Other mechanisms used to identify
processing problems in ``non MQ'' environments are environment specific
and can be viewed as specialty or point solutions (i.e., BMC's Mainview
suite of performance monitors for products such as Customer Information
Control System (CICS), Information Management System (IMS) and
DataBase2 (DB2)). In addition, DISA has network-monitoring tools such
as Mercury Topaz and HP's Openview.
For those cases in which the automated tool does not detect a
transaction failure, a manual discovery process is necessary. The time
to fix varies with the specific type of error and personnel required to
fix the problem.
DISA is in the process of acquiring another tool which will become
the Department's software standard for end-to-end transaction
monitoring throughout the enterprise. This software product will be a
broad-spectrum transaction monitor, which is not limited to MQ type
transactions. IBM's Tivoli Monitor for Business Integration will be
retained to augment the standard solution and to provide an additional
layer of granularity for functions specific to MQ type transactions.
______
[The nomination reference of John G. Grimes follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 16, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
John G. Grimes, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice John P. Stenbit.
______
[The biographical sketch of John G. Grimes, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of John G. Grimes
John G. Grimes is Vice President, IIS Washington Operations for
Raytheon Company. He is a principal point of focus with government and
industry organizations and senior leaders for C\3\I and
telecommunications policy, planning, and technology programs in the
Washington area. He also provides management oversight of the C\3\I
Directorate, which provides specialized technical, engineering, and
testing support to the Defense Agencies, to include Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Office of Secretary of Defense, White House, and other
proprietary customers. Mr. Grimes has served on three Defense Science
Board Task Forces and is on the Board of Directors of AFCEA
International. He is currently a member of the Industry Executive
Subcommittee, of the President's National Security Telecommunications
Advisory Committee (NSTAC), the DOD Highland Forum and Federal
Government Leadership Forum.
Mr. Grimes was Vice President of Electrospace Systems Incorporated
(a Chrysler Company) from 1994 to 1996 prior to being acquired by
Raytheon Company. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
Counterintelligence/Security Countermeasures and was the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Defense-wide C\3\ respectively, from
1990 to 1994. He was Senior Director of the White House Situation
Support Staff, National Security Council from 1989 to 1990. Mr. Grimes
was the Associate Director for Engineering and Technology, Defense
Communications Agency (now DISA) in 1989. He was a professional staff
member of the National Security Council (NSC), Executive Office of the
President, White House, from 1984 to 1989 serving as Director of
National Security Telecommunications Policy and the Director of Defense
C\3\ Programs. From 1981 to 1984, Mr. Grimes was the Deputy Manager of
the National Communications System (NCS). Mr. Grimes held senior
technical and staff positions with the U.S. Army from 1961 to 1981, as
Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, U.S. Army
Communications Command; Deputy Director for Engineering, U.S. Army
Communications-Electronics Engineering Installation Agency, and Foreman
of the Electronics Section at the U.S. Army East Coast
Telecommunications Center, Fort Detrick, Maryland. He served in the
U.S. Air Force from 1956 to 1960, assigned to the Air Defense SAGE
Program.
He is a graduate of the University of Arizona and has a Masters of
Science Degree from Shippensburg University, PA. He is a graduate of
the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA, the Federal Executive
Institute, Charlottesville, VA and is a graduate of Harvard
University's National and International Security Policy Program.
Mr. Grimes' Awards include the U.S. Army Civilian Exceptional
Meritorious Award, the AFCEA Meritorious Service Award, two U.S.
Presidential Rank Awards for Meritorious Senior Executives, and two
Secretary of Defense Civilian Meritorious Service Awards. He is the
recipient of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics'
Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C\3\I) 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 John G. Grimes
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 G. Grimes.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information
Integration).
3. Date of nomination:
June 16, 2005.
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 29, 1935; Frederick, MD.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Divorced.
7. Names and ages of children:
Tammy L. Schubel, 47.
Terree A. Long, 46.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Frederick High School, Frederick, MD; Graduated 1953.
Cochise Jr. College, Douglas, AZ; AA Degree 1973.
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; BSPA Degree 1974.
Shippensburg University, PA; MSPA Degree 1975.
U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA; Graduated 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.
Raytheon Company, Vice President, Washington Operations, Arlington,
VA; Feb. 1, 1994 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.
Defense Science Board Task Forces.
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.
Board of Director, National Science Center Foundation/Discovery
Center.
Board of Director, Armed Forces Communications-Electronics
Association.
Note: Both are profession non-profit associations which I plan to
resign from.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Armed Forces Communications Electronics Association.
Association of U.S. Army (AUSA).
U.S. Air Force C4 Association.
U.S. Air Force Association (AFA).
U.S. Naval Institute.
Federal Government Leadership Forum.
National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA).
Security Affairs Support Association--Intel (SASA).
American Institute Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
Kennedy Center.
Wolf Trap.
Lewistown United Methodist Church.Q02
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.
Raytheon PAC, $1,000 in each of 2003 and 2004.
Following are total estimates over the past 5 year period:
RNC, $600.
Virgnia Republican Party, $400.
Bush Victory Campaign, $200.
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 Civilian Exceptional Meritorious Award.
Armed Forces Communications--Electronics Association Meritorious
Award (2).
U.S. Presidential Rank Awards for Meritorious Senior Executives
(2).
Secretary of Defense Civilian Meritorious Awards (2).
American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics' Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligences (C\3\I) Award.
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.
18. 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 G. Grimes.
This 28th day of June 2005.
[The nomination of John G. Grimes was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on October 27, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on October 28, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Keith E. Eastin by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. Almost two decades 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. In my judgment, 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 defense
reform legislation.
Question. Do you believe that any changes to this act may be
appropriate? If so, why?
Answer. I do not know of any changes to these laws that have been
proposed at this time. If such a proposal is so made, I would if,
confirmed, work with others in the Department regarding changes as they
might affect the operations of the Army under my purview.
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. My understanding is that the principal duties and functions
of the position of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations
and Environment) are to assist in the formulation of policy, and
establish and continue procedures for the effective management of
Army's installations, real property, housing, and other facilities,
environmental protection, safety and occupational health for both
military and civilian personnel. This includes seeing that Soldiers and
their families are well-housed and that other parts of the Army's
infrastructure are maintained and brought to an effective platform for
training and quality of life. The position further requires that
attention be paid to treaty compliance in the Chemical Demilitarization
Program, and the efficient and timely implementation on recommendations
under Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have spent more than 30 years in the environmental field
as a private attorney, serving as the director of an environmental
practice for two large consulting firms and working as a senior
official in the Federal Government. As Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Navy (Shipbuilding and Logistics) from mid-1986
through 1988, I dealt with many of the installation, housing,
environmental, and military construction matters that, if confirmed, I
would expect to be confronted with in the position as Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment).
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. If confirmed, I will familiarize myself with the current
activities of the staff of the Assistant Secretary, review conditions
of some of the components of the Army's infrastructure, and consider
authorities and funding available to deal with the challenges and
opportunities of the position. One of my initial priorities if
confirmed will be to meet with commanders of key Army facilities to
learn of their challenges and with leaders of the communities affected
by the operations of the Army's installations to understand their
concerns with Army operations as well as the coming activities
surrounding the BRAC process.
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 would expect the Secretary to ask that I
perform those functions delegated to the Assistant Secretary under the
Army's General Order Number 3. I expect him to look to the Assistant
Secretary to assist him in formulating policies and programs that will
enhance the quality of life for soldiers and family members. I expect
that the Secretary would also want to continue searching for
efficiencies in and effectively manage the Army's real property,
housing, and other facilities, environmental protection programs, and
safety and occupational health programs for military and civilian
personnel. Further, I expect he would ask that the Assistant Secretary
to ensure timely completion of closures and realignments of
installations under BRAC mandates. If confirmed, I will be responsible
for these duties within the overall priorities of the Secretary of the
Army and will pursue any other duties the Secretary assigns to me.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. In carrying out your duties if confirmed, how will you
work with the following:
The Secretary of the Army.
Answer. I will work closely with the Secretary of the Army in
furthering the goals and priorities of the President. Consistent with
Army General Orders, I expect the Secretary to rely on me to oversee
the management of the Army's installations real property, housing and
other facilities, environmental programs, and safety and occupational
health for both military and civilian personnel.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Army.
Answer. I will work closely with the Under Secretary of the Army in
furthering the goals and priorities of the President and the Secretary
of the Army.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army.
Answer. I will establish and maintain a close, professional
relationship with the Chief of Staff as he performs his duties as the
senior military leader of the Army.
Question. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations
and Environment.
Answer. I am generally aware of the responsibilities of this
position and working through the Secretary of the Army, look forward to
developing and maintaining a constructive relationship, with the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, in areas
of mutual interest.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Army.
Answer. As part of the ``One Army'' team, I would immediately on
confirmation, establish and maintain a strong professional relationship
with the other Assistant Secretaries of the Army and commit to working
collaboratively and cooperatively in meeting the Army's goals and
objectives.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Navy and the Air Force
for Installations and Environment.
Answer. I am generally aware of the responsibilities of these
positions and look forward to developing and maintaining a constructive
and personal relationship with both the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
and Air Force for Installations and Environment, in areas of mutual
interest, pursuing opportunities to enhance cooperation among the
Services.
Question. The General Counsel of the Army.
Answer. My relationship with the General Counsel of the Army must
involve close and regular consultation, given the legal complexities of
the programs for which I will be responsible, if confirmed. I will work
diligently to maintain a strong and productive relationship with the
General Counsel and his or her staff.
Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Army.
Answer. If confirmed, I will develop and maintain a strong
professional relationship with the Judge Advocate General of the Army
in all areas of mutual interest.
Question. The Army Chief of Engineers.
Answer. The relationship between the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Installations & Environment) and the Chief of Engineers should be
based on mutual respect, trust and cooperation. Our respective
commitments and abilities to be responsive to the President's
priorities and to the policy directives of Congress depend greatly on
the success of this relationship.
Question. The Assistant Chief of Staff of the Army for Installation
Management.
Answer. I believe strongly in a team approach to problem solving
and issue development. If confirmed, I will work with the Assistant
Chief of Staff of the Army for Installation Management in responding to
the policies and goals of senior leadership of the Army and the
Department.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that confront
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. The major challenges of the office are to provide for a
decent quality of life for our soldiers and families, high quality and
efficient installations and facilities, and effective training ranges
for mission training all in a time when the Army is transforming and at
war and while working with limited available funding and addressing
environmental challenges.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will consult with staff of the Assistant
Secretary as well as those in uniform to analyze possible improvements
in efficiency of each of the operations under my cognizance and will
investigate ways to finance base operations and improve family and
single enlisted housing. Further, I will explore cooperative approaches
to effectively balance environmental and mission requirements and
address encroachment 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
(Installations and Environment)?
Answer. With the reality of limited resources, it will continue to
be a major challenge for the Army to achieve an effective balance
between the quality of life for Army soldiers and their families, force
sustainment, and the necessary modernization 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 multiple emerging technologies, and the development of
innovative government programs.
Protection of human health and safety and the environment are also
major challenges that impact the Army's ability to dispose of real
property and address requirements for munitions and other hazardous
material cleanups.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to obtain adequate funding for
our installations, including Base Operations Support (BOS) and
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM). I understand that
the Secretary of Defense has established a goal of meeting the ``1+1''
standard for single soldier barracks by 2008. There is also a goal to
have funding in place to improve military family housing by fiscal year
2007. These are important examples of efforts that the Army is
currently implementing to improve the quality of life for our soldiers
and their families and will contribute significantly to the quality of
our force. I will also study the Army transformation, BRAC execution
actions, and overseas restationing to determine the impact of these
initiatives on these goals.
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 (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. I view this position as an advocate for quality
installations and the working and living environment for our troops and
their families. My first priority, if confirmed, will be to bring the
quality of the Army's installations up to a more acceptable level.
Another critical priority will be to ensure the efficient and speedy
implementation of the actions mandated under BRAC.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Question. The Department of Defense is using the rate of
recapitalization of the physical plant to justify the levels of annual
investment required for facilities and infrastructure. The Department
had established a goal for the military services to propose levels of
funding for military construction and facility modernization in the
fiscal year 2008 President's budget request that would equal a
recapitalization rate of 67 years. To date, the services have been
requesting, in the annual budgets, a level of investment that results
in a recapitalization rate of 110-140 years.
Do you believe the goal of a 67-year recapitalization rate of
investment by fiscal year 2008 can be achieved for the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I will study the Army's plans and the
challenges to achieving this goal. I understand that Army
transformation initiatives, BRAC execution actions, and overseas
restationing may impact attaining this goal by 2008.
Question. If confirmed, what other goals and metrics, if any, could
be established to improve facility recapitalization?
Answer. The current methods appear to be satisfactory. If
confirmed, I would continue to look for opportunities to improve this
important area.
ARMY MODULARITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. The Army used emergency authorities in 2004 to spend over
$100 million to procure and install temporary facilities to support
modularity units preparing for deployments to Southwest Asia, and will
receive an additional $261 million in the fiscal year 2005 supplemental
budget for the same purpose. This will result in hundreds of trailers
each at 10 locations around the country to house and provide work areas
for over 30,000 troops for an undetermined amount of time.
In your opinion, how long should trailers be used to satisfy
facility requirements?
Answer. I have been informed that temporary facilities will be used
for the duration of their design life, approximately 7-8 years. The
Army plans to use this time to program and construct permanent
facilities using Military Construction.
Question. Do you believe the Army should develop a long-term plan
to address basing requirements resulting from the modularity
initiatives?
Answer. I understand that the Army conducted an analysis of
restationing overseas units as well as validating the final location
for all modular units within BRAC 2005. I believe that further
refinements, as needed, should be made as conditions develop.
Question. If confirmed, what plans would you propose to address the
Army's requirement to provide adequate living quarters and work
facilities for personnel affected by Army modularity plans?
Answer. If confirmed, I would seek resources to construct permanent
living quarters and work facilities that are built to Army standard and
fully meet Army modularity requirements.
Question. In your view, how should the Army support the families of
military members impacted by modularity moves forced in relation to
housing, child care, and schools?
Answer. One of my highest priorities, if confirmed, would be to
work with the local communities to ensure that adequate resources are
available off-post as well as on-post to support the needs of our Army
families.
HOUSING AND BARRACKS PRIVATIZATION
Question. 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
adequately meet the Department's housing needs. The housing
privatization program was created as an alternative way to speed the
improvement of military family housing and relieve base commanders of
the burden of managing their family housing. If confirmed for the
position of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and
Environment) you would have a key role in any decisions regarding
military family housing.
What are your views regarding the privatization of family housing
and barracks?
Answer. I am impressed by the significant improvements to family
housing that have been accomplished as a result of housing
privatization. It appears to me that the Army has been able to
successfully partner with industry to leverage private sector resources
to improve the quality of life for soldiers and their families. By
partnering with developers, I believe the Army has been able to
capitalize on private sector expertise and creativity. If confirmed, I
look forward to continuing to work with the private sector to obtain
quality housing as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Question. What is your view of the structure and general goals of
the Army's current housing privatization program? Do you believe the
program should be modified in any way? If so, how?
Answer. It is important, in my view, for the Army to retain a level
of oversight necessary to protect its capital investments and allow
soldiers to reside in housing comparable to that of the citizens off
post they have sworn to protect. It is my understanding that changes to
enhance various components of the program are being studied. If
confirmed, I will work with those exploring potential modifications and
pursue recommended changes.
Question. If confirmed, how would you recommend that the Army use
privatization as a means to address the Army's barracks requirements?
Answer. To date, I understand that the Army has focused its
attention on the Family Housing Privatization program. I believe that
the lessons learned from this initiative can serve as a template for
the Army in assessing the desirability and feasibility of barracks
privatization.
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 request for proposals (RFP) process.
What are your views of the relative merits of these contracting
approaches?
Answer. I understand that the Army believes that the RFQ process
offers several advantages, such as flexibility in selecting partners
and in developing the scope, funding, and management of the project. If
confirmed, I will study this matter and assess the relative advantages
and disadvantages with these procurement processes.
Question. The Department of Defense has established fiscal year
2007 as a goal to improve the military family housing in the United
States.
Do you believe the Department of the Army will achieve this goal?
Answer. Yes. I understand the Army is doing exceptionally well in
the area of family housing improvement and is committed to meeting the
DOD goal. If confirmed, I expect the Army to include this as a high
priority area for soldiers and families throughout BRAC execution and
implementation of transformation initiatives. If confirmed I will work
to maintain the commitment to achieve the 2007 goal in the U.S. through
privatization and conventional Military Construction, as well as
divestiture of uneconomical or excess units. I will also study the Army
transformation, BRAC execution actions, and overseas restationing to
determine the impact of these initiatives on the goals.
OVERSEAS INSTALLATIONS
Question. The Army maintains a global basing infrastructure to
support a substantial number of forward deployed troops. The Department
of Defense's study of overseas basing will result in substantial
changes in the Army's current overseas presence.
If confirmed, what would your role be in the development and
implementation of facility investment programs for the consolidation of
army units at Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea?
Answer. It is my understanding that Camp Humphreys plays a
significant role in the movement of forces from the Korean
Demilitarized Zone. This is reflected in the Land Partnership Plan and
the Yongsan Relocation Agreement. If confirmed, I will work to see that
facility investment programs and projects at Camp Humphreys are
consistent with combatant commanders' requirements, the Department of
Defense's stationing plan, and with the Land Partnership Plan and the
Yongsan Relocation Agreement.
Question. If confirmed, what would your role be in the
establishment of installation development master plans for forward
sites in the CENTCOM and EUCOM areas of responsibility?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully support the regional combatant
commanders in their development and updating of master plans for
changing infrastructure requirements at overseas facilities. Most
importantly, I will endeavor to resource their requirements where the
Army has responsibility to do so.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure a prudent investment
in facilities overseas that will have an enduring presence?
Answer. If confirmed, I will advocate that our investments overseas
support the Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy and our
combatant commanders' requirements. I will also focus our resources on
the enduring locations.
BASE CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS
Question. The 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
process is currently underway.
What do you see as the roles and responsibilities of the Department
of the Army in implementing BRAC decisions?
Answer. I believe the Army will execute the Commission's final BRAC
decisions within the statutorily mandated 6-year implementation period.
For those Army installations affected by joint recommendations, the
Army should closely coordinate its actions with other affected military
departments. During implementation, the Army should work closely with
affected communities to smooth the transition from military to civilian
uses at affected installations.
Question. What would your role be, if confirmed, in carrying out
these responsibilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would act under the direction of the
Secretary of the Army, and be responsible for Army BRAC 2005 policy,
program oversight, direction, and execution.
Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you set for the
process of disposal of any property at Army bases affected by BRAC
decisions?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work to make property available for
redevelopment as expeditiously as possible. I would also work closely
with affected communities through open communication, partnering,
consultation, and cooperation. I would seek to rapidly implement BRAC
2005 decisions to enable military units to relocate with minimal
disruption in warfighting capability and readiness and to maintain the
quality of life for effected soldiers and families.
Question. The DOD installation closure process resulting from BRAC
decisions has historically included close cooperation with the affected
local community in order to allow these communities an active role in
the reuse of property.
In your view, what are the roles and responsibilities of the
Department of the Army within the 2005 BRAC property disposal process
to work with local communities?
Answer. I understand the Army is committed to effectively
communicating and working cooperatively with local redevelopment
authorities during BRAC implementation. The BRAC law envisions the
formation of a local redevelopment authority as the single community
entity responsible for interfacing with the military departments and
developing re-use plans for affected BRAC property. If confirmed, I
would work with these entities during the re-use planning and disposal
decisionmaking process in order to expedite BRAC property conveyances
and put property back into productive re-use as quickly as possible.
Question. If confirmed, what goals would you establish to assist
affected communities with economic development, revitalization, and re-
use planning of property received as a result of the BRAC process?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of Economic
Adjustment is responsible for working with local communities to provide
re-use planning and economic adjustment assistance. If confirmed, I
would work closely with the Office of Economic Adjustment and local
communities to help mitigate the impacts of base closure and
realignment decisions and once re-use plans are developed,
expeditiously transferring property in a manner consistent with the
BRAC law and DOD guidance.
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT AND FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Question. The military departments have consistently struggled to
maintain their base infrastructure. The backlog of real property
maintenance is made worse by the Services diverting facility
sustainment, restoration, and modernization funds to pay for base
operating support. Also, the military is far behind industry standards
for recapitalizing 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 do not believe appropriated dollars alone will satisfy
all Army installation management and facility maintenance requirements.
If confirmed, I would aggressive pursue efforts to leverage private
sector funding and host nation support. Some examples include the
privatization of family housing, utility systems privatization,
enhanced use leasing, and real property exchanges for the Reserve
components. In addition, I would look for opportunities in implementing
BRAC, transformation initiatives, and the Integrated Global Presence
and Basing Strategy to promote efficiencies and improve the Army's
installation infrastructure.
Question. How will the recently established Installation Management
Agency (IMA) help ensure that the funds provided by Congress for
facility sustainment are actually applied to the facility requirements
identified by Army installations?
Answer. I understand that IMA helps control the expenditure of
installation resources so that base support funds are spent for their
intended purpose. This is a focused effort versus the Army's past
practice of having all major commands allocate funds as they decided.
Question. How will centralizing the management of installations
under one agency affect the ability of operational commanders at the
installation level to direct resources to those requirements that
impact their mission?
Answer. Centralized management of installations has standardized
procedures for operational commanders at installations to ensure
resources for garrison services are directed to garrison requirements
impacting their missions. Establishment of common levels of support
enables the Army to clearly define funding requirements in order to
support quality of life and readiness. Garrison commanders remain
responsive to mission requirements of operational commanders.
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. I fully support these approaches.
Question. Are there other steps that you would take, if confirmed,
to promote energy conservation by the Department of the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I will strongly encourage energy conservation
within the Army and, where appropriate, adopt industry ``best
practices'' and innovative ideas from outside the Army.
Question. Do you believe that the energy conservation goals
established in the executive order are achievable?
Answer. Yes, however, I have not had the opportunity to fully
review all of the Army's efforts toward realizing the goals of the
executive order. If confirmed, I will closely examine this important
area.
ENCROACHMENT ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
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. These problems are serious and have the potential to
severely impact training requirements for the Army.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would attempt to work to minimize
restrictions on training ranges while ensuring the Army's environmental
stewardship. I would work with Congress and various stakeholders in
adopting measures to ensure the readiness of Army forces and their
survivability and success on the battlefield. If confirmed, I would see
that the Army works proactively with local communities as they develop
land use plans to ensure those plans consider the Army's operational
requirements and avoid adverse impacts on operational ranges now and in
the future. I also envision working closely with local, State, and
Federal environmental regulators and with natural and cultural resource
agencies to minimize encroachment challenges. Further, I would expect
the Army to continue its compatible use program authorized by Congress.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES
Question. In your view, what are the most critical environmental
challenges facing the Army, and what is the best way for the Army to
address these challenges?
Answer. I believe the most critical environmental challenge for the
Army is to ensure that natural infrastructure is available in the
quantity, quality, and configuration to meet current and future
training, testing, and operational requirements. The Army must sustain
its installations, and most importantly, its operational ranges so that
it can provide soldiers the opportunity to conduct live fire operations
and training in varying climates and diverse environments to ensure
soldier readiness. To meet this challenge, I believe that the Army must
manage range activities to maintain the resiliency and buffering needed
to protect the environment and surrounding communities from impacts of
testing and training. The Army should in my opinion apply an ecosystem-
based approach to manage natural resources and collaborate with
stakeholders to protect ecosystems. If confirmed, I would work with
local communities and foster open relationships to increase their
understanding of our training requirements.
Question. If you are confirmed for this position, how would you
balance the need to maintain military readiness and the goal of
protecting the environment?
Answer. The Army should, in my view, sustain its operational
ranges, now and in the future, in a manner that ensures their
availability for testing, training, and soldier readiness. I believe
the Army recognizes that protecting the environment is integral to
providing tough, realistic, battle-focused training for our soldiers.
If confirmed, I would seek to fully integrate the concept of
sustainability, which is the foundation of one of the most innovative
environmental strategies in the Federal Government.
Question. The Army proposed an environmental compliance budget for
fiscal year 2006 that is $36 million, or 6 percent, below the fiscal
year 2005 appropriated level.
How is the Army prioritizing funding for environmental compliance
expenditures necessary to comply with requirements of law and
regulation?
Answer. I understand that the Army has programmed sufficient funds
in fiscal year 2006 for environmental compliance to meet the critical
requirements and to comply with legal mandates. If confirmed, I would
closely review the sufficiency of these funding levels.
Question. The Army has estimated its potential liability for the
cleanup of unexploded ordnance on closed, transferred, and transferring
ranges to be in the range of $10 to $77 billion. The Department of
Defense is now in the process of conducting a comprehensive inventory
of unexploded ordnance cleanup requirements and costs.
Question. What steps do you plan to take, if confirmed, to address
the Army's unexploded ordnance problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would see that the Army continues to do
what is right for the safety of its soldiers and the public and the
environment. I would work cooperatively with Congress and others to
identify property to be transferred from Army control for which end
uses should be restricted to those consistent with the explosives
hazards present. I would also work closely with environmental
regulators, safety officials, and with local reuse authorities to
determine the most appropriate end use of property and to design
response actions that will allow a property's safe reuse. Finally, I
would take a proactive role in developing policy and guidance to govern
cleanup of former ranges and in working with other concerned agencies
and organizations to address public concerns about unexploded ordnance.
REPORTS AND NOTIFICATIONS TO CONGRESS
Question. A responsibility of the Department of the Army is to
satisfy statutory report and notification requirements to Congress.
Many notifications require a wait period of a specific number of days
after notification is received by Congress before the Department can
carry out the action. The current Army policy is to answer all
questions generated by Congress regarding the notification before
proceeding with the action.
If confirmed, would you adhere to this policy?
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 Assistant Secretary of the
Army for 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
INSTALLATION DEFENSE, PROTECTION AND SECURITY
1. Senator Warner. Dr. Sega, Mr. Eastin, and Mr. Anderson, in 2004,
the Department of Defense (DOD) initiated the defense-wide Guardian
Installations Protection Program (IPP). Upon completion, Guardian IPP
will provide warning and protection for 200 critical DOD installations
and facilities in the United States and abroad from potential chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) attacks. The committee has
fully supported this important initiative and, in fact, has authorized
an additional $10.2 million within the program to provide greater
protection of our military's mail system. Do you believe that our
military installations are vulnerable to potential CBRN attacks?
Mr. Eastin. The very nature of these types of weapons and the
difficulty in detecting their manufacture and transport allows the
terrorist threat great latitude in determining when and where they will
be employed. The current program initiatives help to significantly
reduce the vulnerability of critical military installations to a CBRN
attack but do not eliminate the threat. The capabilities provided by
the IPP help to ensure the continuation of essential military
operations and the protection of essential operational personnel in the
event of such an attack. The program also provides capabilities to
quickly restore essential operations if they are impacted. The Army
supports the continuing DOD efforts to refine and improve operational
capabilities as well as improve joint operational concepts.
2. Senator Warner. Dr. Sega, Mr. Eastin, and Mr. Anderson, given
the significant capital our government has invested at these high-value
military installations, do you believe it is necessary to protect these
assets from possible CBRN attacks?
Mr. Eastin. Yes. Our 62 installations represent the most important
and critical operational assets in the Army inventory. These
installations are essential for the timely and effective execution and
support of both Army and Joint military operations on a global scale.
The effects of a successful CBRN attack would have an immediate
detrimental impact on current operations and could result in
significant log term degradation in our ability to pursue future
military operations.
3. Senator Warner. Dr. Sega, Mr. Eastin, and Mr. Anderson, as these
200 installations and facilities are under the jurisdiction of the DOD,
how do you intend to ensure the program is fully and effectively
implemented within your respective Service?
Mr. Eastin. The Army is an active participant in the execution of
both the IPP Program and the program to protect the military's mail
system. The Army G-8 and G-3 work closely with the J-8 and the Joint
Requirements Office to develop and establish operational requirements
and priorities. We also work closely with the Joint Program Executive
Office for Chemical and Biological Defense and the Joint Project
Manager Guardian on the execution of these programs. Representatives
from the G-8, G-3, and the IMA participate on the JPMG OIPT for
example. The Army staff helped to develop and vet the actual Family of
System capabilities that will be provided to each Army installation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
MILITARY INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE
4. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Eastin, we have neglected the Army's
infrastructure for many years. Traditionally the Army and other
Services underfunded the Base Operations pot of money in the budget and
funded the Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) account at
about 90 percent. However, the Base Operations account includes costs
like paying emergency responders, the electric bill, the water bill,
etc. So, over the course of the year, money migrated from SRM to Base
Operations and all those projects required to maintain the
infrastructure were postponed. We now have millions and millions of
dollars worth of postponed SRM projects on our bases. In some cases
this neglect has forced multi-million dollar military construction
(MILCON) projects to be erected long before their time. In other cases,
we simply force our troops to live and work in very substandard
conditions. I remember I visited Fort Bragg, North Carolina, during the
Clinton administration and stood inside a building where rain was
literally pouring through the roof and soldiers were trying to cover
equipment with tarps to keep it dry. You will be responsible for
reversing this deplorable trend in the condition of our infrastructure
and changing the failed budget process that caused it. I thought the
new Secretary of the Army took a bold step this summer to fix this
problem. He announced a 90/90 policy where both SRM and Base Operations
would be funded at 90 percent this year, thus eliminating the need to
rob SRM funds. But, as of Friday, bases have not seen the additional
money in SRM as promised and we are running out of time in this fiscal
year for base engineers to execute much needed SRM projects. What are
your thoughts on this subject?
Mr. Eastin. The Secretary's announcement of the Army's 90/90 policy
is a good news story for our soldiers and their families--they deserve
nothing less. However, unforeseen expenses of the global war on terror
are having an impact on our ability to reach the 90/90 goal as quickly
as we desire. Despite these challenges, we will fund the global war on
terror, modularity, and our installations through the end of the fiscal
year and, at the same time, remain fully committed to the 90/90 goal.
We are working hard to manage available funds and will continue to
monitor and administer resources weekly until the end of the fiscal
year. We will give commanders at every level the opportunity to
actively participate in this process. Our garrison commanders and their
staffs have accomplished much this year--supporting the global war on
terror, improving single soldier barracks, stationing the modular
force, and keeping our installations ready to support any and every
call. They are making good things happen every day for our soldiers and
their families.
I appreciate your understanding while we take these measures to
continue to provide our ``front line'' soldiers fighting the global war
on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan the best equipment and resources to
accomplish their missions as effectively as possible.
5. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Eastin, can we count on you to fix this
downward spiral in our military infrastructure?
Mr. Eastin. I fully support the Army's 90/90 goal, and will make
every effort to achieve this in fiscal year 2006. The Army intends to
begin programming for a minimum of 90 percent of requirements in Base
Operations beginning with the fiscal year 2007 budget request. This new
policy would eliminate the need to migrate funding from sustainment and
fix the downward spiral in our military infrastructure.
UTILITIES PRIVATIZATION
6. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Eastin and Mr. Anderson, as part of a very
important effort to save money on our military installations, the
Department of Defense initiated two very important programs. One was
the privatization of military housing under subchapter IV of chapter
169 of title 10, United States Code. This program is projected to save
the government millions of dollars and put our fighting men and women
in modern, well-maintained housing. Thus far the results are amazing.
The other program under section 2688 of title 10 is the privatization
of utilities on bases. Likewise this program is projected to save
millions of dollars over time. However, many bases cannot move forward
on the utilities privatization because the Federal power marketing
administrations have an inconsistent approach regarding the effects of
such privatization on Federal power allocations at military
installations. For example, Fort Sill, Oklahoma wanted to move to
privatization, but according to policies at Southwestern Power
Administration Fort Sill would lose its Federal power allocation. This
makes the privatization of the utilities infrastructure uneconomical.
Therefore the taxpayer cannot save money on the military installation
because of this policy. Last year this committee directed a study that
was just completed by DOD. It lays out all these issues. What can we do
about this, short of passing a law?
Mr. Eastin. Without clarifying legislation, some of the Federal
power marketing administrations will likely continue their longstanding
policies and legal interpretations that require preference customers
retain ownership of their electrical distribution systems. At Fort
Sill, the Army evaluated the economic benefits offered by two Federal
programs--receiving a low-cost Federal power allocation from
Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) and achieving cost avoidances
and improved utility services through utility privatization. The Army
should have been able to obtain the benefits of privatization and
retain the low cost power from SWPA. Because there is an inconsistent
approach regarding the effects of utility privatization on Federal
power allocations at military installations, SWPA determined that Fort
Sill could not retain its Federal power allocation and privatize its
electric system. The economic cost of losing the Federal power
allocation was too great to be overcome by the potential benefits of
privatization. The Army's determination not to privatize was the best
economic decision for the Federal Government.
7. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Eastin and Mr. Anderson, can you assure me
that you will look into this and help us fix this problem?
Mr. Eastin. The Army will continue to work with the committee to
fix this problem.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
BRAC AND MILCON
8. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Eastin, under the recommendations to the
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission, both Forts McPherson
and Gillem would be closed. The rationale for closing these bases is
that the Army would be saving money, yet when I looked into the details
of that decision, I saw that the military construction costs for
building replacement headquarters for U.S. Forces Command and 3rd Army
at the Pope-Bragg complex were greatly underestimated, a fact that was
confirmed during a BRAC Commission base visit. My concern is that if
the BRAC Commission upholds the Department's recommendation, then we
will be facing a large shortfall in military construction funding. As a
result, the Army's regular MILCON budget will end up making up the
difference between the BRAC MILCON estimates and the real costs. This
diversion of funds could have an impact on the MILCON plans for bases
like Fort Gordon, which except for its U.S. Army Intelligence and
Security Command tenant facilities, has seen very little in MILCON
funding in the past (except for one $4.3 million congressional add in
fiscal year 2004) and has not been given any priority in the MILCON
Future Years Defense Plan (no other projects until fiscal year 2009).
What will you do to balance the requirements of BRAC-related
construction with already validated requirements for much needed
military construction projects at Army bases?
Mr. Eastin. The Army BRAC requirements are submitted as part of the
DOD BRAC appropriation and as such do not directly compete with
Military Construction, Army for funding in the budget process. During
the program years, the Army will review all its military construction
requirements for all installations and prioritize MILCON funding as
appropriate. MILCON funding for closing installations will be
redirected to best meet the Army's construction requirements.
PRIVATIZATION OF ARMY LODGING
9. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Eastin, I understand that the
Privatization of Army Lodging (PAL) program does for temporary lodging
what the Residential Community Initiative does for family housing.
Specifically, this program will help the Army overcome an $875 million
lodging revitalization backlog while the developer would assume the
business risks, pay for construction, and run the facility. One part of
this backlog is at Fort Benning where a lodging study conducted by the
Army in August 2003 concluded that Fort Benning would need an 844 room
facility to meet its lodging needs at an estimated cost of $63 million.
Now with Fort Benning looking at growing to accommodate the Armor
Center, the transient population will only grow. Can you discuss the
current status of the program, what actions the Army is taking to
update its lodging studies, and what is the timeline for construction?
Mr. Eastin.
(a) Current status of the PAL program: After several months of
discussions a memorandum was recently released (2 August 2005) by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that included guidance on
implementation of the PAL program. As a result of this guidance the
Army has revised its implementation strategy. The new strategy has been
briefed to and is strongly supported by the Army senior leadership. The
PAL Office is now preparing to brief OSD and OMB, with hopes of
releasing a Request for Qualifications on the project before the end of
the calendar year.
(b) Actions to update lodging studies: The studies referred to in
the question above were commissioned by the Army based on an internal
Army plan to revitalize lodging. While these studies provide a good
baseline of information, they are not representative of the perspective
that would be used by the hotel industry in evaluating requirements
under this program. Consequently, the PAL office is in the process of
conducting due diligence assessments at each of the lodging sites
throughout the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. These
assessments are taking into consideration impacts from BRAC as well as
from the various transformation initiatives that are currently under
development. The analysis derived from the PAL Office's due diligence
assessments will provide a current model of installation lodging
requirements, projections for future requirements, and estimated as to
how these requirements would most likely be addressed by the hotel
industry.
(c) The PAL Office must receive approval to proceed with its new
strategy from OSD and OMB, and then must wait until the 30-day
Congressional Notification of Intent to Solicit is satisfied. Once
those conditions are met, it is estimated that construction at the
first several installations in the program will begin in approximately
2 years (fiscal year 2008).
______
[The nomination reference of Keith E. Eastin follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 29, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Keith E. Eastin, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Army, vice Mario P. Fiori, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Keith E. Eastin, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Keith E. Eastin
Mr. Eastin is the Senior Consultant to the Iraq Ministry of
Environment and has served as such since June 2004. He has been engaged
in the practice of environmental law and consulting for the past 30
years and has managed environmental projects and operations as a
corporate officer and as a high-level Federal Governmental official and
director of significant environmental practices of two Big-Four
professional services firms. He was a former Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Navy, Deputy Under Secretary of the Interior and more
recently, a Director of Price Waterhouse Coopers where he led a
significant environmental practice group. Selected experience follows:
Mr. Eastin was a Director of the Environmental Dispute Analysis &
Advisory Services practice for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in Washington
and Houston. For the firm, he has advised clients on organizational
matters as well as on environmental disputes and controversies
involving governmental agencies and enforcement bodies. He was Project
Director for the Moab Mill Reclamation Site in Utah, a Nuclear
Regulatory Commission-regulated operation and directed the cleanup,
capping and groundwater studies associated with this $20 million
construction project.
A nationally recognized expert in the field of Natural Resource
Damages and Valuation, he has written and spoken before numerous groups
on the subject. Mr. Eastin is formerly Deputy Under Secretary of the
U.S. Department of the Interior and its chief environmental counsel. At
the Interior he organized and directed the CERCLA 301 team that
conceived of and drafted the Regulations providing for the Assessment
of Damages to Natural Resources under Superfund and other acts.
In a consulting capacity with PricewaterhouseCoopers and earlier as
a practice director with Deloitte & Touche LLP, his work includes
activities at significant hazardous waste and Superfund sites
nationwide with potential natural resource damages of more than
$100,000,000. He served in a key consulting role in the landmark state/
industry cooperative natural resource damage assessment for the PCB
contamination of a major Midwest river. He has valued the entire non-
income producing natural resource inventory of a northwest State in
connection with the development of its Asset Stewardship Plan. He has
advised with respect to the petroleum contamination of sensitive
fishing grounds off an eastern State and, on behalf of the State of
Tennessee, assessed damages from activities associated with the
Department of Energy's activities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He
has assessed damages for the contamination of a major aquifer by a 2.5
million-gallon petroleum spill in Nevada, contamination resulting from
a break in a primary petroleum pipeline in the Midwest and the dioxin
contamination of Native American natural resources associated with an
Eastern River. Also, he has worked with a large western State to create
a GIS-compatible database of its more than 1,000 hazardous waste sites
for purposes of identifying the State's natural resource damage problem
areas and structuring a program for their settlement.
He served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Shipbuilding and Logistics) and supervised real property and
environmental matters and military construction for more than 300
installations worldwide with a value of more than $120 billion. The
nature of the Navy's operations places it in constant conflict with
some of the most sensitive wetlands and marine areas of the country. In
this context, he negotiated with the Corps of Engineers in its Section
404 permitting process, advised on other Clean Water Act, RCRA, and
Superfund problems in connection with the handling of toxics created in
its industrial processes, and was the deciding official in the cleanup
of a major nuclear Superfund site. Among his governmental experience,
he personally negotiated settlements in the cleanup of USG-owned
Superfund matters and has dealt with hazardous waste sites from time of
their discovery to representation of the government in negotiation of
remediation and RI/FS with the EPA and the State agencies.
Other Experience. As a practicing attorney for more than 35 years,
Mr. Eastin is a former partner at Hopkins & Sutter, a 300 person,
general practice national law firm where he was manager of the firm's
environmental group. He was general counsel to two public companies,
one a large petroleum retailer, and both with significant
environmentally related activities. He continues to work with the
American Arbitration Association, where he has acted as mediator or
arbitrator in more than 25 environmental and construction disputes.
______
[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 Keith E.
Eastin 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.)
Keith E. Eastin.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment).
3. Date of nomination:
June 29, 2005.
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 16, 1940; Lorain, Ohio.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
I am not married.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of Chicago Law School - JD - 1967.
University of Cincinnati: Graduate School of Business - MBA - 1964.
University of Cincinnati: College of Arts and Sciences - AB - 1963.
Brookside High School, Lorain, OH - Diploma - 1958.
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.
U.S. Department of State (and prior, U.S. Department of Defense for
3 days), Baghdad, Iraq. Senior Consultant to Ministry of Environment of
Iraq. [June 2004 thru July 2005].
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, Special Counsel.
[2003-June 2004].
Cigarettes Cheaper! [Inc.] and related entities, Benicia, CA, Vice
President, General Counsel [2000-June 2004].
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Houston, TX, Director. [1998-2000].
Deloitte & Touche LLP, Washington, DC, Director, Environmental
Practice Group. [1993-1998].
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.
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 other than as set forth in following question.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Board of Directors: Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, New
York, NY.
Advisory Board: Theatre Under the Stars, Inc. Houston, Texas.
Member: Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem
(Knights Templar).
Member: Metropolitan Club of Washington.
Member: Capitol Hill Club of Washington.
Member of the Bar Associations of the States of Texas, California,
Illinois, and the District of Columbia.
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 was a Republican Party Precinct Chairman, and Member of the
Harris County (Texas) Republican Party Executive Committee from
approximately 1978 through 1983.
(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.
To the best of my recollection and estimates:
South Dakota Republican Party.............................. $ 100
Republican National Committee.............................. 1,500
Republican Party of Texas.................................. 450
Republican Party of Houston................................ 20
Texas for Kenn George...................................... 500
Dole 2000 Committee........................................ 100
Whitfield for Congress..................................... 1,200
Parke for Congress......................................... 250
Minge for Congress......................................... 400
Bush Chaney 04............................................. 500
RNC Presidential Trust..................................... 250
Friends of Giuliani........................................ 250
Ashcroft 2000.............................................. 500
Lazio 2000................................................. 250
Bush Committee............................................. 1,000
Heartland Values PAC....................................... 100
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Recipient, United States Marine Corps Commendation for outstanding
efforts in advocating Marine Corps programs before Congress and outside
community. [1988]
Recipient, United States Navy Medal for Distinguished Public
Service. Highest civilian honor awarded by Navy. [1989]
Member, Beta Gamma Sigma, highest honorary society for Business
Schools.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
The following articles have been published. No books or other items
have been published:
Eastin, Keith 1997, `Putting System Security First', Legal Times of
Washington, 30-31, July 21, 1997.
Wunderlich, R., Eastin, K. and Frishberg, D. 1995, `Natural
Resource Damage Assessment'', Litigation Services Notes, Trends in
Financial and Economic Analysis, November 1995, Deloitte & Touche LLP.
Eastin, Keith, `Natural Resource Damage Assessments: Ten Years in
the Making', Environmental Management Review, September 1991, pp 106-
113.
Eastin, Keith, `Foreign Investor Facing Hurdles', Defense News,
April 2, 1990.
Eastin, Keith, `Bad Law Kills a Good Deal', The Asian Wall Street
Journal, March 26, 1990.
Eastin, Keith E., `Acquisitions of U.S. Defense Contractors by
Foreign Entities', Foreign Investment in the U.S., News and Analysis,
Vol. 9, 1990, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, DC.
The Nevada Mining Association, Eastin, Keith and Henderson,
Michael, `Natural Resource Damages and Nevada Industry', Proceedings of
1996 Reno Conference, Reno, Nevada, March 30, 1995. Revised to October
1996.
Eastin, Keith, `Lost Human Uses of the Environment', Proceedings of
the Conference on Restoration of Lost Human Uses of the Environment,
May 8, 1997, American Bar Assn., Section of Natural Resources, Energy &
Environment, et. al.
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 such speeches made.
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.
Keith E. Eastin.
This 2nd day of July 2005.
[The nomination of Keith E. Eastin was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on July 28, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to William C. Anderson by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. Almost two decades 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 implementation of these reforms.
Since its inception, the Goldwater-Nichols Act has clearly improved the
organization and capabilities within the Department of Defense.
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.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The Act has improved both the organization and
interoperability of the services through greatly improved integration
of assets.
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 believe that any changes to this act may be
appropriate? If so, why?
Answer. Currently I am not aware of any specific proposals being
considered. If confirmed, I would work with the Secretary of the Air
Force on any proposed changes that pertain to installations,
environmental or safety concerns.
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations and
Environment)?
Answer. There are numerous duties and functions in the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Installations and Environment portfolio.
They 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 functions I will assume if confirmed. Currently
base closure and realignment are important matters. These fall within
the scope of 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. Over the last 9 years, I have served as a business general
manager responsible for environmental affairs, safety, occupational
health, and facilities for one of the world's largest corporations.
During that time, I built a team that has developed programs and
processes that have driven continuous improvement in hundreds of
operating locations across the world. The team established actionable
operating performance metrics that have allowed our leaders to
regularly pulse progress, focus resources and drive performance that
overall significantly exceeds the average performance in the industry.
Dozens of those facilities have been awarded recognition by
governmental or third party bodies for excellence in environmental,
health and safety performance.
For more than 20 years, I have been involved in virtually all areas
of real estate and facilities management issues including transaction
structuring, due diligence, construction, facility maintenance and
refurbishment, demolition and brownfields redevelopment. These
activities have been conducted around the world, including negotiating
the privatization of previously State-owned enterprises in Eastern
Europe. These activities have included working with local communities
in developing reuse options for obsolete real property assets. These
efforts resulted in maximizing returns for the seller, while at the
same time ensuring reuse conforms with the overall development plans of
the local communities.
Over the last dozen years, I've been a senior staff leader managing
the supply chain function, utilizing productivity and quality tools
such as ``Six Sigma'', ``5S'', ``Change Acceleration Process'' and
``Lean'' to improve team performance and deliver expected results to
the customer. A component of these activities has included development
of performance metrics tied to external (customer/stakeholder)
requirements, rather than internal requirements, to ensure that
customer expectations are exceeded.
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. I believe that upon the assumption of any new leadership
assignment, significant work must be done to come up to speed on the
team that will be managed; including current issues and programs, and
relationships with other groups that will be necessary to successfully
lead the function. If confirmed, I would develop a 90-day plan which
includes, but is not limited to, site visits, briefing sessions (with
team members, customers, stakeholders and other constituencies) and a
leadership assimilation process focused on closing any knowledge gaps.
This effort would take two distinct directions.
(1) Team, organizational accountability and relationships
with other entities: Develop a thorough understanding of the
capabilities of the Air Force Installations and Environment
team, the current status of programs and the metrics that
measure progress against commitments. Obtain a complete
understanding of the interactions between this organization,
its counterparts at Army and Navy, the balance of the Air Force
and DOD team, as well as the Legislative and other executive
branch organizations.
(2) Issue recognition and understanding: Immersion in site
issue briefings, budget targets and tracking, benchmarking
against Installations and Environment counterparts at Army and
Navy and regular meetings with SASC staff in order to establish
priorities, develop a list of deliverables and begin tracking
progress on key issues.
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 the Secretary to prescribe the duties and
functions commensurate with the position and consistent with those
specified in law.
Question. In carrying out your duties if confirmed, how will you
work with the following?
The Secretary of the Air Force
The Under Secretary of the Air Force
The Air Force Chief of Staff
The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment
The other Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force
The Assistant Secretaries of the Army and Navy for
Installations and Environment
The General Counsel of the Air Force
The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force
The Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Installations
and Logistics
The Civil Engineer of the United States Air Force
Answer. If confirmed, I will assist the Secretary and the Under
Secretary of the Air Force, the General Counsel, the other Assistant
Secretaries, along with the Air Force Chief of Staff, in forming a
close relationship with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations & Environment) to carry out the goals and priorities of
the Department. I understand the importance of teamwork and information
sharing. I will make it a top priority.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that 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. I anticipate
a challenge in finding the right balance between maintaining a high
status of readiness while conserving our scarce resources. Implementing
the Base Realignment and Closure recommendations in a timely and
fiscally responsible manner that benefits the Air Force, while working
with environmental regulators and local communities, will be a
challenge. Diligence in the areas of training ranges and airspace, as
well as improving our family housing and the utility infrastructure and
overseeing an immense logistics system, will be challenging.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, my game plan would be as follows: (1)
establish and communicate a clear vision for the organization
consistent with the overall mission of the Air Force, (2) ensure that
we have top talent in each position within the organization, then give
these leaders the support and freedom to do their jobs, (3) engage in
benchmarking and best practice sharing both inside and outside of the
government to ensure we have the best tools and programs available to
guarantee success, and (4) set up regular pulsing sessions within the
organization to track progress against established goals and
milestones.
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. I am not in a position at present to have sufficient
knowledge of the position, the team or the challenges of the function
to know of any serious problems, if any. However, based on my past
experience, every team and function has room for improvement. If
confirmed, the process I detailed above in response to the question
regarding enhancing my abilities to perform this duty will allow me to
assess gaps and issues, large or small. After that evaluation is
completed, I would be in a better position to provide a specific
response to this question.
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 an interactive
and trustworthy relationship with members of Congress and their staffs,
as well as Air Force and Department of Defense officials, directly
responsible for matters within the jurisdiction of my office.
Management actions will be prioritized based on input from each of
these stakeholder groups. Based on this prioritization, I will lead the
Installations and Environment team in establishing, communicating and
tracking to specific initiative timelines.
PRIORITIES
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish priorities consistent with
those of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Question. The Department of Defense is using the rate of
recapitalization of the physical plant to justify the levels of annual
investment required for facilities and infrastructure. The Department
had established a goal for the military services to propose levels of
funding for military construction and facility modernization in the
2008 President's budget request that would equal a recapitalization
rate of 67 years. To date, the services have been requesting in the
annual budget a level of investment that results in a recapitalization
rate of 110-140 years.
Do you believe the goal of a 67-year recapitalization rate of
investment by 2008 can be achieved within the Air Force?
Answer. I understand the Air Force is currently programmed to
achieve a facility recapitalization rate of 67 years by fiscal year
2008, in line with established Office of the Secretary of Defense
goals.
Question. What other goals and metrics, if any, could be
established to improve facility recapitalization?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review all current metrics associated
with infrastructure replacement from both an installation and cost
standpoint. In this review, I will examine other goals and consider
additional metrics that might improve recapitalization.
HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Question. 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
adequately meet the Department's housing needs. The housing
privatization program was created as an alternative option to speed the
improvement of military family housing and relieve base commanders of
the burden of managing their family housing. 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?
Answer. Family housing is 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.
Question. What is your view of the structure and general goals of
the Air Force's current housing privatization program? Do you believe
the program should be modified in any way? If so, how?
Answer. I am generally aware of the Air Force's housing
privatization program and schedules. If confirmed, I will seek to
ensure the continued success of this program.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that funds originally
appropriated for military construction, which are then used to
accelerate the pace of Air Force housing privatization, would be
accounted for, and reported to Congress?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure funds appropriated by Congress
for issues within the purview of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Installations and Environment are assigned to specific
projects, tracked through an appropriate project tracking mechanism,
properly accounted for and reported to Congress.
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 of the relative merits of these contracting
approaches?
Answer. Both approaches have received broad application in the
contracting world. If confirmed, I intend to utilize the most
appropriate contracting tool available for each particular
circumstance, while driving for continuous improvement in these tools
and processes.
Question. The Department of Defense has established 2007 as a goal
to improve all of its military family housing in the United States.
Do you believe the Department of the Air Force can achieve this
goal?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the Air Force status of
military housing. I will do everything in my power to meet goals and
objectives of the Department of Defense. I understand the current
budget and Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) is on track to meet the
goal and I am fully committed to keep this process on track.
BASE CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS
Question. The 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
process is currently underway.
What do you see as the roles and responsibilities of the Department
of the Air Force in implementing BRAC decisions?
Answer. I believe the Air Force's roles and responsibilities are to
implement the final decisions of the 2005 BRAC expeditiously and
efficiently in the best interest of the local community, the Federal
Government, the Air Force, and the American taxpayer.
Question. What would your role be, if confirmed, in carrying out
these responsibilities?
Answer. We need to develop strong relationships with State and
local governments; those who have zoning authority, State environmental
regulators, State and local development authorities and the private
sector. If confirmed, I will seek to develop relations with the proper
authorities within the government and in the local communities to
implement the decisions in the best interest of all stakeholders.
Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you set for the
process of disposal of any property at Air Force bases affected by BRAC
decisions?
Answer. Local communities and the Air Force need to take advantage
of and benefit from the private marketplace as much as possible.
Community redevelopment plans and the Air Force disposal plans should
be integrated to maximum extent possible to take into account the
anticipated market demand for surplus military property with the goal
of maximizing value, while being sensitive to community needs and long-
terms plans. This approach will get property into reuse much more
quickly, help accelerate job creation, and result in cost savings for
military readiness.
Question. The DOD installation closure process resulting from BRAC
decisions has historically included close cooperation with the affected
local community in order to allow these communities an active and
decisive role in the reuse of property.
In your view, what are the roles and responsibilities for the
Department of the Air Force within the 2005 BRAC property disposal
process to work with local communities?
Answer. Collaboration and communication are critical to success. If
confirmed, I would develop a plan to quickly inventory the real
property, personal property, and natural infrastructure assets at the
bases to determine their value. Working with the communities, we can
develop strategies to quickly market these assets. This approach can
ensure that the community will quickly recover from the impacts of base
closure and realignments.
Question. If confirmed, what goals would you establish to assist
affected communities with economic development, revitalization, and re-
use planning of property received as a result of the BRAC process?
Answer. The Air Force will take great care to work with communities
and stand ready to provide support and assistance. If confirmed, I
would ensure we work closely with the Office of Economic Adjustment
(OEA) to ensure that effected communities have all the resources
necessary to accomplish comprehensive planning for the reuse of base
property. I will continue to foster this proactive approach to ensure
that communities are treated fairly in the BRAC process.
INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. Witnesses appearing before the committee in recent years
have testified that the military services under-invest in both the
maintenance and recapitalization of facilities and infrastructure
compared to private industry standards. Decades of under-investment in
our installations have led to substantial backlogs of facility
maintenance activities, created substandard living and working
conditions, and made it harder to take advantage of new technologies
that could increase productivity.
If confirmed, what recommendations would you propose to restore and
preserve the quality of our infrastructure?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review all issues associated with
infrastructure investment. I believe I bring experiences in how to
assess and improve infrastructure so it can best serve our warfighters
and their families.
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. As evidenced by my efforts at General Electric, I support
energy conservation, and if confirmed, I will review the entire Air
Force effort in this area to ensure we meet or surpass all of the
standards and goals. In my experience, focused attention, along with
leadership accountability as relates to the full range of energy
conservation options, can result in significant conservation wins.
Question. Are there other steps that you would take, if confirmed,
to promote energy conservation by the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage energy conservation using
both traditional and innovative strategies, as well as continually
encouraging best practice sharing outside of the Air Force to ensure we
have the largest pool of ideas to work from to maximize our likelihood
for success.
Question. Do you believe that the energy conservation goals
established in the executive order are achievable?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to examine all of the Air
Force's efforts towards realizing the goals of the executive order, but
I understand they are making significant strides with several projects
in a number of areas. If confirmed, I will closely examine this
important issue.
ENCROACHMENT ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
Question. The encroachment of commercial development near military
installations has negatively impacted Air Force operations at military
airfields. For example, combat aircraft can no longer safely take off
with live armaments on one end of the runway at Nellis Air Force Base,
Nevada and Luke Air Force Base, Arizona due to the construction of
private residential areas adjacent to the base.
If confirmed, what policies or steps would you take to curtail the
negative impact on operations and training resulting from residential
encroachment?
Answer. I believe we need to work closely with local communities as
they develop land use plans. If confirmed, I will ensure encroachment
issues are treated comprehensively and that the appropriate programs or
initiatives are implemented to address potential readiness problems. We
need to understand the community needs and they to know how land use
planning can affect our ability to meet military training and readiness
needs.
REPORTS AND NOTIFICATIONS TO CONGRESS
Question. A responsibility of the Department of the Air Force is to
satisfy statutory report and notification requirements to Congress.
Many notifications require a wait period of a specific number of days
after notification is received by Congress before the Department can
carry out the action. The current Air Force policy is to answer all
questions generated by Congress regarding the notification before
proceeding with the action.
Do you support and will you adhere to this policy?
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. As a political appointee, I consider it my duty to be an
advocate for the policies of the administration. However, I will always
be prepared to provide my best professional judgment when asked.
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 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
INSTALLATION DEFENSE, PROTECTION AND SECURITY
1. Senator Warner. Dr. Sega, Mr. Eastin, and Mr. Anderson, in 2004,
the Department of Defense (DOD) initiated the defense-wide Guardian
Installations Protection Program (IPP). Upon completion, Guardian IPP
will provide warning and protection for 200 critical DOD installations
and facilities in the United States and abroad from potential chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) attacks. The committee has
fully supported this important initiative and, in fact, has authorized
an additional $10.2 million within the program to provide greater
protection of our military's mail system. Do you believe that our
military installations are vulnerable to potential CBRN attacks?
Mr. Anderson. Our military installations worldwide remain targets
for terrorist attacks from chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear (CBRN) weapons. It is commonly understood that visible and
comprehensive site protection measures will dissuade potential
adversaries from targeting protected assets, including those of the Air
Force (AF). In addition, fully prepared emergency response personnel
supported by the proper infrastructure play a major role. Vulnerability
occurs when site hardening initiatives and emergency response
preparedness are insufficient as compared to the perceived threat for
any particular installation. I am not privy at present to any analyses
of site capability shortfalls. However, if confirmed, I intend to
review (1) the progress on site hardening initiatives to date, (2)
efforts toward institutionalizing improvements and integrating them
fully into strategy, planning and operational capabilities, and (3)
closure actions intended to address capability gaps. In summary,
Department of Defense installations around the world will remain
attractive targets due to the strategic and emotional value associated
to them by a potential attacker. If confirmed, I will lead continuing
efforts to increase our capabilities to prevent, prepare for, respond
to and recover from potential attacks.
2. Senator Warner. Dr. Sega, Mr. Eastin, and Mr. Anderson, given
the significant capital our government has invested at these high-value
military installations, do you believe it is necessary to protect these
assets from possible CBRN attacks?
Mr. Anderson. Yes. It is critical to protect physical
infrastructure, the people who serve on these military installations,
information/data assets and the supply chain in order to ensure that
each installation can, at all times, execute on its primary warfighting
mission. If confirmed, I will provide leadership emphasis to ensure the
Air Force supports this strategy with the appropriate resources.
3. Senator Warner. Dr. Sega, Mr. Eastin, and Mr. Anderson, as these
200 installations and facilities are under the jurisdiction of the DOD,
how do you intend to ensure the program is fully and effectively
implemented within your respective Service?
Mr. Anderson. The Air Force has a number of efforts underway that
are responsive to the possibility of enemy attacks with chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN), both offensive and
defensive, and designed to be effective both in the homeland and
forward regions. If confirmed, I intend to build on the progress to
date and via collaboration with other functions within the Air Force to
(1) review recommendations for site hardening at each installation and
progress on completing these recommendations, (2) schedule audits to
ensure continuing compliance to recommendations, (3) conduct crisis
drills to confirm that hardware and process upgrades perform as
expected, and (4) provide a feedback loop so that lessons learned from
audits and drills translate to continuous improvement of security
processes and systems.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
DEPOT MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT FUND
4. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Sega, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Anderson, since the
Bush administration came into office, we have seen a renewed interest
in the Air Force's depots. A key to this overall reinvigoration has
been the Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan that will ensure
America's air and space assets are ready to rapidly respond to any
national security threat. Because of this plan, we have begun a
restoration of our Air Force's three depot facilities, one of which is
located at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. This modernization will
ensure the United States is able to maintain world-class aircraft
repair and overhaul facilities. Tinker Air Force Base is the largest
single employer in the State of Oklahoma. It is important to sustain
and upgrade Tinker's facilities and equipment along with that of the
other depot facilities. There is currently an amendment that I support
which calls for full funding of the Depot Maintenance Strategy and
Master Plan at a level of $150 million a year, over a 6-year period.
Secretary Gibbs supported fully funding the Depot Maintenance
Improvement Fund. Do you have any concerns about sufficiently funding
the Improvement Fund at the same percentage level as Secretary Gibbs?
Mr. Anderson. The Air Force continues to be fully committed to
managing world-class organic depot maintenance capability for our
warfighters. Such a commitment comes in the form of making strategic
investments in support infrastructure that will ensure each
installation can deliver expected value and results. If confirmed, I
will continue to build on the successful effort already begun to meet
our commitment to modernize and transform our depot maintenance
equipment, facilities and personnel by sufficiently funding the Depot
Modernization line set aside by the Air Force between fiscal year 2004-
2009.
5. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Sega, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Anderson, will you
commit to this same level of funding?
Mr. Anderson. The Air Force continues to be fully committed to
managing world-class depot maintenance capability for our warfighters.
If confirmed, I will work with my staff to make sure we continue to
meet the milestones in the ongoing process of modernizing and
transforming our depot maintenance equipment, facilities, and
personnel, and to efficiently use available finding to meet that end.
UTILITIES PRIVATIZATION
6. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Eastin and Mr. Anderson, as part of a very
important effort to save money on our military installations, the
Department of Defense initiated two very important programs. One was
the privatization of military housing under subchapter IV of chapter
169 of title 10, United States Code. This program is projected to save
the government millions of dollars and put our fighting men and women
in modern, well-maintained housing. Thus far the results are amazing.
The other program under section 2688 of title 10 is the privatization
of utilities on bases. Likewise this program is projected to save
millions of dollars over time. However, many bases cannot move forward
on the utilities privatization because the Federal power marketing
administrations have an inconsistent approach regarding the effects of
such privatization on Federal power allocations at military
installations. For example, Fort Sill, Oklahoma wanted to move to
privatization, but according to policies at Southwestern Power
Administration Fort Sill would lose its Federal power allocation. This
makes the privatization of the utilities infrastructure uneconomical.
Therefore the taxpayer cannot save money on the military installation
because of this policy. Last year this committee directed a study that
was just completed by DOD. It lays out all these issues. What can we do
about this, short of passing a law?
Mr. Anderson. I am not yet privy to the study recently completed by
the Department of Defense, so I am not in a position to comment
specifically on whether there are solutions to this problem short of
legislative action. If confirmed, I will take an in-depth look at the
study and the privatization policies of the Federal power marketing
administrations in order to be in a position to advocate a solution
that will provide cost savings for the taxpayer, while providing
adequately for the needs of our Air Force personnel and our
installations.
7. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Eastin and Mr. Anderson, can you assure me
that you will look into this and help us fix this problem?
Mr. Anderson. I believe that deriving maximum value from each
taxpayer dollar is an obligation of any government agency. If
confirmed, I will work with my counterparts in the other service
branches to review the various policies among the Federal power
marketing administrations, determine the most economical alternatives
for the Air Force and the Department of Defense, and advocate for any
changes appropriate to achieve a cost-effective solution.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
ADDITION OF SOFTWARE AS A CORE REQUIREMENT FOR AIR LOGISTICS CENTERS
8. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Anderson, in your responses to the
advance policy questions, you note correctly that you would be
responsible for exercising oversight of the entire Air Force logistics
system. You also stated that upon the assumption of any new leadership
assignment, you would develop a 90-day plan which would include site
visits as part of a leadership assimilation process focused on closing
any knowledge gaps. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage
you to visit the Air Logistics Center at Robins Air Force Base in
Georgia. The folks there are doing tremendous work regenerating our Air
Force's combat power. One item you might inquire about while visiting
there is the process of making software maintenance a core requirement
for Air Logistics Centers. Can you comment on your understanding of the
core workload requirement and give your thoughts on the importance of
maintaining sufficient core workload capacity at our Air Force
Logistics Centers?
Mr. Anderson. Each of the Air Logistics Centers will provide me
with a tremendous opportunity to take in a broad scope of the Air Force
mission as they are co-located with active air bases. If confirmed, I
look forward to visiting all three during the leadership assimilation
process. I am not yet familiar with the Department of Defense
definition of core workload requirements. However, based on my private
sector understanding of ``core'' being those essential operational
processes where in-house capability is critical, if confirmed, I will
make it a priority to review in general the core workload capacity at
the depots, and specifically as it relates to your query on software
maintenance.
______
[The nomination reference of William C. Anderson follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 26, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
William Anderson, of Connecticut, to be an Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force, vice Nelson F. Gibbs.
______
[The biographical sketch of William C. Anderson, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of William C. Anderson
William C. (Bill) Anderson is the General Manager and Senior
Counsel--Environmental, Health and Safety for GE Consumer & Industrial,
a major business unit of the General Electric Company and a global
industry leader in the manufacture of appliances, lighting products and
electrical equipment. In his present position, Bill has responsibility
for environmental matters, facility safety, occupational medicine, and
facility management for an organization of 75,000 people in hundreds of
locations worldwide. He has also served as International Tax Counsel
for General Electric, Integration Manager for GE AEG (Germany), and as
General Counsel, Director of Quality and Environmental Affairs to GE's
electrical businesses in Europe. Previously, Bill was a financial
consultant with Merrill Lynch, and a tax consultant at Arthur Andersen
& Company and Ryder Systems, Inc.
He has served as Managing Director for GE Poland Sp. zoo, GE AEG
Niederspannungstechnik and Vice President of Caribe GE Products, Inc.
Previously, Bill served on the Board of Directors of the Puerto Rico--
USA Foundation. He has acted as an Observer to the National Conference
of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws Drafting Committee on the
Uniform Environmental Covenants Act and has been a featured speaker at
the University of Connecticut School of Law's Gallivan Conference on
Real Property Law. Bill is a member of the Advisory Board for BNA's
Environmental Due Diligence Guide.
Bill received his undergraduate degree in history (with honors)
from Washington College in Chestertown, Maryland. He earned his law
degree (with honors) from Syracuse University and studied in the
masters program for international business at the University of Miami.
Bill is a member of the Maryland and Florida Bar Associations.
For more than 20 years, Bill has been active in community service.
His participation has included positions as Legal Counsel and Regional
Advisor to the Florida Jaycees, Board Member and Treasurer of Big
Brothers/Big Sisters of Broward, Inc., Chair of the GE Community
Service Fund, Member of the Board of Directors for the American
RedCross, Middlesex/Central Connecticut Chapter, Vice Chair of the
Urban League of Greater Hartford, and Chair of the Urban League of
Greater Hartford Development Corporation, Inc. Bill served as Business
Champion/Advisor for GE's Asia Pacific American Forum.
______
[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 C.
Anderson 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 Carl Anderson (Bill Anderson).
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations and
Environment).
3. Date of nomination:
May 26, 2005.
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, 1958; Syracuse, New York.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Deborah Lynn Harding.
7. Names and ages of children:
I have no natural or adopted children. However, my wife's daughter,
Shawna Faloona Anderson, age 23, has lived with us since our marriage
in 1990 and I have treated and supported her as my own child.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Secondary: Dulaney Senior High, Timonium, Maryland, September 1974-
June 1976. High School Diploma, June 1976.
Undergraduate: Washington College, Chestertown, Maryland, August
1976-May 1980, B.A., History, May 1980.
Law School: Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, August 1980-
May 1983, Juris Doctor, May 1983.
Graduate Studies: University of Miami School of Business, Coral
Gables, Florida, January 1989-December 1990, degree not conferred.
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.
August 1996-Present: General Manager and Senior Counsel,
Environmental Health and Safety, General Electric Company, Plainville,
CT.
June 1994-August 1996: General Counsel and Director of Quality and
Environmental Affairs, GE Power Controls, Gent, Belgium.
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.
N/A
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.
Generations Resort Properties, Inc., a wholly-owned real estate
investment company (Subchapter C) doing business in Maryland. Nominee
is sole shareholder and director and serves as company president.
Bureau of National Affairs (BNA)--Environmental Due Diligence
Guide. Nominee is a member of the Advisory Board.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member: Maryland Bar Association.
Member: Florida Bar Association.
Vice Chairman: Urban League of Greater Hartford, Inc., Hartford,
CT.
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.
N/A.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
1997-2004, Life Member, Republican National Committee
2004-2005, Republican Eagles.
No offices held nor services rendered in either case.
(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.
May 12, 2000, GEPAC, $300.
May 12, 2000, CONNPAC, $100.
November 8, 2001, GEPAC, $750.
November 8, 2001, CONNPAC, $300.
July 12, 2002, GEPAC, $750.
July 12, 2002, CONNPAC, $200.
September 16, 2002, Sanford for Assembly, $100.
November 24, 2002 Republican National Committee, $500.
February 22, 2003, Republican National Committee, 250.
See attached sheet for additional contributions. [Nominee responded
and the information is contained in the committee's executive files.]
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Phi Alpha Theta National History Honorary (Undergraduate).
American Jurisprudence in Corporations Award (Law School).
Wall Street Journal Award (Law School).
Chairman's Award--Urban League of Greater Hartford, Inc., Hartford,
CT.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
N/A.
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.
Appeared as speaker at 10th Annual Gallivan Conference on Real
Property at the University of Connecticut School of Law, October 4,
2002. This was a panel discussion so no prepared text is available.
Topic was brownfields redevelopment, an activity relevant to nominated
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 C. Anderson.
This 2nd day of June 2005.
[The nomination of William C. Anderson was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on October 27, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on October 28, 2005.]
NOMINATIONS OF HON. MICHAEL W. WYNNE TO BE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
AND DR. DONALD C. WINTER TO BE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John
Warner (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain,
Sessions, Collins, Talent, Chambliss, Thune, Levin, Lieberman,
Reed, Bill Nelson, and Clinton.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: William C. Greenwalt,
professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff
member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff member; Thomas L.
MacKenzie, professional staff member; Elaine A. McCusker,
professional staff member; David M. Morriss, counsel; Lucian L.
Niemeyer, professional staff member; Stanley R. O'Connor, Jr.,
professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel;
Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F.
Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Madelyn R. Creedon, minority
counsel; Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J.
Leeling, minority counsel; and Peter K. Levine, minority
counsel.
Staff assistants present: Micah H. Harris, Jessica L.
Kingston, Jill L. Simodejka, and Pendred K. Wilson.
Committee members assistants present: Christopher J. Paul,
assistant to Senator McCain; Arch Galloway II, assistant to
Senator Sessions; Dirk Maurer and Mackenzie M. Eaglen,
assistants to Senator Collins; Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to
Senator Talent; Bob Taylor and Stuart C. Mallory, assistants to
Senator Thune; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator
Lieberman; William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson;
Kimberly Jackson, assistant to Senator Dayton; and Andrew
Shapiro, assistant to Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. The committee will come to order. We're
pleased to have before the committee this morning the Honorable
Michael W. Wynne, the nominee to be Secretary of the Air Force,
and Dr. Donald C. Winter, the nominee to be Secretary of the
Navy.
This is a very important hearing in accordance with the
advice and consent clause of the U.S. Constitution. Having had
the privilege of serving in the position of Secretary of the
Navy some many years, I always take a very special interest in
the hearings for those who become the Service Secretaries. I
think they play a vital role in the overall construct of our
Department of Defense (DOD).
This morning, I hasten to add to all in attendance and
those following this hearing that when I first came to the
Senate some many years ago, one of the old Senators said to me,
``You'll soon realize that this institution tries to do
everything at once or little or nothing.'' Today is an
``everything at once.'' We had a very long session last night.
I just left the hearing of the Homeland Security Committee,
where Senator Collins, who hopefully will join us later,
Senator Levin, and Senator Lieberman are presiding, and I
stopped by the Environment and Public Works. Senator Inhofe and
other members of this committee are up there working, so,
forgive what appears to be a shortage of attendance. I assure
you, each and every one of these Senators is heavily engaged
somewhere.
By unanimous consent, we will keep the record open until
close of business tomorrow night for Senators to submit
questions to these two witnesses. Of course, after the recess,
we hope to return to continuing to process these two very
important nominations.
I'm optimistic that the Senate will provide advice and
consent for these two important positions. Our Nation is at
war. We definitely need them in place to meet the needs of the
men and women in the Armed Forces, and I thank each of you and
your families for offering to perform this public service.
We welcome Mr. Wynne and Dr. Winter and their families, and
we now ask our nominees to introduce their families to those in
attendance. It will be placed in the permanent record of the
history of the Senate.
Mr. Wynne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm accompanied today by my wife, Barbara, and a long-time
family friend, Dr. Ron Schillereff. They're very pleased to be
able to be here today. Thank you for the opportunity.
Chairman Warner. I also wish to recognize another gentleman
who's here. I believe he was a classmate, is that correct?
Mr. Wynne. That is correct. I have a classmate in
attendance from the class of 1966 from West Point, Jack
Wheeler, who's another long-time friend and colleague.
[Additional information follows:]
Chairman Warner. The Chair is very knowledgeable of Mr.
Wheeler. He was instrumental in working with a group, of which
I was privileged to be a member, to create the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial here in Washington, DC. So I remember him as a
captain. I welcome you, Captain.
Captain Wheeler. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Winter.
Dr. Winter. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that this morning I'm
joined by my wife, Linda, and my two sons: Benjamin, who
resides in Arlington with his wife and our granddaughter; and
Jonathan, who resides in southern California.
Chairman Warner. The committee members have indulged the
chairman through the years in making the statement that, having
had some experience in that building in your positions, the
hour of 7:30 to 8 o'clock comes in the Department of Defense,
and so many decisions that are made at that point in time are
re-reviewed in the morning, in the light of day, and changed.
So, I do hope you get home to your families and allow your
staffs to have reasonable hours, when possible. Do you give me
that assurance?
Mr. Wynne. A point well taken, Senator, and I assure you we
will do that.
Dr. Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Wynne served as the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology from July
2001 through 2003 and, upon the departure of Secretary
Aldridge, was then named as the acting Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and has served in that
position for some time.
In April of this year, following consultation with the
committee by the Department, the President gave Mr. Wynne a
recess appointment as the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and, at about the same
time, forwarded the nomination of Kenneth Kreig for that very
important position within the DOD. With the Senate confirmation
and appointment of Mr. Kreig in June 2005 as Under Secretary of
Defense, Mr. Wynne was asked--and, to his credit, agreed--to
resume his position as the Deputy Under Secretary with the
responsibility for overseeing the Department's Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) efforts.
Mr. Wynne is a proud 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
private industry. We thank Mr. Wynne for his service to date
and for his willingness, if confirmed, to serve as the 21st
Secretary of the Air Force.
We also welcome Dr. Donald C. Winter, who has been
nominated to be the 74th Secretary of the Navy. Dr. Winter has
a wealth of experience and accomplishments in the private
sector, most recently as corporate vice president of Northrop
Grumman's mission systems sector. Dr. Winter has been the
president and CEO of TRW, Inc., and has management experience
in space systems, engineering, support operations, and
maintenance, and development of advanced technologies directly
related to new and evolving systems.
Dr. Winter has served with the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) as program manager for Space
Acquisition and Tracking Programs and was awarded the Secretary
of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service for his
contributions.
Dr. Winter has also found time to serve on the Board of
Directors of the United Service Organization (USO) of
Metropolitan Washington and the Wolf Trap Foundation for
Performing Arts in Virginia.
I thank you both, and I might add that a number of
individuals in whom I repose a great deal of respect and
confidence have come forward to speak to me privately on behalf
of both of you, urging that you be given this opportunity to,
once again, serve the Government.
Gentlemen, thank you for your public service.
Senator Levin is in another committee hearing. I just left
him and he will be here shortly. He urged me to start this
hearing in his absence.
The committee has asked our witnesses to answer a series of
advanced policy questions. They have responded to those
questions. Without objection, I'll make the questions and the
responses part of the record.
I also have certain standard questions we ask every nominee
who appears before the committee. If you'll respond to each
question, then we can move on to policy questions by the
committee.
To both of you:
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest?
Mr. Wynne. Yes, Senator.
Dr. Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties, or undertaken
any actions, which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Wynne. No, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Winter. No, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record on hearings before the
Congress of the United States?
Mr. Wynne. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Wynne. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. Wynne. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. In reply to the inquiries of Congress, we
have broadened that category, and this is the language that we
are currently using. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a
timely manner when requested by the committees of Congress, or
to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any good-
faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
Mr. Wynne. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank you.
At this point in time, if the nominees have opening
statements, we'd be happy to hear them.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL W. WYNNE, TO BE SECRETARY OF THE AIR
FORCE
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, it is a particular
honor for me to appear before you today as the nominee for
Secretary of the United States Air Force.
Not only was it my prior service following my graduation
from West Point, but my father, also a West Pointer, served his
career in the United States Air Force. One of my brothers, a
graduate of the Air Force Academy, died in its service in
Vietnam. Another retired as an NCO. I fully intend to honor
each of them, should you see fit to confirm me.
For this opportunity, I thank the President and the
Secretary of Defense for having the continued confidence in me
to conduct the affairs of the United States Air Force. If
confirmed, I intend to honor that confidence, as well as that
demonstrated by this committee, which has assisted me onto the
right course throughout my service.
I would also like to thank my wife, Barbara, who is my life
partner and has helped me for 39 years in each of my
assignments as both confidante and cheerleader while raising
and marrying off our four beautiful daughters. We, today, count
our 11 grandchildren and 4 terrific sons-in-law as adding
wonderfully to our life.
With your help and support, I was able to accomplish much
in assisting the Secretary in his effort to transform the
Department. There remains much for the Departments' talented
folks to continue, but I am particularly proud of the emphasis
I was able to bring to end-to-end procurement, logistics
systems, and interoperability. I believe in transparency of
effort, such that the goals are clear and supportable. The role
of the leader is in removing barriers to success for the
enterprise while holding subordinates accountable for
performance.
I would like to thank this committee for both prompting and
encouraging improvement in acquisition and technology. Yet,
there remains much to be done, and there are some good ideas
being brought forth to balance needs, resources, and schedule.
You have seen some of the results in the efficiency and
timeliness of the logistics enterprise in support of our
warfighters. Also, there was good progress on interoperability
as a basis for coalition and joint warfare. This was reflected
in the present warfight and in the future planning for
interoperability. I hope to continue to support these efforts
should I gain confirmation, and I strongly desire to see the
Air Force become the first to gain from a transparent business
process and be restored to the premier position in acquisition
and management that is its history.
At first look, the Air Force is striving to be a leader in
jointness, and I will certainly support their efforts in that
regard. The mission of the Air Force, to me, is to provide the
capabilities necessary to preserve and defend the United States
and its interests by controlling the areas assigned, such as
air and space. This mission is one that resonates well with me
and, if confirmed, affords me a clear opportunity to serve with
magnificent men and women throughout your United States Air
Force. This is a task I would relish, and thus, I look forward
to the potential.
With regard to that potential, I want to thank the chairman
and members of this committee for instituting the interim
policy regarding conflicts of interest while the quest for an
appropriate surety bond continues. This will allow all of us to
serve, and serve well. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman and
the committee members, that I and my colleagues take this
responsibility to hold ourselves to the highest ethical
standards to heart and commit to you to adhere to the interim
policy in every respect.
The President and the Secretary have emphasized the
importance of ethics across the Department and Government, and
I intend to set the standard for the Air Force, if confirmed,
as integrity first. I look forward to the opportunity to
continue working with this committee, and intend to consult
often as the challenges approach.
Thank you again for your consideration. I look forward to
your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Secretary Wynne. I
must say, I was touched by your reference to your family and
the extraordinary participation by those members of your family
in wearing the uniform of the United States, helping to
preserve the freedom that you and I and others enjoy today.
There isn't a day that goes by that I don't reflect on my own
father, who was an Army captain in World War I in the trenches
as a doctor, and I proudly have his picture on my wall.
Dr. Winter?
STATEMENT OF DONALD C. WINTER, TO BE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Dr. Winter. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
would like to thank the President and the Secretary of Defense
for nominating me as Secretary of the Navy. I am truly honored
by the confidence they have expressed in me by way of this
nomination. I would also like to thank the committee for their
consideration of my nomination.
In addition, if you would permit me, I would like to thank
my wife Linda for the tremendous support and inspiration she
has provided throughout our 36 years of marriage. I would also
like to thank my parents, Bert and Ada Winter, my father, a
pharmacist's mate second class, during World War II, for the
tremendous support that they have provided me. They wanted to
be here today, but I was afraid the trip would be a little too
arduous for them.
Chairman Warner. Thank you for that acknowledgment.
Dr. Winter. I've had a great career in the defense industry
working on some of the most technically challenging programs. I
have had the honor of working with some of the best teams--
contractors and government officials alike--on some of the most
important missions facing the United States today.
But recently I have become a believer in the concept of the
third act, that after spending the first part of life learning
and preparing, and the second part of life doing, one should
spend the third part of life giving back. I also believe, as
some have suggested, that one should transition between the
second act and the third while you are still able to contribute
in a significant way and it seems that this is the right time
for me.
I only ask for the opportunity to serve to provide
stewardship for these great institutions, the United States
Navy and the United States Marine Corps, and to be able to
support the sailors and marines who have put their lives on the
line and are doing us so proud in their service to our Nation
at this great time of need.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering the questions of
the committee.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Given that I will be here throughout this hearing, at this
time I allow Senator McCain to take my opening period of asking
questions.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome the witnesses, and I congratulate them and their
families for their appointments. We're pleased to have
individuals of this caliber who are willing to serve.
Dr. Winter, Northrop Grumman is one of the largest
corporations in this country. I understand you've not always
worked for Northrop Grumman, but for TRW. TRW was acquired by
Northrop Grumman and you now are employed by a company that has
many multibillion-dollar contracts with the Navy. The American
people deserve to know that there will be absolutely no hint of
any bias by you in making acquisition decisions for the Navy.
By the way, if this hearing had been held several years
ago, I probably wouldn't be mentioning it. Unfortunately, there
have been several cases of conflicts of interest that cause me
to bring up this issue.
Dr. Winter, do you intend to recuse yourself from decisions
that would have to do with Northrop Grumman?
Dr. Winter. Senator, I intend to recuse myself from
decisions which would represent a conflict of interest, or a
potential or perceived conflict of interest, according to the
procedures identified in my ethics agreement.
Senator McCain. Who decides if you should recuse yourself?
Dr. Winter. The decision is made by the designated ethics
official for the agency.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wynne and Dr. Winter, we have a huge problem with
procurement in that costs are escalating to the point where
many weapons systems are becoming unaffordable. I'm sure you're
both aware of $2 billion destroyers and $14 billion aircraft
carriers and $500 million airplanes and $65 million C-130s. The
list goes on and on, and at some point there's going to be a
cutback in defense spending. One, we are going to have to make
some tough decisions as to what we want to acquire, because I
don't think we can acquire everything. But two, what we do
acquire, we're going to have to keep the lid on the costs,
because literally every major program we're acquiring is
experiencing significant overruns.
This committee, under the leadership of Senator Warner, has
held one procurement hearing and we will be holding several in
the future, and we'll look to you for your advice and counsel.
I guess I'll begin with you, Secretary Wynne, and then you,
Dr. Winter. Maybe you can describe to us what you think ought
to be done.
Mr. Wynne. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. I will tell
you, it's the balancing of the infusion of technology, the
requirements and needs of the warfighter, and the schedules to
which we all adhere. One thing that I intend to do is to review
very carefully the requirements that are tabled to determine
whether or not they are, if you will, at need or above need, to
determine whether or not we can submit a higher and more mature
technology model to the procurement folks. I also will tell you
that the absence of change and the stability of programs from a
specification requirement, is something that I intend to focus
on. I think if we were to do tradeoffs instead of just adding
on the requirements, there would probably be fewer add-ons. In
other words, if this were a zero-sum practice and the program
manager was given a lot more authority to say no, we could
bring these programs in on a little bit tighter schedule and
probably for a lot better cost.
Senator McCain. Do you think we should have cost-plus
contracts?
Mr. Wynne. Cost-plus contracts are evidence that you do not
have a real handle on what you want to buy. It's hard for
people to essentially put a fixed price on a scientific
experiment. I think as we mature our own requirements and drive
the technical maturity up, that allows you to reach for fixed-
price-like contracts, like fixed-price incentive contracts,
which are a little bit more self-evident. Maybe we should trend
away from the cost-plus aspects.
Senator McCain. Dr. Winter?
Dr. Winter. Senator, I believe that there are issues that
we need to address, in terms of both procedures and personnel.
From the procedures perspective, I would suggest that we need
to put increased emphasis on maturing the requirements prior to
initiating major acquisition activities and, in particular, in
terms of separating out very carefully true requirements from
what I might call ``desirements.'' I believe we need to take a
good hard look at the alternatives that exist, to be able to
satisfy those requirements and that those evaluations have to
be supported by credible and realistic cost, schedule, and risk
assessments. I think we need to ensure that we have concept
designs and program plans that are realistic and guard against
the usual trials and tribulations that occur during a
development process. I believe we need to go and work all of
that through with proper consideration of the roles of the
Department and the roles of the contractor.
To that last point, I would add that I believe we have to
take a good hard look at the personnel that we have within the
acquisition community both in terms of their numbers as well as
in terms of the mix. I'm particularly concerned about what I
see as the erosion of the technical capability within the
Department supporting major acquisitions and the need to
buttress that to ensure that the Department can play its proper
role in the acquisition procedures.
Senator McCain. I see my time is expired. Mr. Chairman, I
thank you. I thank the witnesses.
What I don't get, Secretary Wynne, is that the fastest-
evolving and emerging technology in the United States, which is
driving our economy, is information technology. Literally with
every technological improvement and advance, costs go down. The
price of a high-definition television used to be many
thousands; it's now getting down to many hundreds. Chip
capacity improves and the cost goes down. Yet it seems in the
defense business that every improvement in technology means the
cost goes up. Is it that these two kinds of technologies are so
vastly different that there's no way of comparing them? Or is
it the fact that there's vigorous and incredibly intense
competition in the information technology business and,
basically, in the defense business, most competition, due to
the consolidation of defense industries, has disappeared?
Mr. Wynne. Senator, there's probably no doubt that there's
a combination of factors. I think one of the things that we
have a tendency to do is push the technical edge and don't
allow the maturing of our technologies to the point where
competition is self-evident. I think it's incumbent upon us to
try to figure out how to get to where we are satisfied, if you
will, with available technologies, rather than pushing the edge
on either processing speed or capability. It just seems to be
that the thing that we really want is just beyond the developed
envelope and I think that's something we really have to watch
for.
Senator McCain. Thank you Mr. Chairman. We'll be discussing
this a lot.
Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. When he says, ``We'll be
discussing it a lot,'' he is taking a lead on this committee on
this subject, and I urge you to promptly return the calls of
inquiry that this distinguished Senator will have forthcoming.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. I would yield to Senator Reed at this time,
if that's all right with the chair.
Chairman Warner. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you gentlemen for being here today and for your service in many
different capacities.
I've had the privilege of working with Secretary Wynne, and
I've always been impressed with his integrity and his
dedication to the Service, and I think he brings something
special to his role, as he suggests in his testimony, not only
of his own personal service in the Air Force, but also that of
his father and his brother. That makes a difference in terms of
understanding the way the Air Force works. It also involves, in
your role, not just management, but leadership.
Dr. Winter, I look forward to working with you. I know you
bring great energy to every task.
Secretary Wynne, the BRAC process left unresolved issues
about the re-stationing of the Air National Guard (ANG) units
in the country. There was some controversy. Some of the
governors felt that these were their units, and the Secretary
of Defense thought they were his units. Can you comment upon
your plans to deal with these unresolved issues?
Mr. Wynne. I understand there may be some decisions that
are subject to legal review and the judicial process, so I
won't comment on those, but I will say that Senator McCain put
it exactly right; the expense of the platforms that we request
is forcing a reduction overall in the number of platforms that
we can purchase. I think the whole issue in the ANG had to do
with the fact that we just did not have enough future airplanes
to go around. That does not mean that we do not need the
efforts and the abilities of the ANG and the pilots that are
resident within the ANG.
It's my intention to reinvigorate the Air Force
relationship with the ANG to try to put this behind us and in
fact approach the redistribution on a very collegial basis
involving those aspects of the Guard Bureau that are dedicated
to the Air Force and making sure that it is, as in every other
process, transparent, so we understand the emotions that are
behind every decision.
Senator Reed. Thank you Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, the Air Force is committing significant
airlift to the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are these
operations interrupting the transformation and modernization of
the Air Force in your view?
Mr. Wynne. No, sir. I would tell you that they underscore
and bring a foundational element--because the operations in
Iraq, the operations even in support of the disaster areas,
are, in fact, pointing the way to what needs to be done, where
we should be putting our emphasis, and, I think, has helped us
in plotting the--I believe it's called the Air Force flight
plan. It's an area that I intend to get into and find out: Just
what was the feedback of our air crews and how did this assist
us? That's the indication that I'm getting, sir.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Now, Dr. Winter, one of the great challenges that you'll
face, that we all face, is the shipbuilding numbers for the
Navy. We're operating at a rather meager annual production rate
of ships, and it goes to points that have been raised by
Senator McCain about the expense of the ships and other issues.
Can you shed some light on your thoughts about
shipbuilding? How do we improve it? Do we need special accounts
separate from annual budgets to keep shipbuilding rates up? How
do we keep building ships?
Dr. Winter. Senator, I think the first thing we need to do
is to make sure we have a clear understanding of what the
force-structure needs are going to be for the future and see
what we need in terms of a shipbuilding plan that creates a
viable mechanism of achieving those within the appropriate time
frame.
Second, we need to go and take a good hard look at how we
are acquiring those ships. Again, I would emphasize the need to
take a good, hard look at the requirements process and ensure
that we have the right requirements--not too much, not too
little, but the right ones--consistent with the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) and the other force-capability
requirements that are being developed at this point in time, so
that we are building the right capability. We will have to work
very hard through that. That is going to have to be a matter in
which we're going to have to take a good hard look at trades
between qualitative and quantitative advantage and how capable
a ship we can build versus how many ships we can afford, given
the increase in costs with capability.
I trust that, if confirmed, I'd be able to work with the
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and members of his staff to be
able to determine what is a viable and credible shipbuilding
plan that will enable us to proceed within the financial
constraints that appear to be evident.
Senator Reed. This June, the Inspector General of the
Marine Corps criticized a lack of heavy machine guns, the need
for more armored vehicles and more communications equipment for
the Marines, and then in June, before the House Armed Services
Committee, a Marine general officer said there was a 2-month
delay in acquiring armored kits to protect the underside of
High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs). Is this
an isolated episode or are there chronic shortages in the
Marine Corps? Regardless, what are you going to do about them?
Dr. Winter. Senator, if confirmed, that would be clearly
one of my top priorities, to make sure that the men and women
that we're putting in harm's way in the Marine Corps are
properly equipped. That said, I am not familiar with the
specifics of the equipment that has been provided to our
marines that are currently deployed, and I would endeavor to
make a personal determination of that once I was confirmed.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
For those who have just joined us, I yielded my position to
Senator McCain, so having arrived here the first, I will now
ask my series of questions.
At this very moment, the President of the United States is
addressing the Nation on what I anticipate will be the most
important message to, not only our Nation, but the world about
the imperative to continue this war on terrorism and to
conclude, as quickly as we can, certain phases of that war, but
in no way to withdraw or show a lack of courage in continuing
it. It must be concluded. I also studied a number of worldwide
intelligence reports early this morning, and our military
commanders, and indeed the President, made reference to this,
anticipate increased insurgency here on the eve of this very
important referendum on October 15. That's to be followed by
the elections on December 15.
In that context, there was specific reference to increased
improvised explosive device (IED) threats. Now, this committee
at least once a month brings over from the DOD those
individuals who have been tasked to work on the program so that
every single bit of technology that this Nation has can be
brought to bear on that insidious, but relatively simple weapon
system and to see what we can do to protect the coalition
forces.
Earlier this year, Secretary England directed the
reorganization and streamlining of the Joint IED Task Force,
and designated the task force as the focal point for all
efforts of the DOD to defeat these weapon systems.
I want to urge each of you however, to be very active
working within that taskforce framework, and to speak out if at
any time you feel that your department should have a stronger
or a different voice or that ideas that have worked their way
up through your departments need to be coordinated with the
task force. Dr. Winter, the Marine Corps has been extremely
active in this area, and I try, as a matter of routine, to get
down there every month or so to hear firsthand about what
they're doing, independently. All ideas do not necessarily
originate within structures. Do I have the assurance of both of
you that you will put a top priority on overseeing the
participation of your departments in this area?
Mr. Wynne. Yes sir, you certainly have my commitment.
Almost 1,950 brave young men and women have perished in the
pursuit of freedom in Iraq, and we mourn every one of them. The
IED is the most insidious form of this warfare, and anything
that we can possibly do within our toolkit and within our
technologies should be dedicated to that aspect.
Chairman Warner. You mentioned those that have perished,
and we're also mindful that there are some 14,000 who bear the
wounds and the scars and who are being nourished and supported
by their families all across America today.
Mr. Wynne. Right.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Winter.
Dr. Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I share your concern and
clear priority for this very critical issue that we need to
work. I would also add that I think we need to do more to
engage the broad spectrum of technological capability that's
available in the United States. As a member of industry right
now, I'm disappointed to say that I'm not sure that we have
done all that really could or should be done in this particular
case. I will take it as a priority to see if I can motivate
some additional effort behind this critical issue.
Chairman Warner. If confirmed, you'll get a stump. Get up
on your soapbox and start talking to your colleagues in
language that they understand.
Dr. Winter. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. On the subject of unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs), I'm proud of the record of this committee. We have been
in the forefront for many years, and I remain convinced that
we're just on the threshold of more evolution and the
proliferation of this very important type of weapon system.
However, I want you both to address early on how your
respective departments are managing the escalating costs of
these programs. Is the proper emphasis being placed on them in
both departments? Do I have that assurance?
Mr. Wynne. You certainly have my assurance, Senator. I'm
proud to have joined with this committee in fostering the UAV
programs. I'm pleased to see the ramp-up, and I think we have
successfully introduced them throughout the Services. The Air
Force has taken possession of----
Chairman Warner. I make this observation somewhat in jest
but somewhat in seriousness. You being a former Air Force
officer, I know that every morning you get up and count the
number of cockpits you have for pilots. Forget that. We have a
new system out there. Let's make it work.
Also, the use of these unmanned systems in our homeland
defense, particularly the security of our borders. Will you
also look at that situation and determine the extent to which
your departments can contribute to our homeland defense by your
own technology--UAV and other technologies?
Dr. Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynne. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we certainly will.
Chairman Warner. All right.
People must remember the enormity of the military
departments in the DOD, and the resources they have, and
particularly throughout the department, and DARPA, in which you
proudly served, the vast array of technology at your disposal
and the networking that you have with the private industry in
this country. For instance, the Homeland Security Department--
I'm proud to serve on the committee that oversees that
department--but it's just kind of getting up and getting
started. Your department's been around for a long time, and the
roots go deep. So utilize it to help, not only abroad but here
at home.
To each of you, one of the most distressing things that I,
and I think, a number of the members of our committee have
witnessed through the past years is the problem with the
Service Academies. The fact is that in 1976, our Service
Academies were integrated with women. They play a very
important role in today's force structure. Many of them are in
front-line situations in the far-flung areas of Afghanistan and
Iraq. As a matter of fact, the old term ``front line'' really
no longer exists. It's a 360-degree perimeter of risk, and they
step forward and accept it.
But with the academies for some reason, periodically, we
still find problems that exist. The Air Force, unfortunately,
has had a disproportionate number of problems recently. I tell
you, this committee is going to be unrelenting if we continue
to receive these reports. The Secretary of the Service, which
you aspire to be in your respective departments, is going to be
the one that I think I will hold primarily responsible, because
we operate, in the DOD, under the time-tested doctrine of
civilian control. It's not that the chiefs of Services aren't
trying their best, but I'm forewarning you of the zero
tolerance that we're going to have. We'll take the necessary
steps in this committee through legislation and otherwise, to
stop it and make this system work. Do I have that commitment
from you, Secretary Wynne?
Mr. Wynne. Senator, if confirmed, it's one of my highest
priorities, especially as a former instructor at the Air Force
Academy, to review all of the policies that are there, get to
know all of the faculty and staff that are presently there, and
make sure that we do not have a leadership issue. I think of
this as a leadership issue, much as you have described it.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Dr. Winter.
Dr. Winter. Mr. Chairman, should I be confirmed, that too
would be a very high priority for me, one that I intend to
execute by way of both personal engagement, visiting with the
midshipmen, understanding what is really transpiring there,
reviewing the quality-of-life surveys, other investigations
that are conducted, drawing upon the Board of Visitors and the
executive committee, and other resources that may be available
to me. This is something we cannot fail to fix. We need to
ensure that we have both the proper climate and set of
behaviors within the Academy to support the needs of the Navy
in the future.
Chairman Warner. I would hope, subject to Senate
confirmation, as you take your posts, that within the first 30
days, you'll have the opportunity to visit your respective
institutions, which are so respected by the American public.
Each Member of Congress, every year, has literally hundreds of
individuals that come to him in the hopes that they can get the
few appointments that are available, and when you make that
visit, it's ``now hear this'' and give them the message
straightforwardly.
Thank you.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me join you in
welcoming both of our witnesses.
I want to raise some acquisition issues, which have been
touched upon. I want to go back to that tanker lease program
which finally fell apart. Under the leadership of Senator
McCain, supported by the chairman and myself and a number of
other members, we were able, with Senator McCain in the lead,
to rein in that program. But there was something deeper that
was demonstrated there, in addition to Ms. Druyan's criminal
conduct. She was not solely or even primarily responsible for
many of the significant problems that were demonstrated with
that Air Force tanker lease proposal, and I want to just go
through a few of them.
It was not Ms. Druyan who reversed the findings of the Air
Force's 2001 Tanker Economic Service Life Study without
obtaining new information or undertaking a new review.
It was not Ms. Druyan who resisted conducting a formal
analysis of alternatives, as the Department does with other
major programs, to determine the best approach to meeting the
Department's tanker needs.
It was not Ms. Druyan who failed to develop required
system-engineering documents and testing plans, and insisted
that requirements documents be tailored to the aircraft
available from a specific contractor.
It was not Ms. Druyan who insisted on pursuing a leasing
approach, even when multiple independent reviews determined
that leasing the aircraft would be $2 to $6 billion more
expensive than purchasing them.
In other words, there were some real systemic failures here
which were demonstrated, in addition to her criminal conduct.
Now, one of the causes of these failures--and I say ``one
of them''--may be the reduction in the acquisition workforce.
At a nomination hearing last fall, General Martin, head of the
Air Force Systems Command, which is one of the Air Force's
principal field acquisition organizations, was asked several
questions about the Air Force acquisition organization and the
oversight that it provides. He said that in the 1990s ``not
only did we go through a very serious restructuring of our
forces in drawdown, but we also went through a major
acquisition reform that took much of the oversight and many of
the checks and balances, out.'' He continued, ``We may have
gone too far in the pendulum.''
Now, Secretary Wynne, I know that you have expressed
concerns about the extent to which we have cut back on our
acquisition workforce and that the Air Force, in particular,
may have created problems for itself by eliminating its system-
engineering capability. I'd like to hear from you about whether
you will continue to put a focus on the acquisition workforce
to ensure that the Air Force has a workforce that is adequate
for the jobs that it must perform in addressing the oversight
shortfalls and the deficiencies which have been identified both
during the tanker lease expose and also through some of these
other failures.
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Senator Levin.
If confirmed, acquisition is going to be one of my areas of
emphasis. I do think that we have had a significant roll-off in
the area of systems engineering and frankly, specification and
test documentation development within the context of a program
office. I think the absence of that talent pool is one of the
things that leads people to try to figure out how to get it
done in the absence of that talent pool. One of my emphases is
going to be to restore that.
I think the diffusion and dispersion of authority, holding
people accountable at areas closer to the actual embarkation on
a contract action, and allowing the business plans to develop
in a thorough and transparent manner, is also going to be an
issue.
So yes, sir, it is a point of interest for me, a point of
emphasis. I would like to, for sure, see the Air Force adopt
transparent business practices so that there's a clear
understanding of the goods and the bads, and so that we can
have a robust debate and come to an agreement way before we
have, if you will, implanted advocates on one side or the
other.
Senator Levin. Secretary Wynne you stated in your pre-
hearing policy answers to questions that one of the most
serious problems you face is to ``restore the Air Force to its
premier status as the acquisition and management organization
promoting transparency wherever appropriate.'' We welcome that
statement. The fact that it has lost its status is significant,
and we all have to recognize that, because of the failures
which have been identified. But it's going to be up to you and
your leadership to restore that status.
I'm glad you put it that way. I'm glad that you, again
here, have committed to undertake that heavy responsibility
because there has been a very significant problem structurally,
as well as with individual misbehavior in the acquisition
failures that have been demonstrated relative to the Air Force.
On the role of the ANG in natural disasters, are you going
to take a look at the role that the ANG played, didn't play, or
failed to play during Hurricane Katrina, to see whether or not
we can improve the Air Guard's planning, communication, and
readiness to assist civilian authorities in response to natural
disasters?
Mr. Wynne. Yes, Senator. If confirmed, I intend to review
all of the feedback from our responses, not only in the
disaster areas of Katrina and Rita but also as it applies to
our current look at Iraq in Operation Enduring Freedom. I think
this is the way that we can best address the ANG's performance
and determine what needs to be done.
I would note that the courageous men and women of the ANG
showed up in droves when finally energized and when finally
alerted to the problem. They're performing magnificently in the
area of disasters to the benefit of the population of the gulf
coast.
Senator Levin. I saw firsthand the same thing and the
problem wasn't the willingness or the courage of the members of
the Guard. The problems were the communications problems----
Mr. Wynne. Right.
Senator Levin.--and the planning problems.
Thank you. My time is up.
Chairman Warner. Senator Thune is next, but I would like to
emphasize that I have watched the Air Guard's performance here.
Even in the early stages of the Balkan conflict, they ran that
very successful and somewhat dangerous airlift operation into
Sarajevo. I happened to have been one of the very first to go
in with one of their planes one time, and it was not a risk-
free operation for those aircrews by any means.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Wynne, you obviously played a major role in
developing the DOD recommendations for base closures and
defending those recommendations during the BRAC hearings
including the recommendation to close Ellsworth Air Force Base
in my State. The Department's reasoning was questioned as to
the reality of savings from personnel relocations, both by the
BRAC Commission and the General Accounting Office (GAO). In the
case of the Air Force, GAO estimated that 60 percent of the net
annual recurring savings resulted in no end-strength reductions
and were, therefore, illusory.
In the GAO report on page 124, it states that the Air Force
had initially only reported end strength reductions but then
OSD directed it to include all military personnel positions,
including those just relocated. Did that directive come from
you?
Mr. Wynne. What I did in my position was to generally
rabble-rouse, but I believe that when we manage the closure of
any installation, you have to include all of the affected
assets, the most important of which is the individuals
associated with it.
I did not write a specific directive regarding that, but I
will tell you that it was my intent to make sure that every
individual was essentially accounted for and taken care of in
the operation. Perhaps that's where it came from.
Senator Thune. It seems to me that that decision
dramatically undercut the credibility of the analysis and, I
think, ultimately was one of the reasons that the BRAC
Commission, at least in our particular circumstance, reversed
the recommendation. The Pentagon was trying to claim savings
that didn't exist to justify what were questionable
recommendations.
I wanted to get that question to you on the record, because
it pertains to another question I have. As we go forward, if
initiatives are undertaken by Congress, or even from within the
Air Force, to upgrade or add missions to bases that you had
recommended for closure, will you objectively consider the
merit of those initiatives, or will you be predisposed to
blocking such initiatives? In other words, can we count on you
to support or hinder efforts that some of us may take to ensure
our bases will not end up on the chopping block again in the
future?
Mr. Wynne. Sir, I'm going to look at each one with a very
objective view and not be at all impaired by the decisions that
the BRAC Commission made, which are a part of the past. As far
as I'm concerned, the BRAC Commission has ruled, the President
has submitted it to Congress, and Congress has yet to
disapprove, but my sense is it may get approved. When it does,
sir, I intend to follow those.
The past is past, and anything in the future is to be
reviewed on its own merits as objectively as it can be, as it
contributes to the success of our mission. That's kind of the
way I'd approach it.
Senator Thune. Okay. I don't disagree that the past is the
past, but I'm more concerned about the future, and I want to
make sure that we have folks who are going to be willing to
work with us, not against us, as we try to make sure, going
forward, that some of these bases are in a position to survive
a future round of closures.
Mr. Wynne. Senator, I'm looking forward to working with you
and being very open with you as we go.
Senator Thune. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have another question I would like to
submit for the record. I have somewhere I have to be, but if
that would be okay, I ask consent to insert my question in the
record.
Chairman Warner. Without objection, the questions of all
members can be submitted for the record.
Senator Thune. All right. I'll yield back my time.
Chairman Warner. I thank the Senator for participating here
this morning. We now turn to Senator Bill Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, prior to my questions,
I want to show a chart here for both of the nominees.
[The chart referred to follows:]
Chairman Warner. That does appear to be the State of
Florida. Is that correct? [Laughter.]
Senator Bill Nelson. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I see, and this question will relate to
that State, is that correct? [Laughter.]
Senator Bill Nelson. It relates directly to the ability of
the DOD to prepare our military forces, for this is one of the
greatest training areas in the entire U.S., the Eglin Gulf Test
and Training Range. I don't think it's any secret, in the
course of the BRAC round, why they decided to put the F-22
pilot training at Tyndall Air Force Base and put the pilot
training for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Eglin Air Force
Base. I don't think it's any secret that when the U.S. Navy
Atlantic Fleet training in Vieques was shut down, most of that
training has come here to northwest Florida in the form of
integrated land, sea, and air operations at Eglin.
What I have already called to the attention of Dr. Winter,
and I want to call to the attention of Secretary Wynne, is that
the Air Force owns this range, the Navy uses it, and as of last
week, you were just about to have the whole thing taken away
from you because the Navy has proceeded, thinking that they had
plenty of time, to negotiate with the Minerals Management
Service of the Department of Interior as to a line called a
``mission management line''--``military mission line,'' beyond
which oil drilling could not occur that would mess up all of
your training. Right now, in this entire area, the only oil
drilling is that crosshatched area that has been leased. All of
this red area, including the crosshatch, is an area called
Lease Sale 181 that is not protected by the moratorium on the
outer continental shelf. This 6 million acres is what the
Department of Interior is absolutely intent on drilling. Now
that's going to come at direct cross-purposes with your
military training and for the military preparedness that you
have to have.
Right now the line that you're negotiating with the
Minerals Management Service, of which you thought you had
several years to complete, is a line that approximately comes
along there, and everything east of that would be no drilling,
but all of this area, you would give up. So, everything west of
that line, you're going to have to give up. With the expanded
airspace that you need, for example, on training on the F-22,
with the expanded airspace that you need for some of the
sophisticated weapons, including stealth cruise missions and
longer-range cruise missions that you all will be targeting at
targets out here as you test and train. You'd better get
moving, or else you're going to lose it.
Now, the two Senators from Florida, Senator Martinez and
myself, are trying to protect you, but we need some help, or
else you're going to find that you're going to have oil rigs
all over this thing because, just yesterday, in all of the
newspapers in Florida, the Governor of Florida came out and
said he would be willing to have no drilling within 125 miles
of Florida. That, right there, is 125 miles. That means that
that line would go like this, and you would lose--everything,
from there back, would be drilled.
I need the DOD, for the sake of the preparedness of our
military, to get with it and start registering some vocal
opposition. Otherwise, they're coming at us on the
reconciliation bill, which I can't filibuster. It's a budget
bill and, by law, you can't filibuster it. They have all the
oil interests allied with the Secretary of the Interior, Gale
Norton, and it's going to be a done deal this fall unless you
all will start registering your objection. I know you do,
because all the four-stars I've talked to say, ``My Lord, that
would be the worst thing in the world. We'd virtually lose this
as a training area.''
So, what do you all think about that? [Laughter.]
Secretary Wynne and Dr. Winter.
Mr. Wynne. Senator, I'd first state that you are certainly
more versed in the area than I am, and I know that your heart
is behind working with the military to ensure that we have the
best of training. If confirmed, I intend to look right into it,
and even in my present position will certainly register to the
Department your alarm in this regard.
Senator Bill Nelson. I don't want you to register my alarm.
I want you to register the alarm of the professional uniformed
military, who will tell you that in private, but it's hard for
me to get them to step up and say it publicly. We need the
civilian leadership to step up and say that it's time that we
not let this be taken away from it. If you don't, what's going
to happen is, this fall, it's going to be taken away from you,
up to 125 miles off the shore. That takes a huge part--three-
quarters of your training area--that eliminates it--where you
will have oil rigs.
What do you think, Dr. Winter?
Dr. Winter. Senator, I appreciate your bringing this to my
attention. This clearly is something that needs to be worked,
and worked in a very expeditious manner. If confirmed, I commit
to you that I will go and do whatever is necessary to get this
resolved within the Department of the Navy, in terms of what
the requirements are, and to make sure that those are properly
voiced.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, then I think we need to
confirm these two and let 'em go to work. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Senator--and I don't mean to be totally
facetious--our Nation is faced with an extraordinary problem
with regard to the resources from which we can extract our
energy. That has been an area which has greatly contributed to
the degree we have of any energy security today. I have to
believe that minds that are well trained on this subject and
have a sense of objectivity are trying to balance the needs of
our energy requirements against any degradation in training by
virtue of whatever proposal may be going forward.
I think it was important that you brought it up, and it's
been a tutorial. Both Senator Levin and I sat here and listened
very carefully, and----
Senator Bill Nelson. I love your leadership, Mr. Chairman,
and I know you always do the right thing. The fact is that I
think the DOD--perhaps not purposely, but because of oversight
with so much other stuff going on--does not realize the
rapidity with which this freight train is starting to move out
of the station. I don't want the DOD to suddenly get
confronted, because I think the Department has been under the
assumption that the normal negotiation would go on with the
Department of Interior Minerals Management Service and that
they felt like that they had 2 or 3 years.
I have gleaned this from, for example, Secretary Grone, the
assistant secretary, who has responsibility in the DOD. What I
am bringing to your and Senator Levin's attention is that,
because of this sudden rush to drill in the wake of Katrina,
that every decision is a tradeoff, and so we have to measure
what we are giving up against what we are going to get.
The truth is the geology shows that the oil is where the
4,000 rigs are now, in the central and the western gulf, not in
the eastern Gulf, which is off the State of Florida.
Nevertheless, there apparently are some reserves of gas there.
The question is, what is the tradeoff for the interest of the
United States?
Chairman Warner. I thank the Senator. I don't have any
specific knowledge about this. I will say that I do know that
you, together with Senator Martinez, are two of the most
effective of the group here and that you will not let this go.
You'll sleep with one eye open and watch it, and let's hope
it's resolved.
I must say that I introduced a bill this week--reintroduced
a measure that would allow Governors and State legislatures to
make a determination of the ability or desirability to drill
offshore of their respective States. It was introduced in hopes
that we can begin to broaden our base from which we draw, here
in the continental limits of the United States, the energy that
this country, in ever-increasing requirements, needs.
Thank you Senator.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would just
yield for one additional question. I want to also thank Senator
Nelson for bringing this to our attention, because we have not
had this issue presented to us before. We have lots of issues
about training grounds and impacts on those training grounds
from certain laws, but this is the first time, I believe, this
particular training area and its connection to energy, as you
have so eloquently pointed out, has been brought to our
attention.
I think we should ask a question of the Department, if this
would be helpful, even before these two are confirmed, because
you never know how long that will take. Sometimes there are
delays that take place, unexpectedly or otherwise. I'm
wondering if it would be helpful if we sent a question to the
DOD asking them whether or not they are aware of the fact that
there is this possibility afoot, and whether or not they are
going to take a position which preserves that area for the
training that you have outlined, but just as a matter of
inquiry. Would that be helpful to your position?
Senator Bill Nelson. It certainly would, Senator.
Senator Levin. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we can at least
make an inquiry of the Department as to whether or not they are
aware of this issue and what their position is on it. Are they
aware of the apparent timetable for a resolution? Just pure
inquiry.
Chairman Warner. What I would suggest is we take a
transcript of today's record, and forward it to the Department.
Senator Bill Nelson. This, Mr. Chairman, will be a follow-
up, because when we had, last week, General Abizaid and General
Casey and Secretary Rumsfeld, I brought it up to Secretary
Rumsfeld when it came time for me to question the generals.
Chairman Warner. I thank you.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, we now shift to this side. I think Senator
Talent is our next questioner. Thank you.
Senator Talent. Mr. Chairman, I think the Senator from
Georgia needs to leave, and I'm happy to defer to his place in
line.
Chairman Warner. I appreciate that senatorial courtesy.
The distinguished Senator from the State of Georgia?
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my
friend from Missouri.
Let me thank you gentlemen, both, Secretary Wynne, to you
for your willingness to continue to serve your country in such
a public way, and Dr. Winter, for being willing to come out of
the private sector to serve your country in this very public
way. I notice, on Senator Nelson's chart over there, that among
other training areas, he had the Townsend range noted, and the
other range off of Georgia. I will commit to you that we will
allow those folks from Eglin and from Pensacola to fly over and
train on our base, as long as you stop at Robins or at Moody
and spend the night occasionally and spend some money over
there. [Laughter.]
Secretary Wynne, we have had a conversation about what I
know Senator McCain talked to you about. Senator Levin
mentioned, and I too noticed, your comment that you want to
``restore the Air Force to its premier status as an acquisition
management organization promoting transparency wherever
appropriate.'' You and I talked about this and about the fact
that we have to get this acquisition process under better
control than we have it now. I would just say to both of you,
because--Dr. Winter, you and I have talked about this also,
when you came by my office--that we're at the crossroads of
where we knew that road wreck was going to occur, relative to
acquisition and procurement. The funding for the purchase of
ships and aircraft, particularly tactical air (TACAIR), is
critical right now. We have to make some major changes that may
not get us past the short-term problems that we have, but,
certainly from a long-term standpoint, we have to address this
issue.
What I would hope both of you would do would be to come
forward with some proposals regarding acquisition reform in the
short term. Secretary Wynne, you have had a lot of experience
in this area. You know the system, and you know the pitfalls
that we have. I think between recommendations that you might
have and work that we're going to do under the leadership of
Senator McCain on this side, that hopefully we can come up with
some recommended changes that we move on with.
Dr. Winter, the one thing that I would like to ask you
about is shipbuilding. We have about 50 percent fewer ships now
than we had about 15 to 20 years ago, and the Navy has come to
us, in the last two budget cycles, and recommended a downsizing
of the force structure. In preparation for this hearing and in
your conversations relative to your nomination, have you
discussed with folks inside the Navy whether or not that trend
is going to continue? Is there any thought process in the Navy
that we're going to see any ramping up as we have been seeing
in the Army and the Marine Corps?
Dr. Winter. Senator, I've had the opportunity to have some
preliminary conversations with the CNO and others within the
Department on this topic. I think that there's a lot of hope
here that once we get through the QDR process and see what the
projected requirements are for force structure in the out
years, we'll have a better understanding of not only the total
numbers, but also the mix of ships that we'll need to be able
to support the future needs of the Navy.
I am hopeful that we will be able to structure a
shipbuilding program that is responsive to those needs,
responsive to the fiscal constraints that we're dealing with,
and responsive to the objectives of maintaining a viable
infrastructure out there to be able to support the future
shipbuilding needs of the Navy.
Senator Chambliss. It's pretty obvious as we look at
potential adversaries down the road, that there are some of
those folks who think that naval warfare is going to be
critically important in the future. It's not just going to be
the terrorist activity that we're seeing now. So I think if
we're going to remain the world's strongest and greatest
military and be prepared for whatever adversary we might see
down the road, I think we're going to have to take a hard look
at whether or not we need to start increasing, rather than
downsizing the number of ships that we have.
Dr. Winter. Yes, Senator, I share that concern.
Senator Chambliss. I thank both of you for your willingness
to serve, and we look forward to your confirmation and to
working with you.
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Senator.
Dr. Winter. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank both of the nominees for their willingness to
serve, and also, I missed the introduction, but I understand
that you have family members here who are also part of that
Service, and also a distinguished history of family commitment
to the military and our country. I respect that and appreciate
it.
I want to thank you, Mr. Wynne, for visiting with me and
going over a number of issues that I was concerned about. As we
discussed yesterday, the Air Force Research Laboratory, in
Rome, New York, is a world leader in the development of
revolutionary cybersecurity technologies. I think that
cybersecurity will be one of the most important issues we deal
with in the years to come. You pick up the newspaper and you
see where hackers can get in and bring down cell phone
networks. How we're going to have interoperable communications
if we can't secure those communications, from first-responders
to warfighters, is one of the biggest challenges we confront.
I would like to renew my invitation, as I did with your
predecessor, to come up to the Air Force lab--Dr. Winter, we'd
love to have you, as well--to review the work that's being
done.
Mr. Wynne, do you have any ideas, at this point, as to the
investments that the Air Force should be making in science and
technology to develop new cybersecurity capabilities and the
coordination that will need to occur between homeland security
and national defense as we pursue that cybersecurity agenda?
Mr. Wynne. Senator, I will tell you that it is one of my
major concerns, as we become more and more of a net-centric
operation, that we put an emphasis on cybersecurity, because it
is perhaps a point of vulnerability. I haven't looked into it
to ascertain that. In fact, one of the things that I intend to
do, if confirmed, is to go up to Rome, New York, where I
understand there are some great people who are very concerned
about this, and invite them to inform me to how we can make it
better.
As to the responsiveness between the first-responders and
the military, and perhaps the ANG, I think there is an issue
that we need to address. Somehow we have to make sure that, as
we arrive at the cusp of a disaster, or develop a partnership,
even on a test, we need to make sure that we can communicate
with each other. I think it was vital, frankly, to the final
response, after Hurricane Rita and after Hurricane Katrina,
that the first-responders could, in fact, talk to the military
providers as to where to go, where to drop food, where to drop
a thing, rather than just showing up and starting to ask
questions.
Senator Clinton. I will look forward to hosting you at Rome
Labs and I think that you will be both impressed and provoked
to look into this further.
I understand that others before me have discussed some of
the problems that were expressed by members of the BRAC
Commission, as well as Members of Congress, about the treatment
of the ANG and the Air Force Reserves by the DOD in their BRAC
Commission recommendations. I think the changes that were made
by the BRAC Commission reflect some very serious analysis about
how better to balance our Air Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty
air assets. I know that there is a limitation on what you can
address at this point, not having either been confirmed and
knowing that there is ongoing litigation in some of the States.
In particular, though one of the recommendations that was made
by the BRAC Commission was specifically directed at the Niagara
Falls Air Reserves Station, which survived the recommendation
of closure because of the extraordinary service that the 914th
Airlift Wing and the 107th Aerial Refueling Wing have provided
and, in particular, provided with respect to our actions in
Iraq.
I recently invited General Moseley to visit Niagara Falls,
and I'd like to extend that same invitation to you, as well. In
fact, when the BRAC Commissioners visited Niagara Falls, I
think they publicly said, as well as in private conversations--
made clear that actually seeing the strategic location of
Niagara Falls was instrumental in their determination to
recommend that it remain open and reverse the closure
recommendation.
The Commission recommended the establishment of a
continuous enclave for the 107th sufficient to support
operation of that unit, including flight operations, and that
Guard personnel will be provided the training necessary to
support the airlift mission.
If confirmed, Mr. Wynne, will you support the BRAC
Commission recommendations and ensure that adequate resources
are provided to create an ANG/Air Force Reserve wing with the
914th Airlift Wing, and that the training necessary will be
provided to Guard personnel?
Mr. Wynne. I note that the DOD recommendations were, in
fact, carefully considered by the Commission. The Commission,
in fact, ruled, the President certified and approved that
money, and it sits here with Congress. It is my intention to
implement the BRAC Commission's recommendations as they are
written, and I hope to extract, if you will, the maximum
mission efficiency from the ANG.
We have a whole future total force that, I think,
encompasses the active, the Reserve, and the Guard. They will
be a part of us for a very long time, and we look forward to
their bravery and their service.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Wynne.
I'm aware that before I arrived, the chairman and others
raised the continuing concerns about sexual harassment, sexual
assaults, and proselytizing by students and faculty at the Air
Force Academy. I know that the Air Force Academy Board of
Visitors is in Washington today, and will be discussing these
issues. Mr. Wynne, we really look to you to finally give us the
reassurance and a plan that will offer strong support for the
changes that are necessary at the Academy. It has been a
painful experience obviously.
The other academies are not in any way exempt from these
concerns. I know that Dr. Winter is well aware of that. I've
discussed this with respect to West Point. As we utilize the
talents in an All-Volunteer Force of men and women willing and
eager to serve, we have to, by word and action, by policy and
practice, make it absolutely clear that sexual discrimination,
harassment, and assault are unacceptable and will be punished,
and it will go up the chain of command so that anyone who
either directly or indirectly condones or turns a blind eye
will be held accountable. I will look to both of you for that
reassurance, because we've studied it, we've had reports on it,
and we clearly have to make it absolutely a policy.
With respect to the proselytizing issue, I think one of the
strengths that we have as we promote democracy and freedom
around the world is our openness, our tolerance, and our
respect for freedom to believe, or not to believe. That has
been a cornerstone of American constitutional history and
interpretation and particularly now, as we deal with countries
that are riven by religious rivalry and conflict, more than
ever we have to send a clear message that in our country and in
our military, which represents us so magnificently around the
world, there is no room for anyone to inflict or to proselytize
their particular brand of religion. We can respect and tolerate
each other's beliefs, but there is no room for imposition of
those beliefs in any form whatsoever. Again, we will look to
you and the other Service Secretaries and the civilian
leadership at the DOD to make that the clear policy of our
Nation.
Do I have both of your commitment to work on these two very
critical and sensitive issues?
Mr. Wynne.
Mr. Wynne. You certainly do, Senator. If confirmed, that's
going to be high on my list.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
Dr. Winter.
Dr. Winter. Senator, you have my assurances and commitment
that, if confirmed, I will make that a high priority.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I would like to associate myself with the
remarks of our distinguished colleague from New York. I did
raise this issue, but she has added a new dimension.
I would like to ask you, Secretary Wynne, to provide for
the committee, the record of this proceeding, such actions or
deliberations as this board of the Air Force Academy may take
here in its meeting in Washington. We would like to know how
they're looking at this situation. I presume that the minutes
of that meeting can be available and, if they are to be treated
in a manner of confidentiality. The committee will so accord
that a confidentiality, but let's have a copy of it.
[The information referred to is retained in committee
files.]
Mr. Wynne. Senator, I'll certainly take that back and alert
them of your desires.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, if I could take 30 seconds
from my colleagues, let me add my comment to yours relative to
the remarks of Senator Clinton. I also want to strongly
associate myself with them. I would hope that our nominees
would take that back to the board--in your case, Secretary
Wynne, I believe--but also that we would expect all of our
Service Secretaries to understand that what you just heard was,
I believe, not only the views of those who have spoken out in
association with those views, but my hunch is every member of
this committee would concur with what you have just heard. We
can't speak for everybody, technically, but I think it does
reflect, very strongly, the sympathies and beliefs of every
member of this committee. So please take these as seriously as
you can for all of us.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
Senator Talent, I'm anxious to hear about your thoughts on
shipbuilding, and I will follow it in my second round.
Senator Talent. I appreciate that Mr. Chairman, in view of
what was said.
Chairman Warner. I commend you for the leadership that
you've shown on the issue of shipbuilding.
Senator Talent. Why, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I
appreciate it.
Chairman Warner. I'm just not certain how we're going to
get certain dockage rights in your State, given it's
landlocked. [Laughter.]
Senator Talent. Yes, I know. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. I don't want any cruisers being stationed
out there now. [Laughter.]
Senator Talent. You bring them up the river, once we get
the river clear, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Yes, I'm not sure about that, thank you.
Senator Talent. In view of what was just said regarding
proselytizing, I should add a comment. Of course we have to
guard against imposition or coercion of views. At the same
time, we have to have an environment where, in appropriate ways
and in recreational times, people are free to exercise their
religion and cadets are free to discuss those kinds of things.
I know that's the balance. I trust that's the balance that you
all are aiming at, and I think that's what everybody in the
committee wants. The balance hasn't always been respected, and
it needs to be.
Dr. Winter, let me bring up the subject of shipbuilding
with you. I'm going to express my concern, as the Senator from
Georgia did and as the chairman has. I want to be even stronger
in expressing that concern.
I'm deeply concerned about the direction we're going
regarding force structure. I'm wondering whether it is
imperiling the security of the country. I want you to consider
that very strongly, because if the Senate confirms you, you're
going to walk right into the middle of this.
The last QDR recommended 310 ships--the last official thing
the CNO, and I'm talking about Admiral Clark, said was 375
ships. He subsequently talked about 260 to 325. He never showed
a lot of real confidence in 260, and I can understand why. At
260, we have 67 cruisers, destroyers, and frigates, when
officially Congress has set the figure at 116. It isn't just
numbers. A lot of those numbers are made up of littoral combat
vessels, and I like that innovation, but not as a general
substitute for other surface combatants. I think, in addition,
as a way of fighting the war on terror, yes. Perhaps we can
find some overlap and some substitution, but not a wholesale
substitution for surface combatants.
The trend is going down. We've gone from intending to
procure 30 to 32 DD(X) to 24; now, only 8 to 9 in the Future
Years Defense Plan (FYDP). I mean, that is not serious, if
we're talking about maintaining surface-combatant strength.
Every submarine analysis I've seen says we need between 55 and
76. We look intent on reducing the number from 55 to 45. We
have to keep in mind the Navy's informal rule of three, which
you're familiar with. We only use one out of three of these
ships, basically, at any given time.
China is taking delivery of 11 submarines in 2005. They
should be able to deploy a fleet of 50 or more by 2010, more
than we will have. They are ahead of schedule in building their
naval strength.
I've heard a lot about fiscal constraint and the need to
make dollars go further, and I certainly agree we have to make
dollars go further, but I do not want that, and the belief that
we can make dollars go further, to be an excuse for not
appropriating what we have to appropriate to get the ships that
we need. I'm concerned that we're going from a legitimate
concern about acquisition and acquisition reform--I completely
share that--to using that as an excuse for not confronting the
need for an adequate New Ship Construction budget. We're
talking about the security of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, to put it on as cold and as low a level as
possible, if we're worried about constraints, okay. To the
extent that we imperil the security of the United States or
risk a war that we don't need to have, or of losing a war that
we do need to have, it's going to be very bad for the budget. A
whole lot worse for the budget than spending the amounts that
we need now to get the Navy that we need.
I think the next Secretary of the Navy needs to be an
advocate for this within the building. I think you're going to
have an historic responsibility. I know it's tough for anybody
to have to stand up to that, but that's what I believe, and I
want to see if that's what you believe. I want to take a
measure of your passion on this point. I expect you to work
within the system, and I understand that, and I know you
haven't studied all of this, but I don't know how much study
you need to reach the conclusion that we have some cause for
concern.
So let me stop my comments and let you offer yours on this
subject.
Dr. Winter. Senator, I appreciate your comments, and I will
tell you that I share your great concern over this issue. I
think that, of all the issues that I have been faced with as I
have gone through the last several weeks of preparation for
this hearing, it has become evident that the shipbuilding
program and the limitations that you so aptly described are
clearly the ultimate and most important issue that we have
confronting the Navy at this point in time.
I'm similarly very concerned about what I see out there in
the offing. You alluded to the issues with China's shipbuilding
program. I'm concerned both about the relative numbers and the
potential capabilities, as well as the total number of
submarines that are potentially going to be in evidence in the
Pacific in the near future.
I am concerned about the totality of our ability to deal
with that threat, which relates to the total elements of our
Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) program, a significant fraction of
which is associated with our own submarines. That is clearly
going to have to be one of my most important priorities.
I have already started talking to the CNO about how we're
going to be able to establish a viable shipbuilding program
which will identify a specific and credible number, a number
that really does provide for the force structure that we expect
and need.
I recognize there are uncertainties, and I recognize that
we have to be able to guard against some of those
uncertainties. We may or may not understand the intent of some
nations, but we have to guard against what that intent might
devolve to, because, quite frankly, I am not all that confident
that, these days, we can predict where many of these nations
are right now, or where they are going, or where they may be
several years from now.
I want you to know I am also very concerned that,
particularly in the shipbuilding industry, our ability to
respond to surge needs is, unfortunately, very limited. We
cannot go back to the days of the Liberty ships and just turn
out ships very rapidly when a threat evolves or a situation
changes. We are going to have to be proper stewards of the
shipbuilding program and of the fleet to make sure that we have
the adequate resources available in a timely manner to deal
with these uncertainties, and this difficulty, if you will, of
understanding where we may be 5 years, 10 years, and 20 years
downstream.
My concern, sir, is recognizing the balance that we have
between dealing with the global war on terrorism and providing
the long-term stewardship. If confirmed, sir, my objective is
to leave a Navy after my tenure that I will be proud of, and
that my children will be proud of, that my grandchildren will
be proud of.
Senator Talent. There is a point at which we must accept a
certain number--I'm talking about budgetary, an end number--as
reflective of the world in which we have to live, and then
choose among, within that number, priorities that are vital,
each of them, to the security of the United States. We're going
to have to confront that. This is not something that
acquisition reform is going to make go away. I feel it's
important for me to raise that, in part, because the chairman
is quite correct. I don't have in Missouri a parochial interest
in this. We don't build them, we don't dock them there. We have
interests in defense, which I have been proud to uphold. I have
an interest, as an American. I don't think China is necessarily
going to be our enemy, but I think that she and the rest of the
world are watching what we do and drawing conclusions about our
commitment.
Now is the time, Dr. Winter, for all of us, a time that I
think will be viewed in an historical context. I do appreciate
your answer. I think it shows a recognition of this, and I'm
going to continue pursuing this, as the chairman knows.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
I will address the issue in a subsequent question, but I
have always said, Dr. Winter, that I believe it's so serious,
that this matter has to be lifted out of the ordinary Program
Objective Memorandum (POM) budget process. The President of the
United States has to make a decision under the Constitution
that the phrase ``maintain the Navy'' requires him, as
Commander in Chief, to direct the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to allocate a certain amount of funding, separate
from the other military departments and their budgets, for the
purpose of shipbuilding. I intend to pursue, relentlessly, that
course of action.
I say to colleagues we have a situation on the floor of the
Senate with an amendment coming up relating to a very important
defense issue. I must leave to go over and speak against this
amendment. The vote was to have been at 12 noon. So I ask my
distinguished colleagues on the right to continue the hearing
until I can get back. Should the vote occur, as it is now
scheduled at 12:00, then I would establish a short recess
period within which members can do their voting and return.
I thank you.
Senator Sessions [presiding]. Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Wynne, Dr. Winter, thank you. I've had the
opportunity to speak to both of you, and I thank you for your
commitment to our Nation's security. You both bring, I think,
extraordinary capabilities to these assignments.
I'm going to be real brief because Senator Chambliss and
then Senator Talent really got to the nub of what I was
concerned about. I know there have been questions to you
already this morning, Secretary Wynne, about the acquisition
process. We talked about it in private. It's a real priority
concern for our committee and our country.
Dr. Winter, I would say simply that I share all the
concerns you've heard about the shipbuilding program. I heard
your answer to Senator Chambliss, that these matters would be
considered in the QDR. That program, that review, was
established by this committee for a look 4 years back, but most
of all forward, and I would say to you, as you probably know,
that the 2001 QDR, the last one, had the Navy at a 310-ship
requirement. By my estimate, we're already 22 ships below that,
or about that and, as far as I can tell, for the last 3 years
there's not really been an officially approved, unambiguous
plan for the future size and structure of the Navy. It's hard
to resist the old Yogi Berra quote, this one being, ``If you
don't know where you're going, you might wind up someplace
else.'' That is the fear that you're hearing expressed here.
I would only add to what my colleagues have said that in
this process there really is a need, internally, inside the
building, inside the Pentagon, for the Secretary of the Navy,
and hopefully the CNO, to be advocates for the needs of the
Navy in terms of national security. Otherwise, this will be a
process, not for reasons that are evil, but for reasons that
are organizational and understandable, to crunch the numbers,
to sort of modify the statement of need to fit what somebody's
prediction of budget availability is and, in the end, our
Nation will suffer from that.
I suppose what I'm really doing is urging you to be an
advocate in that QDR process. Will you do that?
Dr. Winter. Senator, if confirmed, to the extent that the
QDR process is still ongoing--and I think some of it is going
to be completed here fairly shortly--you have my assurance that
I will engage in a very direct and forceful manner.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate it. This gives us another
reason--I think it was quite clever of you--to confirm you
quickly, so you can get into the process.
A final word. I must contrast myself with Senator Talent
because Connecticut is on the water, we do homeport submarines,
and we do build submarines, and, as such, we have a real
interest in submarines.
I identify myself with everything he said, and you said,
about the very active submarine-building programs that are
going on in other countries and particularly China.
Look, we're working real hard, the administration is, and a
lot of us here in Congress, to make sure that our relationship
with China develops in a peaceful way. But there are points of
conflict--most obviously, Taiwan and the Taiwan Straits, but
also in a growing international competition for sources of
energy. Unfortunately, history teaches us that sometimes such
competition for natural resources ends in military conflict.
None of us want it. We're all going to work hard to avoid it,
but we're falling behind in submarine construction.
There have been, by my count, 14 studies of the U.S.
submarine force done in recent years, estimating need. Twelve
of those showed a need of a force from 55 to 75 attack
submarines. We have now about 54 or 55 I believe. There was one
that came out earlier this year, I guess, that has us down to
37 or 41 subs that was not broadly accepted. I think it was
influenced by budget numbers. The last one is the ongoing QDR,
so we don't know what it will conclude.
In this regard, if we don't--we're now building one attack
submarine a year--if we keep up at that pace, we're not going
to hold to the 54 or 55 that most of the experts recommend and
I believe is right. In the foreseeable future, we'll end up at
30. In that regard, I was very pleased to see that the new CNO,
Admiral Mullen, said awhile ago that he believed we should get
to the current rate of two per year of attack submarines. But
the current budget doesn't provide for two subs per year until
2012. I wonder if you have any thoughts on that need and that
conundrum.
Dr. Winter. Senator, I understand the conundrum. I think
that what I am going to have to do, if confirmed, is to work
with the CNO not only to understand what the long-term
objective is going to be, in terms of providing an adequate
number of attack submarines to deal with the possible future
threats, but also what the interim numbers are going to wind up
being, and to see what is the maximum level of regret, if you
will, that we can tolerate within that time period, when it
will occur, and how we can deal with those types of issues to
mitigate that aspect. I do not think that that's going to be an
easy solution, but I am committed to working that in a very
direct manner, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Okay. Thank you. I'll be looking forward
to working with you on that and other matters.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Now Senator Collins of Maine.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Winter, I'm encouraged by what I've heard you say here
today about the need to have an adequate shipbuilding budget,
as well as by the private discussion that we had in my office.
I just want to follow up on a few issues, for the record, and
again, I want to second everything that the chairman of the
Seapower Subcommittee said to you about the numbers. I remember
a wise admiral once telling me that quantity has a quality all
of its own. A lot of times we hear from the Department that
because the ships that we're building nowadays are more
capable, that that somehow compensates for having a far smaller
fleet. Oviously, to some extent, increased capability does help
offset a declining quantity, but only to an extent. You still
need to project presence; you still need to be able to handle a
variety of threats, and I believe that our shipbuilding budget
is woefully inadequate to the threats that we're facing,
particularly in light of the Chinese buildup.
Another issue which I want to discuss with you today, since
you have really already responded to the concern about numbers,
is the instability in the shipbuilding budget. That has been a
major cost-driver, and it is not the fault of the shipbuilders
that there has been such instability in the shipbuilding
budget.
A good example of that instability has been the DD(X)
program. Initially, the Pentagon planned to build DD(X)s over 7
years. To meet OMB budget constraints, the Department slashed
the funding and now proposes to build only five DD(X)s over 7
years, even though the former CNO says that the requirements
have not changed and, in fact, that the requirements dictate
the need for 12 DD(X)s.
It's not surprising, when you have such peaks and valleys
in the shipbuilding budget, that you create instability in the
workforce, you make it extremely difficult for the
manufacturers to plan, and also jeopardize the retention of a
skilled workforce that cannot be reestablished overnight.
What are your thoughts on the need to have more
predictability and more stability in our shipbuilding budget?
Dr. Winter. Senator, I think there are two aspects that I
would want to address relative to the stability requirement,
one of which has to do with motivating the corporations to make
the continuing capital investments necessary to maintain those
facilities. They need to be able to see the future sales
potential associated with those facilities and the potential
impact of the investments that they might make, but also they
need to make sure that we both are able to attract and retain
the people that really make the difference. One of the things
that's become very evident to me in my years of working in the
industry is that, even though many of these functions seem to
be very capital-intensive, with a very large and expensive
capital plant, the real difference is made by the employees,
the people who come in every day, who touch the hardware, who
actually control the equipment, who make these critical and
fabulous machines that are critical to our national defense.
If we do not maintain the workforce in a trained and
experienced manner, we are likely to have many problems in the
future, whether that has to do with increased costs or
decreased quality or just simply increases in accidents.
Unfortunately, I've seen all of those in my experience on the
industrial side, and I think, quite frankly, one of the things
that does the best, in terms of motivating a workforce, is the
assurance that they will, in fact, see future employment
possibilities.
So to the extent that we can, to the extent that it's
consistent with the overall acquisition process, the better the
visibility we can give the workforce, in terms of what the
future has in store for them, I think, the better we will all
be served.
Senator Collins. That is such an important point because
this workforce cannot be reconstituted overnight. The skilled
shipbuilders, the draftsmen, the planners, the engineers have a
lot of other options available to them, because they are so
highly skilled. I really worry that when you combine the
declining number of ships that we're building, the instability,
the lack of predictability, that we jeopardize that skilled
industrial base, and that we do so at great jeopardy to our
national security.
I appreciate very much the fact that you've had personal
experience on the industrial side. You've seen what happens
when you do jeopardize that workforce. It takes years for
someone to develop the skills that are needed in shipbuilding.
It's not easily transferrable, and that is an issue that I
think we neglect at our peril.
A similar and related issue has to do with maintaining two
skilled shipyards to build our surface combatants. During the
past year, the Navy advanced what I felt was a very ill-advised
strategy for building the DD(X) that would have resulted, most
likely, in the loss of one shipyard, had it been pursued. It
was blocked by Congress, and I think and hope that the Navy,
having seen the impact of Hurricane Katrina on Ingalls
Shipyard, has now rethought the wisdom of pursuing a winner-
take-all one-shipyard strategy.
When I was talking about the downsides of having a winner-
take-all strategy, I always pointed to the possibility of a
natural disaster or a terrorist attack on one of our shipyards,
and it's sad that that has come to pass. I know that we all
wish Ingalls well. We're eager to see the shipyard up and fully
running again, but we've seen what can happen when a shipyard
can be disabled, whether it's by a hurricane, as it was in this
case, or a terrorist attack.
I hope you will commit to working with me and the many
other Members of Congress who share this concern, to make sure
that the Navy does not put all of its eggs in one basket. It is
dangerous, both in terms of reducing competition in the
industry, and also our ability to respond to a surge need in
the future, for us to jeopardize the competition, limited
though it is, that exists in our industrial base.
Dr. Winter. Yes, Senator, I think you very aptly
characterized a number of factors that all have to be
considered in terms of the long-term industrial strategy for
the Department and those are elements that I will be looking at
very carefully, should I be confirmed.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much. I very much look
forward to working with you, and I want to thank both you and
Secretary Wynne for your willingness to take on these very
important new positions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator Collins, and thank you
for your leadership on shipbuilding and all the issues before
this committee.
Mr. Wynne and Dr. Winter, thank you for your appearance.
Both of you have extensive experience and achievements in both
government and industry. If confirmed, you will be running two
of the large departments vital to our Nation's defense. Very
large departments. In the midst of a global war on terror, you
will also be overseeing significant issues, such as
transformation and implementation of BRAC, a global reposture,
the QDR, and numerous other big issues. In addition, these
challenges are being undertaken in a time of tightening
resources and competing priorities.
If confirmed, I trust you will both work closely with this
committee to complete the needed reforms. We've had a number of
those dealing with procurement recently. We think we can do
better in that. As a matter of fact, we have to do better in
that. I don't know how we're going to get there, but we have to
do better and they've been laid out, a lot of that, in BRAC and
QDR.
I wish you both the best. I believe you will do an
excellent job. I think you have the experience and the personal
skills to be successful in this office. I wish you every
success.
We did talk about the danger of any coercion in the
military with any philosophy or faith. Thomas Jefferson swore
eternal hostility to any tyranny over the mind of man and it is
chiseled in the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial. He swore
that before the altar of God. Nobody seemed to be too worried
about that. So I think it is correct that no one should abuse
positions of authority, but at the same time, there are
legitimate concerns in the country that any expression of
personal faith is bad. Then we get into a situation that we
start enforcing a secular mentality and a secular climate and I
don't think that's necessary, either. So it's a proper balance.
I know you will seek to achieve that, and I hope you will.
Mr. Wynne, there's been a lot of controversy about the Air
Force refueling tanker. The analysis of alternatives is being
reviewed and moving forward, I guess, at this time.
Let me ask you, could you tell us about the status of that,
what the analysis of alternative is, and if you will give an
open and fair evaluation of those results as you decide what's
best for the country as we deal with the problem of air
refueling?
Mr. Wynne. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions.
I think the analysis of alternatives, of course, considers
every approach to trying to meet the capabilities that you are
requesting. I think it would stretch all the way from extending
the life, if you will, of the current product to modifying
other products to ascertaining the ability of the commercial
industry or your defense industrial base to supply it.
As I understand it, the analysis of alternatives is in its
final stages. The Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation is
charged to do a sufficiency review, and I believe they've
entered into that sufficiency review.
I believe that the end of that review is when we finally
will get, if you will, the opportunity to review the analysis
of alternatives and determine a way forward. That way forward
may well be constrained by the fiscal realities that we are
faced with, but it's my intention, as you indicated, to be very
objective in my look at it. I think the folks in acquisition
have a strong desire to see equipment fielded to the force as
quickly as they can possibly do it. I think innovative ways
just have to be explained to people, that if you want to do
something innovatively, you have to explain the business
reasons for it, the rationale that supports it, and then be
transparent in your approach. That's what I intend to do.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. We've lurched around on this
issue, and it has been a source of some embarrassment. The
process, in the long run I hope, will help us get a better
fleet and secure that important part of our defense
establishment for the future, at the same time keeping the cost
as reasonable as possible.
I would add, to both of you, we've had what I think any
observer would say have been some glory days for the defense
budgets. Our defense budget now is over $400 billion. I came
here nearly 8 years ago, and it was under 300, and now, in
addition, we have large supplementals for the war effort that
have helped us carry on some of our activities in a number of
different ways. I don't know that we're going to be able to see
these substantial increases that we've fought for in the last 5
or 6 years continued, and we also have this bow wave of huge
programs. Both of you have them in your departments.
It's easy for all of us to say, well, you can't cut
refueling aircraft, you can't cut ships, you have to have more
submarines, you have to have more airplanes, you have to have
all these things, but you sit down with the Secretary of
Defense and add all those up, and see what the numbers look
like. I'm afraid it might be calling for more than we'll be
able to reach. So, you are also going to be challenged to
understand that our ability to just demand more large increases
may not be realistic.
So gosh, I don't know what the solution is. I'm worried
about that. We've been talking about it ever since I've been in
the Senate. We'll be looking for your good recommendations on
those challenges.
I would just ask you briefly, do you both see that as a
real challenge for us in the future? What to do with some of
the large, expensive weapons systems, and whether they will fit
within the budget?
Secretary Wynne.
Mr. Wynne. There is no doubt, Senator Sessions, that one of
the major challenges is going to be how to get 6 pounds into a
5-pound sack. When it comes to weapons systems, I think Senator
Collins said it best, quantity does have a quality all of its
own. You can get down to where you have one airplane and one
ship, one tank, and you wonder, is this a sufficient defense?
On the other hand, I would tell you that the balance of
warfighting capability is really where it's at. Against the
fiscal realities of what the American taxpayer will allow us to
do--but I do know this, and you also do too, that the American
taxpayer is willing to pay for the defense of America. When
they're alerted that the defense of America is at reasonable
peril, they will be willing to support us.
Senator Sessions. I agree. We just need to be sure that we
can say that this program or this system is defensible, it's
critical, and we need it. Sometimes numbers make a difference.
Sometimes we might want to come up with a product that's about
half the cost of some other product and have twice as many. But
you may not be able to have twice as many of the most
sophisticated products. So, those are things you're just going
to have to wrestle with.
Dr. Winter, do you have any thoughts?
Dr. Winter. Yes Senator, I would just want to add that I
think that the tradeoff here is what I would describe as one of
qualitative versus quantitative advantage. It is one that we're
going to have to pay great attention to over the next several
years. I think it's become very evident that, between the
capabilities of the Department and the industrial base that
serves the Department, we can build incredible systems. We can
build some of the most incredible weapons systems that man ever
imagined. The question is whether or not we can afford to do
all of that and whether or not, as you so aptly put it, having
more of a lesser capability provides for a greater defense and
a greater deterrent capability.
I don't think that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to
this. I think it's going to have to be a case-by-case
evaluation, and I think we're going to have to carefully look
at the true requirements, versus--if you permit me to use the
phrase--``desirements'' that have often been put forward for
many of these systems, so that we know exactly what really will
make a difference, so that we understand how to invest our
precious resources very carefully, and can still afford a
reasonable number of these systems to really provide for the
defense of the U.S.
Senator Sessions. I think you've stated that well, and
we're excited about your nomination. I think both of you have
the maturity and the experience to help make those tough calls.
Those of us in Congress, sometimes we pick up on it, and we get
a good sense of things. It sort of amazes me, really, but
sometimes we get it wrong. So we'll be depending on you.
I know, with regard to shipbuilding--I used to chair the
subcommittee that Senator Talent now chairs, and I was
impressed with Admiral Vern Clark's demonstration that a highly
technically advanced ship can operate with far less personnel.
He also made some progress toward forward deployment of ships,
keeping a greater percentage of our ships in operational areas.
Do you think those remain valuable potentials for improvement,
Dr. Winter?
Dr. Winter. I think there's a significant opportunity
there, in terms of both the overall crew size, as well as the
operational tempo (OPTEMPO) aspects of the systems. We,
unfortunately nowadays, spend too much time, in terms of the
maintenance and support functions and the more that we can get
out of the ships, in terms of being forward-deployed and able
to provide presence and warfighting capability, the better off
we will be.
Senator Sessions. I recall Admiral Clark was saying that
they were leaving ships forward-deployed longer, bringing them
in for refurbishment and repair less often, and none of them
were breaking. They were still going along. So it maybe
demonstrated that we didn't have to have quite as much
expenditure on repairs.
Dr. Winter, I believe the President's budget called for the
cancellation of a joint common missile. It's my impression that
this is a part of jointness. The joint common missile replaces
seven legacy missiles, many of which are reaching technological
obsolescence. During the fiscal year 2006 deliberations on the
budget, three of the four major defense committees decided that
the joint common missile should be continued, and the Defense
Appropriations Committee even added $50 million to keep the
government team operating, and the contractor team.
Do you believe that the joint common missile, with its
increased range, lethality, and tri-mode seeker, is the missile
of the future for rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft to replace
the legacy Maverick, Tow, and Hellfire weapons?
Dr. Winter. Senator, unfortunately I do not have the
detailed familiarity with that particular program to make a
determination at this point in time. But if I am confirmed, I
would commit to you that I will look into that matter.
Senator Sessions. The Navy requested recently to reprogram
$21 million for the joint common missile, and Congress denied
that request. It's a matter of real urgency. It seems to me
that jointness is a valuable thing, and that if we can design a
joint common missile, that can be utilized in all our Services,
and we could reach a higher degree of effectiveness and create
a production level that would bring costs down. Would you take
a look at that and evaluate it?
Dr. Winter. Yes, Senator. I support the objectives. I'd
just ask for the time to be able to go and take further look
into the specifics of that program.
Senator Sessions. It's something that I have been looking
at for some time, and I believe that is the right direction to
go and was a little bit taken aback that that has not happened.
Mr. Wynne, I think I'll submit a written request to you
concerning the Transformational Satellite (TSAT) program. There
has been some unease expressed on that and it's a matter I
think we need to get clear on and move forward in the
appropriate way, and it will come before my subcommittee.
I have one important question to ask you before we
conclude. We have a ball game this weekend. Is it Air Force or
Navy? [Laughter.]
What about a prediction? [Laughter.]
Dr. Winter. No question, sir. [Laughter.]
Mr. Wynne. I would say it's a very even contest between two
teams of good quality.
Senator Sessions. We're proud of them. That's a good
answer. They represent the very best of our young men, really.
They play their hearts out every day, and they take on teams
that have a lot of guys that are going to be playing in the
NFL. Maybe they always can't recruit those people. They compete
effectively and we're proud of them.
Thank you for your commitment to serving your country. I
know that in many ways it can be a financial hardship for you.
Sometimes you'll take unnecessary grief. Not sometimes; you'll
frequently take unnecessary grief. [Laughter.]
You'll be accused of corruption when all you're trying to
do is do the right thing. You have a big challenge, a high
calling. We could not be more pleased to have you there and we
look forward to the future.
I believe the request was to recess rather than to adjourn
and now the chairman has already returned from battling for
truth and justice on the floor of the Senate--[Laughter.]
--as he does so effectively.
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that you've returned and my time
is completed.
Chairman Warner [presiding]. We had a battle last night.
But for one vote, we'd be on that floor today. [Laughter.]
Night and day.
Senator Sessions. A glorious battle.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Sessions. I was honored to stand with you.
Chairman Warner. You're thoughtful to do so, as did every
other member of the committee, both sides of the aisle.
Now gentlemen, I'd like to continue this important hearing.
On the shipbuilding issue, I did explain, Dr. Winter, that
this is going to require some innovative, out-of-the-box
thinking to bring to the attention of the administration and,
with the support of the American public, begin to add some
dollars, other than the normal allocations annually through the
POM process to the Department of the Navy.
The question, Secretary Wynne, is back on this issue of the
tanker leasing program, which--indeed, it was this committee
that stood as the final entity within Congress to oppose that
contract. We did not agree to the reprogramming actions which
would have let it go forward. What is your assessment of the
efforts that have been undertaken by the DOD to improve the
management and oversight of service acquisition and procurement
to preclude a repeat of a regrettable chapter, as we witnessed
with that tanker problem, and particularly the actions of one
individual, who eventually was held accountable and imprisoned
under the Federal legal system.
Mr. Wynne. Mr. Chairman, I think the Department has
responded extraordinarily well to my charge for improved
integrity and improved ethics through the work of three review
teams and also to gain feedback on the specific issue of the
lease of tankers in the business plan.
I'd like to concentrate, for the moment, on integrity and
ethics, which I see as a command responsibility. I have asked
all throughout the acquisition community to take this on as a
command responsibility and to my applause, all of the
commanders have, in fact, stepped up to this challenge.
I have also asked the acquisition community to take on a
review process of both the individuals and the actions that
take place, to ensure that it's a free, open, and well-reviewed
acquisition process in order to foster an openness and a
transparency so that the specifics can be reviewed.
With regard to innovation, I want to foster innovation in
acquisition authorities to try to make sure that we don't let
any stone go unturned in getting equipment to our people with
more efficiency and more speed.
I would tell you that I intend to foster a business process
and a business plan that is open and transparent, because I do
believe that if we were a little bit more convincing as to,
``What were our goals?''--maybe even inside the Department, we
would have challenged it a little bit stronger than we did.
Chairman Warner. As we go forward on the assumption that
you'll be confirmed--and I'm optimistic, I would say, that both
of you will be confirmed--you will have to address the overall
requirements of the Department of the Air Force; indeed, our
overall transportation structure in DOD, the airlift, and the
tanker capabilities. I don't want you, at this time, to predict
what's going to come out of that, but I just want to re-
emphasize the need to swiftly get back and look at the
requirements and how we're going to go about to fulfill them
with new acquisitions of aircraft.
I do hope--and I'm going to fight for it--that we can do so
in a manner that will provide competition among such entities
that are willing to step up and offer their proposals to solve
the problem, as will be defined more specifically by your
Department.
I'm very strong on trying to preserve our industrial base
here in America, but there are a lot of innovations out there
now that have been brought forward by companies which have
affiliated with overseas companies. You know as well as I. I
think we just have to make certain that competition is brought
to bear on this contract. Can you give me that assurance?
Mr. Wynne. Yes sir, I can certainly give the assurance that
I'll seek competition at every level to try to bring better
efficiency to the American taxpayer.
Chairman Warner. To both of you, the hurricane damage
assessments--the Air Force and the Navy have bases in the
States hardest hit by the hurricane--Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Alabama--Keesler Air Force Base, Naval Construction
Battalion Center, the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport,
Naval Support Activity in New Orleans. They're but a few of the
installations, and that's been such a historic nexus for
America's defense all through there. It goes way back. I
remember, when I was Secretary of the Navy, putting a number of
things in that area. The people of those several States have
had long associations with the U.S. military. Men like John
Stennis, who was the most distinguished chairman of this
committee for many years. Eddie Hebert from Louisiana, he was a
strong chairman in the House Armed Services Committee, and I
hope that each of you, if confirmed, will take steps to assure
that the personnel assigned to these installations and their
families, particularly those who might be poised to go
overseas, are being cared for. Can you assure me that it would
be high on your agenda when you take office?
Dr. Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynne. If confirmed sir, I am particularly concerned
about both the ANG men and women as well as the Active-Duty
Forces there.
Chairman Warner. You have a lot of training facilities that
go on in the Department of the Navy.
Dr. Winter. Yes Mr. Chairman, and that is clearly a high
priority.
Chairman Warner. All right.
Dr. Winter, in your written response to the committee's
questions, you state, ``The Department must consider more
fundamental changes to the way it does business. If confirmed,
I will seek new options and approaches to address the rising
cost of healthcare and other personnel costs.''
At this time, could you give us some elaboration on what
you hope to achieve?
Dr. Winter. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we've seen
on the industrial side is that there is, in many cases, a
difference between the way in which our employees perceive
various benefits and the costs of those benefits. One of the
things that we've been trying to do over the last several years
is to better match the benefits that are provided with the
expectations and needs of the employees.
I think that we need to do a better job of that within the
Department. I think we need to make sure that we're getting the
results, the value, if you will, out of the investment, and the
benefits that are provided to the service men and women that
they really need and expect, and also within the time frame
that provides true value and support to them while they're
still serving.
That is going to be part and parcel of an overall
assessment. That obviously will have to be done by Secretary
Chu and others within the DOD, but I look forward to the
opportunity, if confirmed, to be able to work with him, in
terms of a new compensation program and plan.
Chairman Warner. I thank you.
I want to associate myself with the remarks and the
colloquy with our witnesses by Senator Collins regarding the
acquisition strategy for surface combatants and the future
outyears, particularly as it relates to that single-yard
concept for the brief period, which was in there until Congress
stepped in. We must be mindful that that particular area is,
regrettably, highly vulnerable to situations that we've
witnessed in the wake of the Katrina and Rita hurricanes. I
hope that any concept of a single shipyard to solve all
problems is something that will not come back again any time.
Furthermore, I do believe we have to try and strengthen
those yards which have partnered with other yards and shared
the shipbuilding responsibility. I think it's working out. I'm
very proud of the manner in which, in my State, the Newport
News Yard and General Dynamics are working on the submarine
program for the future. We may be around to see a little more
submarine acquisition there.
Dr. Winter.
Dr. Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. The clerk did not record that he nodded
his head in full recognition of the chairman's question.
The flexible funding for shipbuilding, Dr. Winter--and this
is an issue with a long history. I dealt with it when I was in
the position that you desire to accept, and it goes all through
the 27 years I've been here--but in the past several years,
Congress has approved several funding mechanisms for
shipbuilding which have departed from the traditional full-
funding policy. Included in these are split funding and
incremental funding, and in its report to the fiscal year 2006
appropriations bill, the Senate encourages the Department ``to
consider whether using advanced appropriations in future
budgets will improve the shipbuilding program.'' Funding
mechanisms will only help so far though. A stable, sufficient
amount of funding is required. Well, we've already addressed
that. But do you have any views that you'd like to advise the
committee now, other than I hope that you will support the
concept of alternative funding mechanisms for shipbuilding?
Dr. Winter. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the objectives and
desire to be able to have additional flexibility in that
regard. Unfortunately, I've had only limited opportunity over
the last few weeks to understand the multiplicity of issues
amongst the various approaches. If I am confirmed, though, I
intend to go and take a good hard look at the implications and
possibilities associated with advanced appropriations and other
techniques that you so aptly described.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Winter, we've made some advances in
the Department on the research and development efforts of
unmanned surface vessels. They've yielded an advanced concept
technology demonstration such as the Spartan Scout, which is
currently undergoing Navy-directed testing. Will you consider
pushing the frontiers in this area?
Dr. Winter. Mr. Chairman, I'm a technologist at heart and
have enjoyed participating in those types of programs, and I've
seen the tremendous benefits that can occur with the
appropriate application of advanced technologies. If confirmed,
I would expect to continue to do so during the course of my
tenure.
Chairman Warner. I would talk to both of you a little bit
about the civilian workforce. I spent a great deal of time when
I was in the Department, and I was fortunate to have an
extraordinary management group of senior civilians to help
guide me in trying to strike a balance in the civilian versus
the uniformed members. It really is a joint operation, always
has been, always will be, and they worked side by side. We have
to make certain that the systems for compensating them and
other personnel benefits are balanced. We have to constantly
work on that. You can't just put something in place and walk
away from it.
Do each of you commit to spend a good proportion of your
time on the balancing of the civilian and uniformed workforce,
and to preserve it?
Mr. Wynne. Absolutely, Senator.
Dr. Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do believe that ensuring
that we are a competitive employer, with all the alternatives
out there, is going to be a continuing challenge, but one which
must be worked.
Chairman Warner. Well, all the football questions have been
asked. [Laughter.]
But I'm told that we did not give sufficient recognition of
West Point and the Black Knights, which are reputedly still
rebuilding. Do you have any comment on that, Secretary Wynne?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wynne. All I can say at this point--especially in my
position is, ``Beat Navy.'' [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. We've had a very good hearing, and I thank
our two witnesses. I commend the President and the Secretary of
Defense for finding both of you and bringing you back, and
particularly you, Secretary Wynne, for your steadfast patience
to wait for this day. It has come, and I assure you that this
Senator--and, I'm confident, others--will do everything we can
to see that the floor receives your nominations and that the
advice and consent process will give you a prompt up or down
vote--and I'm anticipating ups in the vote.
Thank you and your families.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Michael W. Wynne by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities
and the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These reforms have also
vastly improved cooperation between the Services and the combatant
commanders in the strategic planning process, in the development of
requirements, in joint training and education, and in the execution of
military operations.
Have your views on the importance, feasibility, and implementation
of the Goldwater-Nichols Act reforms changed since you testified before
the committee at your confirmation hearing on November 18, 2003?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-
Nichols Act provisions based on your extensive experience in the
Department of Defense?
Answer. I do not have any specific recommendations to amend
Goldwater-Nichols. We have been on the right path for the past 20
years. However, it is appropriate to periodically review organizational
and management frameworks to ensure continued validity. If confirmed,
my leadership and management of the Department of the Air Force will
include a continuous review of Goldwater-Nichols with an eye toward
opportunities for improvement. I will work closely with the Secretary
of Defense and Congress to continually review Goldwater-Nichols and
implement any changes that might be needed.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. N/A.
relationships
Question. Section 8013 of title 10, United States Code, discusses
the responsibilities and authority of the Secretary of the Air Force.
Other sections of law and traditional practice, also establish
important relationships outside the chain of command. Please describe
your understanding of the relationship of the Secretary of the Air
Force to the following officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for all matters
within the Department of Defense. The Secretary of the Air Force is
subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of
Defense. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the
Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on all matters
related to acquisition, technology, and logistics programs impacting
the Department of the Air Force.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
Answer. The Chief of Staff is subject to the authority, direction,
and control of the Secretary of the Air Force, presides over the Air
Staff, and is a principal advisor to the Secretary. In addition, he is
a military adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and
the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I would foster a close working
relationship with the Chief of Staff to ensure that policies and
resources are appropriate to meet the needs of the Air Force and
respect his additional responsibilities as a member of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Air Force.
Answer. Subject to the Secretary of the Air Force'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; that is, to conduct the affairs of the
Department of the Air Force. In addition, the Under Secretary of the
Air Force has been delegated the Secretary of the Air Force's duties
and authority as the Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space.
If confirmed, I would foster a close working relationship with the
Under Secretary.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. 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. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
Chairman through the Chief of Staff of the Air Force on appropriate
matters affecting the Air Force.
Question. The combatant commanders.
Answer. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of Defense, the military department's responsibility includes
recruiting, organizing, training, equipping, and maintaining
interoperable forces for assignment to the combatant commands.
If confirmed, I will work with and through the Chief of Staff to
carry out the functions and responsibilities of the Air Force so as to
fulfill to the maximum extent practicable the current and future
operational requirements of the combatant commands.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition
acts as the Senior Acquisition Executive for the Air Force. If
confirmed, I would work closely with the Assistant Secretary on
acquisition matters.
Question. The General Counsel of the Air Force.
Answer. The General Counsel (GC) is the senior civilian legal
advisor to Air Force senior leaders and to all officers and agencies of
the Department of the Air Force. The GC serves as the chief ethics
official. If confirmed, I would look forward to developing a good
working relationship with the GC.
Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.
Answer. The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) is the senior uniformed
legal advisor to Air Force senior leaders and of all officers and
agencies of the Department of the Air Force and provides professional
supervision to TJAG's Corps in the performance of their duties. If
confirmed, I look forward to developing a good working relationship
with TJAG.
Question. The Superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy.
Answer. The United States Air Force Academy is an invaluable
institution that continues to attract the brightest young men and women
from across our Nation and develops them into Air Force leaders. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the Superintendent to address the
challenges currently facing the Academy and promote the Academy's
continued commitment to excellence and fulfillment of its mission.
Question. The Director of the National Reconnaissance Office.
Answer. The Secretary of the Air Force must foster a strong
collaborative relationship with the National Reconnaissance Office and
therefore must have a strong relationship with its director. If
confirmed, I will work to foster a close working relationship with the
Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, as well as the Director
of National Intelligence (DNI). In light of the standup of the DNI, the
Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community (IC) are in the
process of re-defining their relationship for national security space
matters. If confirmed, I will work with the DNI, IC, and Executive
Office of the President to ensure the new policies and processes for
coordinating space efforts will be effective and meet the needs of all
users.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Secretary of the Air Force?
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. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force, I would expect
the Secretary of Defense to assign me duties consistent with the
responsibilities outlined above.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Secretary of the Air
Force?
Answer. If confirmed, the Under Secretary of the Air Force, the
Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force, the General Counsel, along with
the Air Force Chief of Staff and Vice 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 lead and manage the Department of the Air
Force.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Secretary of the Air Force?
Answer. The Air Force has been actively engaged in war since
Operation Desert Shield in the early 1990s. Since then, it has been
committed to providing joint commanders with a Total Force able to use
our air, space, and cyberspace capabilities to have effects on and
counter a vast array of threats in the air, land, sea, space and
cyberspace, in addition to providing capabilities in other areas such
as disaster relief. The Air Force's major challenges in continuing to
provide these capabilities are:
- Preparing for and participating in the joint fight anywhere
and anytime;
- Providing motivated, ethical, accountable Air Force warriors;
and
- Developing, maintaining, and sustaining our warfighting edge.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. I plan to work with the leadership team of the Air Force
Chief of Staff, General Moseley, the Vice Chief of Staff, General
Corley, the Under Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Sega and Chief Master
Sergeant of the Air Force Murray to ensure that we set the standard of
performance for the Air Force within the larger defense family. We will
develop economical and feasible plans, policies, and programs to ensure
that the Air Force can meet its missions, which range from prosecuting
the war on terror to aiding victims of natural disasters.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Secretary of the Air Force?
Answer. The most serious problem would be continuing to fulfill
commitments today while preparing for an unknown future in a fiscally
responsible manner. A very close second is to restore the Air Force to
its premier status as an acquisition and management organization
promoting transparency wherever appropriate.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. Again, if confirmed, I am confident that the Air Force
leadership team will address the specific actions and time lines that
will allow us to continue to meet our mission requirements today and in
the future. We will ensure the actions taken are in accord with the
Service's core values of integrity, service before self and excellence
in all we do.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish?
Answer. The mission of the Air Force is to deliver sovereign
options for the defense of the United States of America and its global
interests in air, space and cyberspace. To ensure that the Air Force is
able to meet this mission I would establish the following priorities:
- Sustaining air and space capabilities across all missions now
and in the future;
- Enhancing knowledge enabled warfighting;
- Making open and transparent business practices a rule and not
an exception;
- Balancing the Total Force, with an emphasis on innovation;
- Fostering lean processes supported by quality standards
across the Total Force; and
- Continuing to improve Total Force quality of life for airmen,
civilians, and their families.
readiness levels
Question. What is your assessment of the current readiness of the
Air Force to execute its assigned missions?
Answer. I have not made an assessment of the current readiness of
the Air Force. If confirmed, it is one of the highest priorities to
meet Air Force assigned missions and I will gain immediate insight.
Question. What do you view as the major readiness challenges that
will have to be addressed by the Air Force over the next 5 years, and,
if confirmed, how will you approach these issues?
Answer. The Air Force is operating the oldest aircraft inventory in
its history with a requirement to conduct simultaneous operations all
over the globe. The most serious problem would be continuing to fulfill
warfighting and strategic commitments today while preparing for an
unknown future in a fiscally responsible manner. These issues are
difficult and if confirmed solving them will require analysis and
teamwork with Congress, the Department of Defense, and industry.
personnel and health benefit costs
Question. The cost of the Defense Health Program, like the cost of
medical care nation-wide, is escalating rapidly. Similarly, the cost of
personnel as a key component of the Services' budgets has risen
significantly in recent years.
If confirmed, how would you approach the issue of rising health
care and personnel costs?
Answer. While I am not completely familiar with this issue, I can
certainly understand the concern with rising costs and plan on studying
the costs versus the ultimate goal of recruiting and retention. If
confirmed, a goal will be to ensure that our members and their families
receive quality care, whether deployed or at home station, as the Air
Force maximizes its return on healthcare investments.
air force future total force planning
Question. In a recent report submitted in response to section 587
of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005, the acting Secretary of the Air Force outlined the legal,
administrative, and practical challenges of operating a ``blended
wing,'' consisting of Active-Duty airmen and airmen of the Air National
Guard.
What legislative changes, if any, are needed to overcome barriers
to effective integration of Air Force Reserve and active component
personnel and units?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specifics of this particular
matter. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the Air
Force Future Total Force experts and General Council to better
understand and address these concerns.
transformation
Question. If confirmed as the Secretary of the Air Force, you would
play an important role in the ongoing process of transforming the Air
Force to meet new and emerging threats.
If confirmed, what would your goals be for Air Force
transformation?
Answer. If confirmed I look forward to reviewing the existing Air
Force transformation strategy, which I am told is detailed in the
Service's Transformation Flight Plan. Such a review would better
position me to address this question more directly. My goal, of course,
would be to work on this matter closely with Congress, the rest of
Department of Defense and non-Department of Defense agencies, as well
as allies and coalition partners.
Question. In your opinion, does the Air Force Program Objectives
Memorandum (POM) have adequate resources identified to implement your
transformation goals?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the Air Force
transformational strategy in light of those being addressed more
broadly by the Department of Defense. Such a review should include an
examination of the Service's resource allocation and the analysis
brought to light by the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review.
prevention and response to sexual assaults
Question. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Personnel conducted a hearing on policies and programs
of the Department of Defense for preventing and responding to incidents
of sexual assault in the Armed Forces. In late April 2004, the DOD Task
Force on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault issued its report and
recommendations, noting ``If the Department of Defense is to provide a
responsive system to address sexual assault, it must be a top-down
program with emphasis placed at the highest levels within the
Department down to the lowest levels of command leadership. It must
develop performance metrics and establish an evaluative framework for
regular review and quality improvement.''
What is your evaluation of the progress to date made by the Air
Force in preventing and responding adequately to incidents of sexual
assault?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to become specifically
familiar with the Air Force efforts in this arena, however, I
understand that the Air Force has made a great deal of progress in how
it deals with the issue of sexual assault.
Senior leaders in the Air Force have issued strong
statements that sexual assault is criminal behavior that
conflicts with our Core Values and will not be tolerated in the
Air Force.
The Air Force recently released a highly effective
training video, Targeting Sexual Assault, and is in the process
of showing it to members of the Air Force worldwide. In
addition, the Air Force is creating a multi-tiered training
approach on this topic throughout accession training and at all
levels of professional military education (PME).
The Air Force hired and placed full time Sexual
Assault Response Coordinators (SARCs) to assist senior
leadership at all levels with prevention of and response to
sexual assault.
On 14 June 2005, the Air Force implemented the two
avenues for reporting sexual assault (restricted and
unrestricted) as prescribed by the Department of Defense.
The Air Force is providing trained military SARCs and
victim advocates within the deployed environment.
Question. What problems do you foresee, if any, in implementing the
revised policy with respect to confidential reporting of sexual
assaults by military personnel in the Air Force?
Answer. The revised DOD policy with respect to confidential
reporting of sexual assaults by Active-Duty military personnel
represents a significant change in military culture. It will take time
to educate everyone involved about how the policy works. It will also
take time for victims of sexual assault to trust the new system. In
addition, there have been, and will continue to be, challenging policy
issues that arise as we try to implement this new confidential
reporting option.
Question. If confirmed, what actions do you plan to take to ensure
that senior civilian leaders of the Air Force have day-to-day
visibility into incidents of sexual assault and the effectiveness of
policies aimed at ensuring zero tolerance?
Answer. Responsibility and accountability for sexual assault
prevention and response resides squarely with leadership and, from what
I've seen, Air Force leadership has assumed that responsibility. Senior
Air Force leaders have spoken out on the issue and appeared in the Air
Force training video stating, in no uncertain terms, that sexual
assault will not be tolerated in the Air Force. If confirmed, I will
seek to work with Congress to ensure that we continue to monitor and
respond effectively to this issue. The bottom line is that
accountability begins with me and our senior leaders. In addition, it
is my understanding that within the Air Force, the Air Force director
of personnel is vested with the responsibility for policy
implementation and evaluation. At the local level, accountability for
prevention and response is placed with the vice wing commander, and
Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARCs) report directly to them.
air force academy
Question. The Air Force Academy has come under intense criticism as
a result of the handling of cases of sexual assaults and harassment of
female cadets and insensitivity to the religious beliefs of many
cadets.
If confirmed, what role would you play and what steps would you
anticipate taking in order to ensure that the Air Force Academy
fulfills its mission and is provided with necessary resources and
oversight?
Answer. The mission of the Air Force Academy is critical to the
long-term success of the Air Force. If confirmed, I will be personally,
and actively, engaged in ensuring they have the guidance, leadership,
and resources necessary to be successful at accomplishing that mission.
The Air Force Academy of 2005 appears to be a much healthier
institution than in 2003. The Air Force Academy appears to be on the
right track, and I will personally assure myself of their status and
ensure they continue their positive progress.
free exercise of religion
Question. The Air Force recently released interim guidance
regarding free exercise of religion in the Air Force.
Do you believe that this interim guidance is sufficiently specific
to help Air Force leaders reach sound decisions on actions that could
be perceived as endorsing a religion or pressuring subordinates to
participate in a religious event?
Answer. Yes, from my reading, it appears to strike a reasonable
balance.
Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe the Air
Force should take to ensure that this guidance is implemented
effectively and to ensure that people of all faiths and all viewpoints
on religion are accorded respect and fair treatment throughout the Air
Force?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to continue asking for input, both
from within the military and from outside the military. We need to
continue to test and, when necessary, adjust the guidelines to ensure
they continue to strike an acceptable balance, in the military context,
between the guarantees of free expression and the protections relating
to establishment of religion.
independence of the judge advocate general
Question. In section 574 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, the statutory responsibilities
and authority of the service Judge Advocates General were amended to
make it clear that interference by any officer or employee of the
Department of Defense with the ability of the Judge Advocates General
to give independent legal advice is not permitted.
What are your views about the responsibility of TJAG of the Air
Force to provide independent legal advice to the Secretary of the Air
Force, the Chief of Staff, and the Air Staff, particularly in the areas
of military justice and operational law?
Answer. I believe it is critical that Air Force senior leaders
receive independent legal advice and counsel from the senior uniformed
judge advocate.
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. Funding for the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (JUCAS) has
recently been reduced and management of the program has changed from
DARPA to an Air Force-led joint service program.
Do you support the 10-year goal established by Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Are you satisfied with the current JUCAS program
objectives and schedule?
Answer. The Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems Operational
Assessment objectives and program schedule are understood, and
supported by the Services, given the current level of investment. The
Air Force, in conjunction with the Navy, the Department, and DARPA,
have planned for the transfer of the program to an Air Force-led joint
service program this fall with minimal disruption to the program.
Question. Do you believe the current level of investment is
sufficient to achieve JUCAS program objectives and schedule? If not,
what recommendations would you make to comply with the statute?
Answer. I am not familiar with budget level funding details of the
JUCAS program, but if confirmed, will work closely with the Air Force
and Joint Service acquisition leadership to review the transition
planning actions taken by the DARPA for the program.
implementation of base closures and realignments
Question. The 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
process has resulted in the recommended closure or realignment of
numerous major Air Force installations. The DOD installation closure
process resulting from BRAC decisions has historically included close
cooperation with the affected local community in order to allow these
communities an active role in the reuse of property.
In your view, what are the roles and responsibilities of the
Department of the Air Force within the 2005 BRAC property disposal
process to work with local communities?
Answer. I believe the Air Force's roles and responsibilities are to
implement the final decisions of the 2005 BRAC process expeditiously
and efficiently in the best interest of the local community, the
Federal Government, the Air Force, and the American taxpayer.
Collaboration and communication are critical to success. If confirmed,
I would develop a plan to quickly inventory the real property, personal
property, and natural infrastructure assets at relevant bases to
determine their value. Working with the communities, we can develop
strategies to quickly market these assets. This approach can ensure
that the community will quickly recover from the impacts of BRAC.
Question. If confirmed, what goals would you establish to assist
affected communities with economic development, revitalization, and re-
use planning of property received as a result of the BRAC process?
Answer. The Air Force will take great care to work with communities
and stand ready to provide support and assistance. If confirmed, I
would ensure we work closely with the Office of Economic Adjustment to
ensure that affected communities have all the resources necessary to
accomplish comprehensive planning for the reuse of base property.
Community redevelopment plans and the Air Force disposal plans should
be integrated to the maximum extent possible to take into account the
anticipated market demand for surplus military property with the goal
of maximizing value, while being sensitive to community needs and long-
terms plans. This approach will get property into reuse much more
quickly, help accelerate job creation, and result in cost savings for
military readiness.
Question. What plans does the Air Force have in place to assist DOD
personnel who lose their jobs as a result of BRAC actions?
Answer. It is my understanding that all affected individuals will
be treated equitably during BRAC reductions and we will strive to
mitigate adverse effects resulting from BRAC actions. The Air Force is
to provide comprehensive transition tools, programs, and information
for civilians including voluntary early retirements and separation
incentive pay. If confirmed I will work to ensure affected employees
have access to all Office of Personnel Management and Department of
Defense placement programs such as career transition, financial
planning, and relocation information.
encroachment on military installations
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. These issues are a serious problem and present a unique
challenge to the Air Force as it continues to train for combat
operations.
Question. If confirmed, what policies or steps would you take to
curtail the negative impact on operations and training resulting from
residential encroachment?
Answer. It is my belief that an integrated strategy is critical to
addressing the negative impacts of competition for scarce air, land,
and water resources that often results in encroachment onto our
installations, ranges, and air space--vital national assets for
developing and testing new weapons, training forces, and conducting
joint exercises. If confirmed, I will encourage the Air Force to
actively engage with Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies to
implement innovative, cooperative approaches to the allocation of
scarce resources, and to achieve complimentary agency objectives.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to work with Air Force leadership to
address current and potential encroachment issues that affect
readiness.
acquisition issues
Question. The Acting Secretary of the Air Force has announced that
the Air Force will no longer pursue leases of major equipment, but will
instead rely on the traditional acquisition system.
Do you support this decision?
Answer. Yes, I support this position.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe it would
be appropriate for the Air Force to use a lease instead of a
traditional acquisition approach?
Answer. As Kenneth Krieg (Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) recently testified, leasing of
capital equipment could be a potential option when the equipment is
truly commercially available outside Department of Defense and can meet
the leasing requirements established by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Question. At his confirmation hearing earlier this year, the Air
Force Chief of Staff testified that the Air Force had gone too far in
reducing its acquisition workforce, undermining its ability to provide
needed oversight in the acquisition process.
Do you agree with the Chief of Staff's assessment?
Answer. Yes, I agree with the Chief of Staff's assessment.
Question. If so, what steps do you believe the Air Force should
take to address this problem?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to work with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to
understand the demand for our acquisition personnel and to
appropriately size the workforce. If confirmed I intend to work with
the program executive officers and center commanders to assess critical
needs.
Question. Major defense acquisition programs in the Air Force and
the other military services continue to be subject to funding and
requirements instability.
Do you believe that instability in funding and requirements drives
up program costs and leads to delays in the fielding of major weapon
systems?
Answer. Yes, I believe such instability drives up costs and delays
fielding of systems.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Air Force should
take to address funding and requirements instability?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Air Force and Department of
Defense leadership, Congress, and our stakeholders to define solid
system baselines and develop stable funding plans.
Question. The Comptroller General testified earlier this year that
DOD programs often move forward with unrealistic program cost and
schedule estimates, lack clearly defined and stable requirements, use
immature technologies in launching product development, and fail to
solidify design and manufacturing processes at appropriate junctures in
development.
Do you agree with the Comptroller General's assessment?
Answer. The problems identified by the Comptroller General have
always been, and will continue to be, challenges we face in the
acquisition of the Department of Defense's unique and complex weapon
and information systems. One of my goals is to restore the Air Force to
its premier position in Acquisition and Management promoting
transparency wherever appropriate.
Question. If so, what steps do you believe the Air Force should
take to address these problems?
Answer. The Air Force has taken some good steps but there is more
work to be done. Too much of the Air Force acquisition workforce and
oversight capability--cost estimators, engineers, program managers, and
test evaluators--was cut in the post cold war drawdown. I believe we
need to reinstate much of this acquisition corps and put the right
expertise and oversight back into the process. There is an ongoing DOD-
wide acquisition review of policies, regulations, and procedures, which
will provide an assessment that considers many aspects of acquisition
including: requirements, organization, legal foundation, decision
methodology, oversight, and checks and balances. I look forward to the
study's recommendations.
tanker leasing
Question. Air Force leadership, and to some degree DOD leadership,
failed to follow acquisition statutes and regulations and ensure good
fiduciary stewardship of taxpayer funds, tailored the requirements of
the operational requirements document (ORD) to the Boeing 767 instead
of to the warfighter and overstated the effects of corrosion on the KC-
135 tanker fleet.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that acquisition
problems of this kind do not happen again?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to work to ensure the
lessons learned are incorporated into the training, education, and
processes of the Air Force. I will ensure necessary checks and balances
in the Air Force acquisition process and that the process is
transparent and accountable. I am committed to ensuring discipline and
credibility in the Air Force acquisition process.
contract management
Question. By some estimates, the Department of Defense now spends
more money every year for the acquisition of services than it does for
the acquisition of products, including major weapon systems. Yet, the
Department places far less emphasis on staffing, training, and managing
the acquisition of services than it does on the acquisition of
products.
What steps, if any, do you believe the Air Force should take to
improve the staffing, training, and management of its acquisition of
services?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the Air Force puts
discipline and transparency into services acquisitions. As I understand
it, as part of the Strategic Plan, the Air Force will be reviewing
their staffing, training, and management of large services
acquisitions. If confirmed, I look forward to hearing the results of
their review and their planned way-ahead.
Question. Do you agree that the Air Force should develop processes
and systems to provide managers with access to information needed to
conduct comprehensive spending analyses of services contracts on an
ongoing basis?
Answer. Yes, I believe it is essential. The Air Force is working
with other Services, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and other
Federal agencies to implement and institutionalize comprehensive
spending analyses on services acquisitions as well as other
acquisitions.
Question. The last decade has seen a proliferation of new types of
government-wide contracts and multi-agency contracts. The Department of
Defense is by far the largest ordering agency under these contracts,
accounting for 85 percent of the dollars awarded under one of the
largest programs. The DOD Inspector General and others have identified
a long series of problems with interagency contracts, including lack of
acquisition planning, inadequate competition, excessive use of time and
materials contracts, improper use of expired funds, inappropriate
expenditures, and failure to monitor contractor performance.
What steps, if any, do you believe the Air Force should take to
ensure that its use of interagency contracts complies with applicable
DOD requirements and is in the best interests of the Department?
Answer. As the acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, I co-signed the Department of Defense (DOD)
policy letter on the proper use of non-DOD Contracts. The policy laid
out the following five procedures for DOD procurement teams to use when
considering a contract outside of the DOD:
evaluate whether using a non-DOD contract for such
actions is in the best interests of the DOD;
determine if the tasks to be accomplished or supplies
to be provided are within the scope of the contract to be used;
review funding to ensure it is used in accordance with
appropriation limitations;
ensure the contracting agency includes DOD unique
terms and conditions when applicable; and
collect data on the use of interagency contracts for
analysis.
I believe the Air Force has taken the necessary steps to ensure
that its use of interagency contracts complies with applicable DOD
requirements and is in the best interests of the Department; and if
confirmed will ensure their effect conforms to DOD policy.
aircraft sustainment and modernization
Question. The global war on terrorism has increased demands on the
tanker fleet, increasing annual KC-135 flying hours over 30 percent
since September 11. The Air Force has grounded 29 KC-135Es because of
corrosion problems in the engine struts and has expressed a desire to
retire these 29 aircraft and 20 additional KC-135Es in fiscal year
2006.
What is the status of the Tanker Replacement Analysis of
Alternatives?
Answer. The Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) for KC-135
Recapitalization was delivered to the Air Force and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense on 15 August 2005. The AOA is now undergoing two
independent reviews that are scheduled for completion in November
2005--the Institute for Defense Analyses' Independent Assessment and
Program Analysis and Evaluation's (PA&E) Sufficiency Review.
Question. When will a decision be made regarding the future of the
air refueling fleet?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend this to be an event driven process,
and will await the completion of the sufficiency review. At that time I
will better be able to assess the remaining schedule.
future cargo aircraft
Question. The Army has included funds in the budget request to
begin a program to procure intratheater airlift aircraft. Previously,
fixed wing cargo delivery has been included in the roles and missions
of the Air Force.
What is your view of the proper roles and missions for the Army and
Air Force in supplying front line troops?
Answer. As defined in the Department of Defense Directive 5100.1,
signed 1 August 2002 by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz,
the Air Force has the primary mission to provide air logistic support
to the Army and other forces, including airlift, air and space support,
and resupply of airborne operations.
joint strike fighter
Question. The House Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Appropriations have recently proposed eliminating the
procurement of long lead items to support the low rate initial
production of five conventional take-off and landing variants of the
Joint Strike Fighter.
What are your views on this proposal?
Answer. I believe the use of funds in the development of this
complex, multinational program is being done very judiciously. The
program is now on a solid track to success. There always abound rumors
and doubts about the real United States commitment to support its
allies and partners on such a multi-partner program. This program, if
its goals and performance are achieved, will be a true cornerstone to
coalition warfare for half a century to come, as there are undoubtedly
other international players who are presently on the sidelines awaiting
a buying opportunity.
Budget cuts, as proposed, will fuel the worst rumors, as they
threaten force activation directly, and tend to be interpreted by
friends and competitors in the worst way.
Question. If the House proposal is sustained, what do you think
would be the impact on the program's schedule and future Air Force
procurement decisions?
Answer. See above response.
long range bombers
Question. The B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s will begin to be retired in the
2030 time frame.
Do you believe that the United States needs to develop a new manned
bomber?
Answer. The Air Force is in the process of completing an analysis
of alternatives for the next generation long range strike capability.
Both manned and unmanned alternatives are being considered. The results
of this analysis of alternatives will provide the Air Force with the
information needed for development of long-range strike capabilities.
Question. What role do you see for unmanned bombers?
Answer. See above response.
Question. When, in your view, must a decision on this issue be
made?
Answer. This is a major force structure issue and should be event
driven. If confirmed, I would await the outcome of the analysis of
alternatives to judge the remaining decision space and schedule.
nro director
Question. The responsibilities of the Director of the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO) were recently separated from those of the
Under Secretary of the Air Force.
What was the rationale for this decision, and, if confirmed, what
steps would you take to ensure that the interests of the Air Force are
appropriately represented within the NRO?
Answer. It is my understanding that the division of
responsibilities was made to allow each official to concentrate
exclusively on the unique needs of their own organizations.
The Secretary of Defense recently stated that separating the two
demanding jobs ``made sense and that the administration is now trying
to ensure the Air Force and NRO stay linked to ensure coordination.''
If confirmed, both the Under Secretary of the Air Force and I will work
hard to ensure the guidance of the Secretary of Defense and the
Director of National Intelligence is followed to the best of our
abilities.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
DOD space programs and NRO programs are managed in a coordinated
fashion?
Answer. Over the last couple of years, a variety of management
initiatives have been put in place, such as creating a National
Security Space Vision, a National Security Space Strategy, and a
National Security Space Plan. In addition, efforts are underway to
collaboratively develop architectures between National Reconnaissance
Office and the Department of Defense space programs.
If confirmed, I will work with Dr. Sega, the Under Secretary of the
Air Force and Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space, and Dr.
Kerr, Director of the NRO, who already work closely, and will continue
to coordinate efforts with respect to such important issues as space
planning, acquisition policy, personnel, and the space industrial base;
and to ensure coordination of efforts and resources in the most
effective way possible.
joint warfighting space
Question. The Air Force introduced the concept of Joint Warfighting
Space to provide military commanders the capability to rapidly launch
rockets with micro-satellites capable of supporting a specific area of
operations with communications and other sensors.
What is the status of current Air Force and Department of Defense
efforts to develop and acquire a Joint Warfighting Space capability?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Air Force, Intelligence
Community, and space community to gain a better understanding of their
programmatics supporting this initiative.
Question. Which entity within the Department has the lead for these
activities?
Answer. The Air Force as the DOD Executive Agent for Space has the
lead for these activities.
Question. What is your opinion on creating a Joint Program Office
to coordinate and integrate all Department efforts in the area of Joint
Warfighting Space?
Answer. It is my understanding that as the Department of Defense
Executive Agent for Space, the Air Force has begun planning for the
standup of a Joint Warfighting Space Joint Program Office. If
confirmed, I will support this important effort.
space acquisition
Question. Both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have
reduced the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Space
Radar and Transformational Satellite (TSAT) programs, reflecting
concern about the technological and programmatic risks associated with
these programs. Regrettably, virtually all current space acquisition
programs are suffering from cost overruns and schedule slips, adding
further concern about the acquisition process now being used to oversee
the Space Radar and TSAT programs.
If confirmed, how would you propose to ensure that the acquisition
process has been successfully overhauled in order to achieve the goal
of delivering the Space Radar and TSAT within the promised cost and
schedule?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my goals is to restore the Air Force
to its premier position in Acquisition and Management. This requires a
more disciplined and transparent approach to acquisition. If confirmed,
one of my top priorities will be to ensure we are taking the proper
steps to address the problems we have seen in space acquisition
programs. To ensure that we have a robust space acquisition approach we
must continue our focus on mission success, consistently apply sound
space acquisition policies, reconstitute our systems engineering
capability, and--perhaps most importantly--develop an educated,
trained, and experienced space acquisition workforce for the future.
If confirmed, I will work with the Under Secretary of the Air
Force, Ron Sega, to understand his progress to date and the challenges
that lay ahead, and with him, work with Congress, Air Force and DOD
leadership, and key partners and stakeholders to set a roadmap for the
future.
bmd transition and funding
Question. On April 7 of this year, you testified before the
committee that an unfunded out year budget wedge of more than $2
billion for the Missile Defense Agency represented funds that the
military departments would be providing for future missile defense
activities.
What do you believe is the appropriate role for the Air Force in
planning and budgeting for the costs of procuring, operating, and
maintaining any ballistic missile defense system elements in the Future
Years Defense Program?
Answer. Defense against ballistic missile threats is a high
priority mission given to the Department of Defense and it's my
understanding the Air Force has inherent capabilities to contribute to
that mission. I believe, as a consequence, the Air Force is actively
engaged in determining how it can best contribute to this vital
mission. If confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to work with the Air
Force and Missile Defense Agency leadership to develop and refine lead
Service transition and transfer plans to address the planning,
budgeting, procuring, and maintaining of those ballistic missile
defense system elements the Air Force will assume as the lead Service.
Question. Do you believe that the Air Force budget should be
modified to reflect the requirement to fund the Air Force share of $2
billion for future missile defense activities in the outyears,
consistent with the plans of the Missile Defense Agency and your own
testimony?
Answer. I believe there comes a time when development programs
transition to operations. This transition transfers funding
responsibility to operations and maintenance of the using Service,
whether Army, Navy or Air Force. This is presently being determined
between the Missile Defense Agency and the Services.
air force science and technology
Question. The Air Force currently plans to dedicate approximately
$2 billion to science and technology programs, 1.6 percent of the total
Air Force budget and $346 million to basic defense research, or 0.3
percent of the total Air Force budget.
Do you believe the current balance between short- and long-term
research is appropriate to meet current and future Air Force needs?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force Science and
Technology Program spans a broad foundation of basic research, applied
research, and advanced technology development efforts. The output of a
Science and Technology investment enables the development of
capabilities needed to respond to a rapidly changing world. If
confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the Air Force Science and
Technology Program with respect to a balanced investment in the
research, development, demonstration, and transition of various
technologies, and ensuring that the Air Force Science and Technology
Program supports the needs of the warfighter.
technology transition
Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the
last few years, however, challenges remain in institutionalizing the
transition of new technologies into existing programs of record and
major weapons systems and platforms.
What challenges to transition do you see within the Air Force?
Answer. While I am unfamiliar with specific transition initiatives
currently underway in the Air Force, if confirmed, I will bring to the
Air Force some of the experiences gained in the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Some
examples include efforts to rapidly identify, mature, develop, test,
assess, acquire, and field technologies to satisfy immediate warfighter
needs. I expect to work closely with Air Force and Department of
Defense leadership, and Congress to examine streamlining the technology
transition and acquisition processes.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that technologies are
rapidly transitioned from the laboratory into the hands of the
warfighter?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support a robust Air Force Science
and Technology Program with the investment and focus needed to bring
technologies to maturity, and transition these technologies into
warfighting capabilities.
Question. What steps would you take to enhance the effectiveness of
technology transition efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support close collaboration with the
technology community and the warfighter to identify current needs and
to anticipate future operational needs arising from a changing national
and world security environment.
test and evaluation
Question. In response to advance policy questions to the committee
for your June 22, 2001, nomination hearing to be Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition and Technology you stated, ``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.''
What progress has the Department made toward the implementation of
these objectives?
Answer. The Air Force recently implemented a new strategy called
``Seamless Verification'' that fully integrates all types of testing
into a seamless, efficient continuum. Testers are involved much earlier
in acquisition programs than ever before as they provide valuable
advice to acquisition managers. The goal is for acquisition and test
communities to become close partners in supporting our warfighters.
Question. What are your views on the effectiveness of the
Department's test and evaluation activity?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my goals is to restore the Air Force
to its premier position in acquisition and management. In testing the
Air Force has always been on the forefront of innovative test and
evaluation ideas and improvements.
Question. What is the impact of rapid fielding requirements on the
standard testing process? For small systems? For large systems?
Answer. It's my understanding that rapid fielding assumes more risk
in the testing process and may even require programs to include their
own test and evaluation capabilities. It's also my understanding that
rapid acquisition does not replace normal acquisition procedures, but
rather speeds up the administrative process of identifying, approving,
and funding systems/capabilities to satisfy urgent warfighter needs.
Additionally, rapid fielding often foregoes other lesser priorities
until the rapid acquisition testing is completed by dedicating nearly
all resources to the task at hand. This applies to all systems in the
rapid fielding initiative, large and small.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Air Force
Acquisition and Test communities to make the acquisition process less
cumbersome and effectively offset any risks introduced through rapid
fielding with more effective program management and test and evaluation
activities.
Question. The Air Force has some unique requirements with regard to
prompt global reach and affordable, responsive space lift missions.
In your view, are changes in current test range structure,
operations, and mission assurance parameters required to accommodate
Air Force experimentation and small launch needs?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Air Force
senior leaders and the Air Force Test and Evaluation community to
better understand the requirements in accommodating Air Force
experimentation and small launch, as well as how the Service's unique
operational requirements and core competencies impact the test
community.
defense integrated manpower human resources system (dimhrs)
Question. DIMHRS is a single integrated human resources pay and
personnel system for all the Armed Services and the Defense Finance and
Accounting System (DFAS), and is intended to replace many of the
systems currently used to perform personnel management and pay
functions. DIMHRS has been under development for several years and has
come under criticism for cost growth, delays in implementation, and not
meeting the expectations of each Service. The Acting Deputy Secretary
of Defense has directed a review of DIMHRS in order to determine its
future.
What success has the Department had in developing and implementing
enterprise-wide information technology systems?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force has effectively
used information technology to permit Air Combat Command, Air Mobility
Command, United States Air Forces in Europe, and Pacific Air Forces to
consolidate their supply functions into consolidated Regional Supply
Squadrons. In the past, supply functions had to be done at each base.
Today, a single web interface is giving us access to worldwide supply
information 24/7 making this process location independent even though
we continue to rely on the legacy Standard Base Supply System.
Centralizing common supply processes has proven to be effective in cost
and performance providing greatly enhanced analytical tools and
yielding a savings of 570 people.
Another example, the Air Force has developed a common technical
framework for providing warfighters and supporting activities with
timely, accurate, and trusted combat support and business information.
The technical framework was developed under the Global Combat Support
System program. The Air Force Portal is the standard user interface to
all Air Force support data and functions. The Air Force Portal includes
personalized, role-based access and single sign-on to information and
capabilities within combat support and business areas.
Question. What are your views of the need for completion of
implementation of DIMHRS and what specific benefits, if any, would the
Air Force derive from this system?
Answer. It is my understanding that DIMHRS can bridge the gap
between the personnel and pay arenas, provide a unified system with far
lower overhead, and dramatically reduce the number of pay errors
affecting our troops. The Air Force needs a modern, integrated
personnel/pay system.
national security personnel system (nsps)
Question. What are your views on the strengths and weaknesses of
the implementation steps undertaken within the Department thus far?
Answer. The strength of the implementation effort comes from the
core of dedicated staff members who are working towards a new vision.
The Air Force should have NSPS teams and champions at installations,
begun training, and communicated NSPS import to its people.
Question. What do you believe will be the benefits of NSPS when
implemented, and what steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure a
smooth and effective transition?
Answer. The bottom line: NSPS is a much-needed retooling of
civilian personnel rules. It provides the Air Force with the tools we
need to respond to the challenges we face daily. It gives us the
flexibilities we need to get the job done the right way with the right
people and in the right time. If confirmed, I will work within the Air
Force, the Department of Defense, and Congress to make it a success.
This means providing training and communication tools to give managers
and employees a mastery of the new system and lessen their hesitancy
and fear as they move from the known to the unknown.
technical workforce
Question. In recent public comments at the DARPA Systems and
Technology Symposium you noted concern about the adequacy of technical
personnel with expertise in defense critical disciplines who qualify
for security clearances: ``This is of particular concern to our
Department because we hire almost half of all Federal scientists and
engineers outright, as well as being responsible for many of the
private sector jobs in science and technology.''
If confirmed, what plans would you pursue to continue work to
ensure a future supply of experts in defense critical disciplines to
hold positions in defense laboratories?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work hard to make sure we
have the right mix of talent, expertise, and skill to meet our needs in
the Department of Defense, and to find innovative measures to attract
bright individuals from America's youth to science, math, engineering,
and technology career fields. For example, the Science, Mathematics,
and Research for Transformation (SMART)/National Defense Education Act
(NDEA)--Phase One program could provide an important option to address
critical shortfalls in the DOD scientific and engineering workforce.
quality of life programs
Question. Do you believe that Air Force quality of life programs
are meeting the needs of members of the Air Force and their families?
Answer. Yes. The Air Force has historically placed a high priority
on the quality of life for its most important resource--its people.
This has been reflected in the positions we have taken on issues like
adequate pay and allowances, the standard of living in base housing and
dormitories, and high-demand programs like fitness and child care, as
needed balanced investment components for recruiting and retention.
Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you establish to
ensure that military quality of life programs are sustained and
improved for Air Force members and their families?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue strong levels of support in
areas like adequate compensation, housing for families and single
members, education, fitness and childcare, as needed balanced
investment components for recruiting and retention. These quality of
life programs enhance military readiness and contribute to the sense of
community, factors that are critical if we are to maintain a force that
is ready, willing, and able to accomplish the mission.
battlefield airmen
Question. Operations in Iraq have required Air Force personnel to
provide direct support to ground forces, including participation in
convoy duty. The adequacy of the training provided to deployed airmen
who may be required to defend a convoy and installations against
insurgents has been questioned.
What non-traditional roles and missions can the Air Force assume to
assist the ground forces?
Answer. The Air Force is and has been performing numerous non-
traditional roles in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based on currently agreed to sourcing for Operation Iraqi Freedom/
Operation Enduring Freedom 05-07 and 06-08, the Air Force will be
providing personnel for over 3,000 billets traditionally assigned to
the Army. Some of the roles and missions the Air Force will be
performing are within its core competencies; others require additional
training from the Army prior to deployment. The duties fall into the
following Air Force functional areas: Medical, Chaplain, Engineering,
Communications, Logistics, Intelligence, and Security Forces. The
specific missions the Air Force is currently performing that require
additional training are: Interrogation, Convoy Operations, and Prison
Guard duty. Additionally, the Air Force will soon be providing
personnel in support of Civil Affairs operations in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and the Horn of Africa.
Finally, the Air Force, in conjunction with the other Services, is
actively researching other mission areas in which it can provide
support to ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In order to find
additional mission areas the Air Force has broadened the spectrum and
is looking at traditionally Army and, Marine Corps missions around the
world. This has opened the door to additional missions in all the
function areas listed above and other areas such as United Nations duty
and Joint Task Force Headquarters roles.
Question. What training is being provided to airmen who are
assigned to, or who volunteer to perform convoy duty or other duties
requiring proficiency in small arms or crew served weapons?
Answer. As I understand it, Air Force training given fulfills
essential requirements for high threat area deployment. For example,
the Basic Combat Convoy Course (BC3) has proven to be the premier basic
combat skills course that prepares airmen for combat convoy operations.
Transportation airmen receive 25 days of training during BC3.
Question. What is your assessment of the sufficiency of the
training currently being given to Air and Space Expeditionary Force
airmen deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. I am not familiar with the sufficiency of training, but if
confirmed it would be an area of highest urgency.
general officer management issues
Question. Incidents of misconduct or substandard performance and
findings of inspectors general and other command-directed
investigations are documented in various ways in each of the Services.
Procedures for forwarding adverse and alleged adverse information in
connection with the promotion selection process are set forth in DOD
Instruction 1320.4.
How is the Air Force ensuring compliance with DOD Instruction
1320.4?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review this area in
detail, but it is my understanding that the Air Force maintains a
single repository for records of adverse information on senior
officials, Secretary of the Air Force/Inspector General (SAF/IG)
accomplishes an extensive files check whenever an individual meets a
promotion board for any of the general officer ranks. If adverse
information is uncovered, a senior officer unfavorable information file
is created and is attached to the officer's promotion board folder. If
selected for promotion, this file stays with the officer's nomination
package through its coordination with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the White House, and Congress. If new unfavorable information
is uncovered on an officer already nominated for promotion, that
information is immediately added to the nomination package. In this
instance, the Air Force may pull the individual's name from the list.
Question. What standards and procedures are in place in the Air
Force to ensure that allegations of adverse information relating to
nominees for promotion are brought to the attention of the Department
and the committee in a timely manner?
Answer. It is my understanding that if formal action is pending,
the Secretary of the Air Force will sign a notification to the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) of the situation and request
appropriate action, such as formal separation from a pending promotion
list, retirement request, or place a member on hold if there is a
nomination pending Senate confirmation. Additionally, informal phone
contact is made both with Office of the Secretary of Defense/Military
Personnel Policy and/or the Senate Armed Services Committee staff
through the Secretary of the Air Force for Legislative Affairs. Files
checks on all individuals are conducted prior to submittal of
nomination packages, retirement requests, and promotion lists; these
files checks are updated every 60 days while formal action is pending
approval, and ensure no adverse or potentially adverse information
exists prior to the Secretary of the Air Force's signature on these
requests.
senior military and civilian accountability
Question. While representative of a small number of individuals,
revelations of abuses of rank and authority by senior military and
civilian leaders and failures to perform up to accepted standards are
frequently reported. Victims of such abuses often report that they felt
that no one would pay attention to or believe their complaints.
Accusations of unduly lenient treatment of senior officers and senior
officials against whom accusations have been substantiated are also
frequently heard.
What are your views regarding the appropriate standard of
accountability for senior civilian and military leaders of the
Department?
Answer. Public service is a matter of public trust. Standards of
accountability are and will remain high for all personnel in the
Department. I expect every civilian and military leader to meet Air
Force professional and personal standards of conduct. I also expect
commanders and supervisors to enforce those standards and take
appropriate action when individuals, regardless of rank or position,
fail to meet them.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
senior leaders of the Air Force are held accountable for their actions
and performance?
Answer. First, I would review existing guidance to ensure it is
adequate and clearly puts senior leaders on notice of the professional
standards to which I expect them to conform. Second, I would utilize
existing systems, to include the Inspector General System, the Office
of Special Investigations, and the Equal Opportunity program to monitor
both complaints and the actions taken on substantiated complaints. I
expect to be briefed on allegations, substantiated allegations and the
actions taken in response to substantiated allegations.
airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (isr)
Question. The airborne ISR assets developed and operated by the Air
Force form an indispensable part of the Nation's overall intelligence
architecture. These assets are often referred to as high demand, low
density systems because of the extensive number of requirements and
high operational tempo on their systems and crews.
In your view, does the Air Force have sufficient airborne ISR
assets to meet current and projected requirements?
Answer. This is an area of concern to me, though I am not familiar
with the current state of sufficiency. If confirmed, I will review the
resourcing of these assets for sufficiency.
Question. What changes would you recommend, if confirmed, to
current plans for the development and acquisition of airborne ISR
platforms? Will these changes remove ISR platforms from the high
demand, low density category?
Answer. As demand is a function of the various combatant
commanders, it is difficult to envision a scenario where one could
completely eliminate high demand, low density from its lexicon when
discussing airborne ISR capabilities. If confirmed, I will review all
of the usage and plans for these platforms to determine the sufficiency
of resourcing.
officer reduction in force (rif)
Question. The Air Force has reported that it has a surplus of some
4,000 officers, mostly lieutenants and captains. Information available
from the Air Force Personnel Center indicates that among others, there
are 1,600 surplus pilots, 389 intelligence officers, 278 security force
officers (military police), and 666 medical service corps officers. The
Air Force is considering a RIF to meet end strength requirements.
What is your understanding of the scope of the Air Force's surplus
of junior officers and the Air Force's current plan to address this
problem?
Answer. The officer corps in total needs to be reviewed as the
imbalance is within the total corps. Force rebalance with an emphasis
on innovation is a goal. I am concerned with any indication that the
Air Force message on future opportunities gets misinterpreted.
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 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:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
competition in service contracts
1. Senator Warner. Secretary Wynne, in July 2004, you signed an
acquisition policy memorandum addressed to the Service Secretaries and
Service Acquisition Executives regarding the selection of contractors
for subsystems and components. That memo called for better oversight to
ensure that prime contractors fairly compete work that will be
performed by subcontractors and not ``insource'' such work to their own
companies. The committee has been made aware of an increasing number of
situations in which prime contractors have insourced work that is
within the scope of teammates on indefinite delivery, indefinite
quantity (IDIQ) services contracts. Do the policies set forth in your
July 2004 memorandum apply to services contracts, which may be
conducted under FAR Part 12 contracts? If not, why not? If so, are DOD
and the Services exercising adequate supervision over insourcing
decisions?
Mr. Wynne. Competition is important in either case, and so I do not
see that there is a difference in the application, other than the
circumstance of service may be different than supply. The role of the
prime is to provide best value to the customer in quality and price,
therefore insourcing should provide an improvement to the customer for
best value, or it does not reflect the assigned duty of the prime. The
policies that were addressed in my memorandum of July 12, 2004, were
intended to apply to the choices that are made to design systems and
their component parts. Moreover, the potential remedy of providing a
capability as Government-furnished equipment, as addressed in the
memorandum, may not be practical for the acquisition of services.
However, I have asked in the context of acquisition, technology, and
logistics (AT&L) for improved supervision and oversight; and now have
the opportunity, if confirmed, to follow essentially my own direction.
2. Senator Warner. Secretary Wynne, if confirmed as Secretary of
the Air Force, will you commit that you will look into this issue and
establish policy that will ensure appropriate competition, including
government oversight on services contracts?
Mr. Wynne. If confirmed I will look into this issue, and determine
if added policies are relevant, or if current policy needs to be
emphasized, for services contracts. Services contracts are an
increasing component of our acquisition dollars and need scrutiny.
3. Senator Warner. Secretary Wynne, GAO found that DOD could not
demonstrate that it had achieved cost savings or performance
improvements through the use of performance-based logistics
arrangements in the September 2005 GAO Report (GAO-05-966 titled DOD
Needs to Demonstrate that Performance-Based Logistics Contracts Are
Achieving Expected Benefits). If confirmed, what steps would you take
to implement more effective oversight of performance-based services
contracts in the Air Force and respond to the recommendations of GAO?
Mr. Wynne. If confirmed, I will carefully review the circumstances
that the GAO found in its report. I intend, if confirmed, to achieve a
clean audit within the Air Force, and believe this knowledge will allow
better management of performance-based logistics contracts. I will
also, if confirmed, cause a review of each of the GAO recommendations
with a bias towards implementation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
acquisition
4. Senator McCain. Secretary Wynne, the committee is becoming
increasingly aware of situations where prime contractors are insourcing
work that is the scope of teammates on indefinite delivery, indefinite
quantity (IDIQ) services contracts. As Acting Under Secretary of
Defense you signed an acquisition policy memorandum last July 2004 on
the selection of contractors for subsystems and components. It calls
for the government to provide oversight when a prime considers using
its own capability to perform work that can be competitively conducted
elsewhere in the industrial base. As an example, the committee is aware
that a prime contractor is attempting to insource engine repair work
that it has never done before, pursuant to contract options that were
awarded based on the performance of their subcontractors. This action
would displace the Air Force's only qualified commercial vendor--the
subcontractor that is currently performing the work. What is your view
of such a practice being conducted without any direct oversight by the
Air Force or Congress?
Mr. Wynne. Competition is important in either case, and so I do not
see that there is a difference in the application, other than the
circumstance of service may be different than supply. The role of the
prime is to provide best value to the customer in quality and price,
therefore insourcing should provide an improvement to the customer for
best value, or it does not reflect the assigned duty of the prime. The
policies that were addressed in my memorandum of July 12, 2004, were
intended to apply to the choices that are made to design systems and
their component parts. Moreover, the potential remedy of providing a
capability as Government furnished equipment, as addressed in the
memorandum, may not be practical for the acquisition of services.
However, I have asked in the context of AT&L for improved supervision
and oversight; and now have the opportunity, if confirmed, to follow
essentially my own direction. I am not familiar with the specific issue
cited, and if confirmed, commit to looking into the circumstance
surrounding this issue.
5. Senator McCain. Secretary Wynne, as Congress continues to
examine how to improve the DOD acquisition process, including the
acquisition of services, do you think that prime contractors should be
required to flow down options to its subcontractors whose performance
was the basis for such option awards and if not, why not?
Mr. Wynne. Acquisition of services continues to consume a greater
and greater portion of the available acquisition dollars and therefore
merits scrutiny. The merits of flowdown under service contracts should
be based on continuing to receive the benefit of acceptable services
while allowing the prime contractor to gain efficiencies. An incumbent
subcontractor is likely to be very competitive for option awards where
its performance is satisfactory. When government rules with a heavy
hand, it can cause tyranny from subcontractors and a loss of
accountability at the prime level. The specific cited instance is
unfamiliar to me and, if confirmed, I will look into this specific
instance as an example.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
space acquisition
6. Senator Sessions. Secretary Wynne, the Department's new approach
to space acquisition appears to be evident in the Transformational
Satellite (TSAT) program. Nevertheless, the Senate and House Armed
Services Committees have expressed some unease about TSAT's ambitious
acquisition schedule, given the integration challenges one might expect
from such a complex program. This unease with TSAT derives from the
sorry history of space acquisition programs. How will Congress know
when the acquisition program is sufficiently reformed such that we can
have confidence that TSAT and other satellite programs will be
delivered on schedule and close to cost?
Mr. Wynne. The TSAT program, if successful, brings the Global
Information Grid's (GIG) concept of a massive increase in
transmissibility closer to reality. Given that it is a noble quest, can
we bring less risk is the question of the moment. If confirmed, one of
my goals is to establish a more rigid technology readiness criteria so
that we have confidence in the technologies we integrate into our
platforms. Increasing the technical maturity levels decreases
substantially the risk of integration. Congress will know our efforts
have made an impact when we can forecast schedules credibly. Schedule
is a major driver of cost, but without technical maturity, schedules
cannot be maintained in a credible way.
Another area of concern is the inattention to detail that causes
lapses in engineering and quality discipline. These also cause schedule
impacts and integration is most vulnerable. If confirmed, I intend to
address this as well.
7. Senator Sessions. Secretary Wynne, are there a set of criteria
we should use to assess the viability of space acquisition programs?
Mr. Wynne. Yes, the National Security Space Acquisition Policy 03-
01 (NSS 03-01) provides acquisition process guidance for all DOD space
system major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs). Additionally,
technical readiness levels are very good indicators of future success,
and adherence to schedule milestones with decreasing levels of fault in
engineering and quality. All of these should be measured.
8. Senator Sessions. Secretary Wynne, should we rely on independent
assessments?
Mr. Wynne. Independent assessments can be useful, but the very
phrase assessment contemplates measure from baseline; and can't replace
a systems engineering master plan which is the roadmap to success.
9. Senator Sessions. Secretary Wynne, what incentives or procedural
changes would encourage more realism in cost estimates? Have you
studied what could realistically be done to address this cause?
Mr. Wynne. To encourage cost realism, I would promote more mature
technologies in development programs, stringent requirements vetting,
robust organic cost analysis capability, independent cost estimating,
well defined and realistic technical and schedule baselines, and
accountability. There are several ongoing reviews of acquisition
practice within the Department. Many of these initiatives I mention
here are the product of past and present studies on how to address the
root cause of weapon system cost growth. If confirmed, I plan on
reviewing the recommendations they offer. My current view is to assign
more accountability to the program manager with regard to tradeoffs on
requirements. I also plan on reviewing profit incentives to assess
whether they are fairly given, and protect the interests of the
taxpayer. Some areas of engineering and quality discipline problems
should incur a penalty.
10. Senator Sessions. Secretary Wynne, what progress has DOD made
in setting priorities for its desired space capabilities in the event
that programs are funded at a higher level of confidence or estimates
are more realistic (higher)?
Mr. Wynne. DOD has developed a capabilities-based approach to what
space assets can bring, and when to trade these for air or ground based
assets. We work at the Department level and with Congress to allocate
our resources across the Services and programs to achieve those
required space capabilities. The lack of confidence in achievement of
milestones places a risk premium on certain programs, which then are
more available for trade. With the problems that space programs have
encountered, prioritization is essential if space dominance is to be
retained.
11. Senator Sessions. Secretary Wynne, does DOD possess the
analytic tools to make trades across space systems?
Mr. Wynne. We have appropriate tools to develop architectures and
analyze trades within specific mission areas. These analytic tools are
continually refined. As a current assessment, I do believe that DOD can
adequately conduct trades.
12. Senator Sessions. Secretary Wynne, given the difficulties that
space systems have experienced because technologies have not matured as
promised, would you be in favor of changing NSS-03-01 to conform to the
DOD 5000 series (acquisition policy document for DOD)?
Mr. Wynne. DOD 5000 would not necessarily result in more mature
technologies. However, if confirmed, one of the issues that I want to
consider is how to bring the emphasis of technology readiness
assessments that determine whether the technology is mature enough for
the program to enter into the next acquisition phase, and systems
engineering discipline back into space; and a review of the NSS-03-01
appears to be in order, as well as its conformance to DOD 5000.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Ensign
competition in service contracts
13. Senator Ensign. Secretary Wynne, you signed an acquisition
policy memorandum as Acting Under Secretary of Defense last July 2004
on the selection of contractors for subsystems and components that
calls for the government to provide oversight when a prime considers
insourcing work that can be competitively conducted elsewhere in the
industrial base. The committee is becoming aware of situations where
prime contractors are insourcing work that is the scope of teammates on
IDIQ services contracts. Does this policy also apply to services, which
may be conducted under FAR Part 12 contracts?
Mr. Wynne. Competition is important in either case, and so I do not
see that there is a difference in the application, other than the
circumstance of service may be different than supply. The role of the
prime is to provide best value to the customer in quality and price,
therefore insourcing should provide an improvement to the customer for
best value, or it does not reflect the assigned duty of the prime. The
policies that were addressed in my memorandum of July 12, 2004, were
intended to apply to the choices that are made to design systems and
their component parts. Moreover, the potential remedy of providing a
capability as government furnished equipment, as addressed in the
memorandum, may not be practical for the acquisition of services.
However, I have asked in the context of AT&L for improved supervision
and oversight; and now have the opportunity, if confirmed, to follow
essentially my own direction.
14. Senator Ensign. Secretary Wynne, if confirmed as Secretary of
the Air Force, will you commit to the committee that you will look into
this issue and establish policy that requires government approval of
insourcing decisions by primes on services contract?
Mr. Wynne. If confirmed, I will look into this issue and determine
if added policies are relevant, or if current policy needs to be
emphasized for services contracts. Services contracts are an increasing
component of our acquisition dollars and need scrutiny.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
public-private partnerships
15. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Wynne, one of the things I have
followed closely in my 10 years in Congress is the Air Force's policies
regarding core workload and public-private partnerships. I have one of
the Air Force's three Air Logistics Centers in my State at Robins Air
Force Base and I understand you had a chance to visit that installation
back in July. Over the past few years at Robins, the depot has
established and grown a public-private partnership for the C-17 program
which continues to be a huge success and produce great results for the
taxpayer and the Air Force. As the Air Force fields new aircraft like
the C-130J and the F/A-22 I expect that the Air Force will develop
public-private partnerships for those systems as well which bring
together the expertise of private industry and our DOD industrial
sites. I know you've thought about this during your tenure at OSD AT&L,
but I'd like you to provide your thoughts on public-private
partnerships for sustaining weapon systems, and also have your
assurances that, if confirmed, you will be an advocate for these
partnerships and not advocate large, non-competed maintenance contracts
to the private sector for Air Force weapon systems as has been
considered in the past.
Mr. Wynne. I have seen first hand the benefits that the public-
private partnerships bring to both sides and appreciate their effect.
Each arrangement must bring the biggest benefit to the taxpayer, but
should be first compared to the model of the public-private
partnership. Partnering with the private sector to ensure access to
complimentary depot maintenance capabilities is an integral part of the
Air Force depot strategy. In this regard, I can advise that I will
ensure the best capabilities mix from the public and private sectors.
If this is provided best by the public-private partnership, I would be
an advocate to bring this benefit to the taxpayer.
joint stars re-engining
16. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Wynne, this committee has shown
its support for re-engining the Joint STARS fleet by authorizing $44
million in fiscal year 2006 to initiate this effort. Many of us believe
that both procuring and leasing new engines should be considered
because this is a case where an operating lease could make sense.
Leasing engines avoids disrupting planned procurement budgets since the
lease costs can be paid from operating and maintenance funds that
support the current engine fleet. In fact, I understand that the U.S.
Navy currently leases engines in this manner for some of their aviation
fleet. If Congress appropriates the funds requested in the Air Force's
fiscal year 2006 Unfunded Priority List for non-recurring engineering
activities associated with re-engining the Joint STARS fleet and if, as
a result of evaluating the quotes the Department receives from industry
for the re-engining effort, leasing the engines is the recommended
alternative, will you support the recommendation?
Mr. Wynne. I continue to be an advocate that innovative
contracting/leasing has a place in this spectrum. It comes down to the
business case to achieve the overall cost benefit. The cost benefit is
not simply to the engine on engine, regarding maintenance, but to the
second order effect on fuel costs, and the larger third order effect of
reducing the need for airborne tankers. Increasing the fleet fuel
economy is not just for Joint STARS, but it likely makes a compelling
case on its own. If such a compelling case can be made and meets the
various Office of Management and Budget (OMB) criteria, as you suggest,
I could support it, if confirmed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
alternatives to reduction in force
17. Senator Thune. Secretary Wynne, the Air Force has reported that
it has a surplus of 4,000 officers, mostly lieutenants and captains. In
order to meet end strength, the Air Force is considering a RIF. Do you
think it is a wise policy for the Air Force to begin releasing
experienced officers during a time of crisis?
Mr. Wynne. This is an issue that I want to carefully review, if
confirmed, and therefore must withhold judgment, as I didn't know the
options the Air Force is considering. I am aware that Congress
establishes the authorized end strength for the Air Force and surpluses
of personnel are always a fiscal and operational concern of senior
leadership. My view is that there must be a balance between experience
and innovation. I recognize that the Air Force must be a technically
savvy force. I also recognize that experience counts in war. The Air
Force has been in combat since 1990 and on a continuous basis. Changes
are coming, but the question remains at what rate.
18. Senator Thune. Secretary Wynne, has the Air Force considered
other alternatives to a RIF? For example, the Marine Corps is in need
of pilots in the grade of lieutenant and captain. Has there been any
communication between the Services that would give experienced officers
the option of retraining to another specialty or switching to a sister
Service to fill open slots?
Mr. Wynne. I am not personally aware of the alternatives the Air
Force has considered and I don't know the status of other Services'
pilot retention and recruiting. This is clearly innovative, and matches
well the `Blue to Green' concept for transfers from the Air Force to
the Army. My experience has been that the Services all work closely
together and with OSD on personnel related matters. If confirmed, I
will follow up on how coordinated the accession strategy is. As the
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) matures, this could become even more
important.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
space radar
19. Senator Levin. Secretary Wynne, the current Air Force plan for
the space radar (SR) program sets 2015 as the target date for the first
satellite launch. Many in Congress think that this date may be overly
ambitious because the requirements for the program and the costs of the
program are not well established. Recently there has been some
discussion about accelerating the program so that the first launch
would be as early as 2008. Do you believe that a SR satellite could
launch in 2008?
Mr. Wynne. I would be concerned that such an aggressive schedule
must be supported by very mature technologies. Dr. Ronald Sega is
reviewing the potential to provide a SR program earlier than current
projections while taking a low technology risk approach. Such an
approach would allow a satellite launch sometime earlier than current
SR plans. If confirmed, I will be emphasizing technical maturity, and
will be reviewing the SR in this regard.
20. Senator Levin. Secretary Wynne, what information would such a
satellite provide and at what cost?
Mr. Wynne. I understand the SR would contribute significantly to
both tactical surveillance and strategic surveillance. When used in
conjunction with other sensors, it contributes to our agility and
battlefield dominance. Cost continues to be an issue and is the
attribute considered in trades studies against other available
capabilities.
21. Senator Levin. Secretary Wynne, do you support this approach?
Mr. Wynne. I support achieving the capabilities to meet the next
generation warfight and I do support the idea that we should evaluate a
nearer term, lower-risk program implementation. The notion of the
Automatic Electronic Scanning Array Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR)
has been maturing for application to aircraft for the past 2 decades
represents an attractive application. If confirmed I will be looking
into the technical maturity of this application and comparing it to
other capabilities available in the time frame. I would like, if
confirmed, to hear the arguments prior to making a judgment.
executive agent for space
22. Senator Levin. Secretary Wynne, will you serve as the
Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space or will this
responsibility be further delegated to the Under Secretary of the Air
Force?
Mr. Wynne. In the position of AT&L, I withdrew the delegation from
the Air Force that had been in place for the past several years. You
are correct in presuming, if confirmed, that I will seek its
reinstatement. I have worked with Dr. Ron Sega for the past almost 4
years and find him highly qualified to handle this responsibility. He
has been accomplishing the task for the past several months and has
established a remarkable record of achievement with both the DOD and
the Director of Naval Intelligence (DNI). I see no reason at present
that I would not, if confirmed, allow him to continue in this regard.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
need for persian gulf presence
23. Senator Kennedy. Secretary Wynne, during the Cold War, the
United States protected its interests in the Persian Gulf by relying on
local allies and preparing facilities that would permit a rapid
intervention, but we did not keep large combat forces deployed there on
a permanent basis. This worked very well, even when we were facing the
Soviet challenge, and we used this same approach to expel Iraq from
Kuwait in 1990-1991. Since then, we have kept thousands of combat
troops in the region, and some argue that their presence has fueled the
rise of extremist groups like Al Qaeda. Can the United States return to
an offshore balancing strategy in the Gulf, and rely primarily on local
actors and our own air and naval forces?
Mr. Wynne. History shows that the time constant of restoring stable
governance has been shrinking from the 46 years in the Philippines, and
some 24 years in Haiti in the early 1900s to now. With the current foe,
and some compelling evidence of our opponents' desire for our hasty
exit; the return to `an offshore balancing strategy' does not appear to
be in our near future. However, as General Abizaid and Secretary
Rumsfeld have stated on numerous occasions, the U.S. military intends
to reduce the level of U.S. forces in the region as conditions permit.
war cost and modernization
24. Senator Kennedy. Secretary Wynne, are you worried that the
costs of the Iraq war are going to prevent the Air Force from
modernizing its forces in a timely manner?
Mr. Wynne. There are many budgetary pressures across the DOD and
the Air Force. If confirmed, I need to better understand all of the
costs going forward, and can't make a judgment as yet. I do believe the
American taxpayer will agree to fund what is necessary to preserve
their freedoms.
recruitment
25. Senator Kennedy. Secretary Wynne, recruitment for the Air
National Guard (ANG) has been down. In August, the ANG only met 85
percent of its recruiting goal. What's your strategy to reverse this
trend?
Mr. Wynne. I do not understand all of the dynamics at present, and
if confirmed, will review ongoing accession strategies and work with
the ANG to determine what changes to make. I do understand the ANG is
pursuing several initiatives to help them achieve their recruiting
goal.
26. Senator Kennedy. Secretary Wynne, what impact have increased
deployments in Iraq had on recruiting?
Mr. Wynne. I don't know, and have not been privy to outbriefs or
surveys to make a judgment in that regard. If confirmed, I will look
carefully at the impact of global war on terror operations on the total
personnel force.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
modernization
27. Senator Byrd. Secretary Wynne, as part of the DOD's
transforming our military forces, the U.S. Air Force is developing an
initiative known as Future Total Force (FTF), which focuses on
accelerated reductions of legacy weapons systems and the procurement of
newer weapons systems. How do you anticipate that the Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) Commission Report and the 2005 QDR will impact the
Air Force FTF planning process?
Mr. Wynne. The BRAC recommendations are still maturing in Congress,
and if that concludes without objection, the Department will be
obligated to close and realign all installations so recommended. Any
impacts from that will be collectively assessed with the Air Force's
total Force--Active, ANG, and Reserve. If confirmed, I will review the
initial assessment that the BRAC recommendations were generally in
conformance with FTF. The QDR continues and is being accomplished in
the context of FTF, but likely the results of numerous QDR studies such
as Joint Air Dominance, tactical air (TACAIR) integration, etc., must
answer larger questions as to the Air Force's future roles and
missions.
28. Senator Byrd. Secretary Wynne, what are your views about the
Air Force's future role in missions of homeland defense, the war on
terrorism, and combating weapons of mass destruction?
Mr. Wynne. I see the mission of the Air Force to preserve sovereign
options for the United States in the assigned commons of air and space,
and in the emerging commons of cyberspace. Each of the various missions
described in the question has a derivative mission for the Air Force,
in preserving commerce, in preserving order, and in the ability of the
U.S. to deter aggression. Recently, the utility of the Air Force in
support of consequence management of a natural disaster illustrated the
mission for homeland defense over and above deterrence from incursion,
and air and space defense.
29. Senator Byrd. Secretary Wynne, please describe your position
concerning C-5 strategic airlift and the roadmap to modernize the fleet
with upgraded avionics and engines.
Mr. Wynne. I believe in the need for strategic lift and the
retention of the capability to do it quickly. I am unfamiliar with the
business details of the avionics and engine modernization. I am an
advocate for increasing fuel economy and increasing reliability but
would have to compare this business plan against the priorities of the
Service. If confirmed, I will do that.
30. Senator Byrd. Secretary Wynne, do you support community basing
of Active-Duty Forces at ANG bases?
Mr. Wynne. I support the concept of FTF. If confirmed, I will
review the merits of community basing and other aspects of the FTF.
base realignment and closure
31. Senator Byrd. Secretary Wynne, the BRAC Commission Report
forwarded to the President found the DOD recommendations relating the
130th Airlift Wing located in Charleston, West Virginia, ``deviated
substantially from selection criteria 1, 2, and 3, as well as from the
Force Structure Plan.'' The BRAC Commission finding left the airlift
mission and C-130H aircraft at Charleston; however, the report did not
address the previous agreement that C-130H3 aircraft from the 167th
Airlift Wing in Martinsburg, West Virginia, which is to receive C-5s in
the fiscal year 2007 timeframe, would be transferred to Charleston,
West Virginia. I am very opposed to any change to the agreement
regarding transfer of these aircraft to Charleston. This is an issue a
high priority matter to me that I will be monitoring closely. I hope
that if you are confirmed, you will work closely with me to ensure that
the original plan developed by your predecessors will be implemented as
intended. Can I have your assurances in this regard?
Mr. Wynne. The BRAC recommendations are presently maturing before
Congress, and if they clear without objection, the Department will
close and realign all installations so recommended. If confirmed, I
will commit to working with you to implement these to the best result.
I can also assure you that if confirmed, I will ask to be briefed as to
commitments made by my predecessors and will work with you in that
regard as well.
______
[The nomination reference of Michael W. Wynne follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 6, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Michael W. Wynne, of Florida, to be Secretary of the Air Force,
vice James G. Roche.
______
[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 the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The Senate confirmed him to
this position on July 12, 2001.
Prior to joining Defense, he was involved in venture capital
nurturing small technology companies through their start-up phase as a
member of the NextGenFund Executive Committee and serving in executive
positions within two companies.
In 1999, Mr. Wynne retired as Senior Vice President from General
Dynamics (GD), where his role was in International Development and
Strategy. He spent 23 years with GD in various senior positions with
the Aircraft (F-16s), Main Battle Tanks (M1A2), and Space Launch
Vehicles (Atlas and Centaur).
In between working with GD, he spent 3 years with Lockheed Martin
(LMT), having sold the Space Systems division to then Martin Marietta.
He successfully integrated the division into the Astronautics Company
and became the General Manager of the Space Launch Systems segment,
combining the Titan with the Atlas Launch vehicles.
Prior to joining industry, Mr. Wynne 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. Mr. Wynne graduated from the United States Military Academy
and 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 (PMD-42). 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 has published numerous professional journal articles
relating to engineering, cost estimating, and contracting.
______
[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.)
Wynne, Michael Walter.
2. Position to which nominated:
Secretary of the Air Force.
3. Date of nomination:
September 6, 2005.
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, Florida.
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, 38; Collene W. Finn, 37; Karen W. Murphy, 34;
Laura W. Killette, 29.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
7/1962-6/1966--United States Military Academy, West Point, NY,
BSGE.
7/1968-6/1970--Air Force Institute of Technology, WPAFB OH, MSEE.
9/1973-6/1975--University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO, 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.
6/2001-present--Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L).
4/2005-6/2005--Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L), 3015 Defense
Pentago, Rm 3E1006/3C636, Washington, DC.
12/2000-6/2001--Chairman/CEO, IXATA Group, 8989 Rio San Diego
Drive, San Diego, CA.
7/1997-10/1999--Senior Vice President, General Dynamics, 3190
Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, VA.
5/1994-3/1997--GM Space Launch System, Lockheed martin
Astronautics, Deer Creek Canyon Drive, Denver, 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.
6/1966-6/1973--Officer in the USAF--Captain.
6/1973-9/1975--Reserve Officer--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.
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.
Republican National Committee, approximate $4,000.
Republican Senatorial Inner Circle, less than $1,000.
Democratic National Committee, less than $500.
Senator Feinstein, approximate $750.
Senator Allen, less than $500.
Congressman Hunter, less than $500.
Bush Campaign, less than $500.
Texas Republican Party, less than $200.
Virginia Republican Party, less than $500.
Congressman Cunningham, less than $500.
Senator Snowe, approximately $750.
Lazio Campaign, less than $300.
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 (AC-130 Gunship Development) and
Navy Distinguished Public Service.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
1970--Multiple Reentry Vehicle--AIAA/IEE proceedings.
1972--Optimal Control: Sightline Autopilot--AIAA proceedings.
1978--Impact of Labor Strike on Learning Curves for Manufacturing
Society for Parametric Estimating.
1985--RD&A Magazine, Benefit 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.
[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.
Michael W. Wynne.
This 9th day of September 2005.
[The nomination of Michael W. Wynne was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on October 27, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on October 28, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Donald C. Winter by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities
and the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These reforms have also
vastly improved cooperation between the Services and the combatant
commanders in the strategic planning process, in the development of
requirements, in joint training and education, and in the execution of
military operations.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions based on your extensive experience in the Department of
Defense?
If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to address in
these modifications?
Answer. Although I fully support the goals associated with the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, I
have not served within the Department of Defense since Goldwater-
Nichols was implemented. Because of that, I do not believe that I am
currently in a position to suggest modifications.
duties
Question. Section 5013 of title 10, United States Code, establishes
the responsibilities and authority of the Secretary of the Navy.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. Secretary Rumsfeld is the principal assistant to the
President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense. If
confirmed as Secretary of the Navy, my authorities would be derived
through his office. Subject to his direction, the Secretary of the Navy
is responsible for all functions assigned to both the U.S. Navy and
U.S. Marine Corps.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect
that Secretary Rumsfeld would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld would
expect me to provide Department of the Navy policy consistent with his
and the President's national security objectives. He would expect me to
implement those policies throughout the Department of the Navy.
Question. What duties and responsibilities would you plan to assign
to the Under Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. The Under Secretary is designated as deputy and principal
assistant to the Secretary. If confirmed, I would maintain the
relationship that Secretary England established with the Under
Secretary prior to his appointment as Acting Deputy Secretary of
Defense. I would intend to evaluate this relationship, and may, after
an appropriate period of time, make any necessary changes, consistent
with law, that will ensure the most efficient and effective functioning
of the Department.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. It is important for the Secretary to be open to
constructive inputs and opinions and to be sure that important issues
are fully vetted prior to decision. My experience with transitions in
the private sector have highlighted the importance of keeping an open
mind, and leveraging the experience and expertise of those that have
remained within the organization for many years. If confirmed, my
intent would be to act consistent with that experience.
relationships
Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of
the Secretary of the Navy to the following officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of the Navy, I will be the
principal assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense on all
matters relating to the Department of the Navy.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the Deputy, who is
responsible to implement the Secretary of Defense's priorities, to
better integrate functional management of DOD, to align authority and
responsibility and accountability within DOD, and to manage a wide
range of financial and personnel policies and procedures.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure the Assistant Secretaries of
the Navy work closely with the Under Secretaries of Defense to ensure
the Department of the Navy maintains a clear focus on the priorities
set forth by the Secretary of Defense and carried out by the Deputy
Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretaries of Defense.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. As the principal military advisor to the President,
National Security Council, and to the Secretary of Defense, the
Chairman has a unique military role. If confirmed, I would work closely
with the Chairman and the Vice Chairman to ensure that all appropriate
matters are fully coordinated with them.
Question. The Chief of Naval Operations.
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure that the Chief of Naval
Operations is fully cognizant of the policies and initiatives put forth
by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. The Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure that the Commandant of the
Marine Corps is fully cognizant of the policies and initiatives put
forth by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. The combatant commanders.
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the combatant commanders'
warfighting requirements. Working with the Chief of Naval Operations
and Commandant of the Marine Corps I will ensure that they are provided
the necessary capabilities to address their needs.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Navy.
Answer. The Under Secretary is designated as deputy and principal
assistant to the Secretary of the Navy. He acts with the full authority
of the Secretary in the general management of the Department. If
confirmed, I would also delegate to him important aspects of the
oversight of the Department.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Navy.
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that my priorities are
implemented through the assistant secretaries. The assistant
secretaries are delegated certain civilian oversight roles in the
Department. I would build open communications with the assistant
secretaries and use them as my leadership team to address key issues.
Question. The General Counsel of the Navy.
Answer. The General Counsel (GC) is the senior civilian legal
advisor to Secretary of the Navy. The GC serves as the chief ethics
official. If confirmed, I would look forward to developing a good
working relationship with the GC.
Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.
Answer. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy and the Staff Judge
Advocate of the Marine Corps are critical components of the Navy and
Marine Corps legal infrastructure. I expect to seek the advice and
counsel of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy on all relevant
matters.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. The primary challenges facing the next Secretary of the
Navy are providing stewardship to the Department and maintaining a
culture that is supportive of the legal and ethical keel of the
institution.
If confirmed, I would be the 74th Secretary of the Navy and a
beneficiary of the stewardship of my predecessors. I would have the
responsibility to the country and to future generations for the
preservation of this great institution. As the prospective leader of
the institution, I would need to address both near-term and future
challenges. Near-term challenges require focusing appropriate resources
in support of the global war on terror, maintaining readiness, and
supporting homeland defense. Far-term challenges require development of
an overarching strategy and investing for an uncertain future. This
would include establishing and maintaining a long-term shipbuilding
program that is achievable, affordable, and responsive to the needs of
the Nation. It would also involve enhancing warfighting programs
focused on joint, interagency, and expeditionary military operations.
The result would be an appropriate force structure with the combat
capability necessary to address evolving threats--to fight and win our
Nation's future wars. Finally, responsible stewardship involves
optimizing the value of the personnel and fiscal resources provided by
our country.
The second overarching challenge that I see is maintaining a
culture that is supportive of the legal and ethical keel of this great
institution, the Department of the Navy. This challenge involves
reaffirming the ethical basis on which the institution depends so much.
It includes providing forward-looking leadership to ensure the highest
standards of conduct that exemplify the Department's core values of
honor, courage, and commitment. It would require us to lean forward to
prevent lapses such as sexual harassment or acquisition abuse. A key
part of this challenge is to provide for the sons and daughters that
have been entrusted to the Navy and Marine Corps, to value all people,
to emphasize safety at every opportunity, and to take care of the needs
of naval personnel (medical, housing, religious, etc.). The challenge
also includes sustaining a cadre of officers, enlisted personnel, and
supporting civil service that is technically competent and culturally
adept. These individuals will be required to effectively employ even
more complex future weapons systems and to work closely with diverse
allies and coalition partners to combat future enemies. An integral
part of this challenge is to effectively compete to establish and
maintain a culturally and ethnically diverse workforce.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to work closely with Congress, the
Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant
of the Marine Corps, as well as other institutions where appropriate. I
would coordinate with appropriate individuals and organizations to
ensure that the necessary resources are applied to address these
challenges.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. I am unaware of any serious problems in the performance of
the functions of the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Secretary of
Defense to evaluate the present situation and develop a strategic plan
to address any areas requiring attention.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish?
Answer. If confirmed, my first priority would be to articulate the
challenges the Department must address and to initiate or reinforce
existing direction aimed at meeting the challenges. At a broad level
they include:
-- Focus appropriate resources in support of the global war on
terror, readiness, homeland defense, etc.
-- Establish and maintain a long-term shipbuilding program
that is achievable, affordable, and responsive to the needs of
the Nation.
-- Develop a portfolio of capabilities to cover all realistic
scenarios to fight and win our Nation's future wars.
-- Reaffirm the ethical basis of the naval institution; ensure
the highest standards of conduct that exemplify the
Department's core values of honor, courage, and commitment.
-- Sustain a cadre of Officers and Enlisted personnel, and
supporting civil service that is technically competent and
culturally adept.
-- Maintain a capable and diverse workforce.
transformation
Question. If confirmed as the Secretary of the Navy, you would play
an important role in the ongoing process of transforming the Navy and
Marine Corps to meet new and emerging threats.
If confirmed, what would your goals be for Navy and Marine Corps
transformation?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue the transformation process.
The Navy and Marine Corps are well on their way towards capitalizing
new technologies, better business practices, and becoming more
effective in personnel policies. I believe there is still a lot of work
to be done, and if confirmed, I intend to continue these efforts.
Question. In your opinion, does the Department of the Navy's POM
have adequate resources identified to implement your transformation
goals?
Answer. I will have to spend more time becoming familiar with the
details of the Department's budget request before I can comment upon
this area.
tactical aviation
Question. Several years ago, the Navy and Marine Corps began to
integrate their tactical aviation units.
What is your assessment of this initiative?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to be briefed on the overall
Tactical Aviation Integration initiative. If confirmed, I intend to
review this initiative and its ability to optimize the use of our
Nation's naval tactical aviation assets.
army and marine corps capabilities and acquisition programs
Question. Although the Army and Marine Corps have different
missions and capabilities, they are still ground forces. Many believe
that the Army and Marine Corps equipment should have some degree of
commonality. Yet, for equipment such as helicopters and heavy wheeled
vehicles, we see that the Army and the Marine Corps have divergent
paths for acquiring what should be common equipment. Because of
Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, it appears that these
two Services have made some attempt to work together on acquiring
equipment for Army and Marine forces.
What are your views regarding the joint development and acquisition
of Army and Marine Corps equipment?
Answer. Although I am certainly supportive of the concept of joint
development and procurement of systems, I do not have sufficient
knowledge of this approach as it relates to the Army and Marine Corps.
Before reaching any conclusions about joint development in this case,
it would be important to analyze the individual needs and requirements
of the Services, as well as discuss the programs with senior leaders of
both the Marine Corps and the Army.
Question. What role should the Secretary of the Navy play in
synchronizing Army and Marine Corps requirements and synchronizing
service programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the CNO, Commandant and
Navy's acquisition community work closely with the Army, Air Force, the
Coast Guard and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to set joint requirements
where feasible.
Question. Should the Marine Corps heavy lift replacement program be
delayed until the Army and Marine Corps can agree on a single joint
requirement for heavy lift rotorcraft? If not, why not?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to be fully briefed, nor
have I been in a position to review these particular programs. As such,
I am not in a position to opine on any changes to this program.
Question. The Army and the Marine Corps both have a need for a
future heavy lift transport helicopter to replace existing heavy lift
rotorcraft. The Marine Corps has embarked on a Heavy Lift Replacement
(HLR) to acquire a new helicopter to replace the aging CH-53
helicopter. At the same time, the Army is exploring a Joint Heavy Lift
(JHL) rotorcraft program.
What is your view about whether the Marine Corps HLR program should
be merged with the Army's JHL program?
Answer. I have not been in a position to review these particular
programs. However, if confirmed, I will review the pros and cons of
such an action.
shipbuilding plan
Question. The Navy recently submitted an interim 30-year
shipbuilding plan.
When does the Navy envision the final 30-year shipbuilding plan
being delivered to Congress?
Answer. I understand that the Department intends to submit a more
definitive plan in the spring of 2006. If confirmed, it would be my
goal to ensure that this plan is consistent with both force structure
needs and the objective of maintaining a viable industrial base.
Question. What level of funding do you think the Navy will need to
execute this plan, and considering competing priorities, do you believe
this level of funding is realistic?
Answer. The results of the QDR must be considered before a plan can
be finalized and funding levels can be determined. If confirmed, I will
work with Congress to present a plan with a realistic level of funding.
aircraft carriers
Question. The Navy has proposed to decommission the U.S.S. John F.
Kennedy in fiscal year 2006. This would decrease the number of aircraft
carriers to 11. Additionally, in the fiscal year 2006 budget request,
the Navy has proposed to slip the delivery of CVN-78 to 2015, creating
a 2-year gap from when U.S.S. Enterprise is scheduled to be
decommissioned during which, under the proposed plan, only 10 aircraft
carriers would be operational.
What operational analysis has been conducted that would support a
decision which would decrease the number of operational aircraft
carriers to these lower levels?
Answer. I understand that there have been a number of studies to
determine the required number of active carriers for the Navy. I have
not received briefings on these studies. If confirmed, I will review
the conclusions of these studies.
Question. How would the aircraft carrier presence requirements of
combatant commanders be met with only 10 operational aircraft carriers?
Answer. As noted in the previous answer, I have not received
briefings that would enable me to answer this question. If confirmed,
it will be an early priority to review aircraft carrier presence
requirements of the combatant commanders.
surface combatants
Question. The Future Years Defense Program has only one surface
combatant per year being acquired by the Navy, not including the
Littoral Combat Ship, which will only be capable of performing one
mission at a time.
In your judgment, can a credible and capable surface force be
sustained at such a low level of multi-mission surface combatant
construction, and if so, how?
Answer. I understand the Navy has articulated the Family of Ships
concept for Surface Combatants in the 21st century. These ships are the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the next generation destroyer (DD(X)), and
the next generation cruiser (CG(X)). I recognize the need for an
appropriate force mix of these ships taking into consideration the
tradeoffs between capability and quantity. If confirmed, I will assure
myself that a credible and capable surface force can be sustained
taking all extenuating factors into consideration.
Question. In your opinion, how many shipyards capable of building
surface combatants does this Nation need?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the CNO, Congress, and
industry to understand the Nation's need in this area. Building
warships is a key aspect of our Nation's strength. Stewardship of this
capability is a shared responsibility of the Navy, Congress, and
industry. The answer to this question is complex and must consider
shipyard capabilities, the need for surge capacity, possible
disruptions from natural and man-made disasters, and the industrial
infrastructure that feeds the shipbuilding industry.
submarines
Question. The Future Years Defense Program has only one Virginia-
class submarine per year being acquired by the Navy.
In your judgment, can a credible attack submarine force be
sustained at this level of submarine construction, and, if so, how?
Answer. I understand that the current program of record has the
Virginia class procurements increasing to two per year in fiscal year
2012. However, I have not received briefings that would enable me to
assess the number of attack submarines required for a credible attack
submarine force or number required to be constructed on an annual basis
to sustain the force. If confirmed, I will work closely with the CNO to
determine if a credible attack submarine force can be sustained at
planned levels of construction.
Question. When do you believe design work will be necessary to
begin to start to replace the Ballistic Missile Submarine fleet?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Navy will need to start
concept design efforts in 2012 in order to support a follow-on
Ballistic Missile Submarine fleet.
acquisition issues
Question. In recent months, a number of DOD officials have
acknowledged that the Department may have gone too far in reducing its
acquisition workforce, resulting in undermining of its ability to
provide needed oversight in the acquisition process.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Answer. I understand that the Department of the Navy acquisition
workforce has been reduced by over half since 1989. I am personally
very concerned about both the size and the composition of the
workforce. If confirmed, I plan to review the status of the
Department's acquisition workforce and work to improve it.
Question. If so, what steps do you believe the Department of the
Navy should take to address this problem?
Answer. My experience causes me to conclude that the Navy must
improve the process used to identify requirements. The Department must
understand: what it needs, what alternatives could satisfy those needs,
and what options and trade offs provide best value. Then it must
acquire systems in a manner that minimizes risk and maximizes value. If
confirmed, a top priority will be to assure that the Department
acquisition workforce is properly oriented to efficiently and
effectively execute acquisition programs.
Question. Major defense acquisition programs in the Department of
the Navy and the other military departments continue to be subject to
funding and requirements instability.
Do you believe that instability in funding and requirements drives
up program costs and leads to delays in the fielding of major weapon
systems?
Answer. Yes. It has been my experience that funding and
requirements changes can cause significant program cost increases and
schedule delays.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Navy should take
to address funding and requirements instability?
Answer. It is my understanding that the CNO has reinstated the
Naval Characteristics Board. This, along with effective utilization of
the change control processes, is an excellent first step toward
establishing requirement stability. If confirmed, I would work with
Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense England, the Chief of Naval
Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to ensure a high
degree of synergy between the requirements, acquisition, and
programming communities.
Question. The Comptroller General testified earlier this year that
DOD programs often move forward with unrealistic program cost and
schedule estimates, lack clearly defined and stable requirements,
include immature technologies that unnecessarily raise program costs
and delay development and production, and fail to solidify design and
manufacturing processes at appropriate junctures in the development
process.
Do you agree with the Comptroller General's assessment?
Answer. Unfortunately, based on recent program performance, this
appears to be the case.
Question. If so, what steps do you believe the Department of the
Navy should take to address these problems?
Answer. A disciplined acquisition process must be established
within the Department of the Navy and clear expectations must be
established for all personnel engaged in the requirements generation
and acquisition process as well as for contractors. This includes
expectations for realistic estimates, viable proposed offerings and
disciplined program execution. Before committing large expenditures the
Department must ensure that requirements have matured, design
alternatives fully examined, and realistic cost schedule and risk
assessments prepared. The selected design approach must incorporate
adequate margins to mitigate cost, schedule, and performance impacts
due to challenges and problems that nominally occur during such
development programs. Furthermore, development programs must
incorporate risk reduction efforts commensurate with the technology
maturity levels in evidence.
If confirmed, I intend to work with all Department of the Navy
personnel and contractors involved in major development efforts to make
clear the Department's expectations, and ensure the implementation of a
disciplined acquisition process.
Question. By some estimates, the Department of Defense now spends
more money every year for the acquisition of services than it does for
the acquisition of products, including major weapon systems. Yet, the
Department places far less emphasis on staffing, training, and managing
the acquisition of services than it does on the acquisition of
products.
What steps, if any, do you believe the Navy and Marine Corps should
take to improve the staffing, training, and management of its
acquisition of services?
Answer. I understand the Department of the Navy has already taken
significant steps to improve the management of services. If confirmed,
I intend to better understand the activities that have been initiated
and to build upon that effort to ensure that service acquisition
receives the appropriate level of management attention.
Question. Do you agree that the Navy and Marine Corps should
develop processes and systems to provide managers with access to
information needed to conduct comprehensive spending analyses of
services contracts on an ongoing basis?
Answer. Yes, I agree.
Question. The last decade has seen a proliferation of new types of
government-wide contracts and multi-agency contracts. The Department of
Defense is by far the largest ordering agency under these contracts,
accounting for 85 percent of the dollars awarded under one of the
largest programs. The DOD Inspector General and others have identified
a long series of problems with interagency contracts, including lack of
acquisition planning, inadequate competition, excessive use of time and
materials contracts, improper use of expired funds, inappropriate
expenditures, and failure to monitor contractor performance.
What steps, if any, do you believe the Navy and Marine Corps should
take to ensure that its use of interagency contracts complies with
applicable DOD requirements and is in the best interests of the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. A necessary first step is to set, at the highest levels,
the expectation that all acquisition personnel will comply with the
intent of the law. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the
Department's use of interagency contracts complies with applicable DOD
requirements and is in the best interest of the Department of the Navy.
fleet response plan
Question. The Navy has implemented the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) to
provide an enhanced surge capability for naval assets. The plan is
predicated on increased efficiencies in both maintenance and training,
with the aim of providing higher levels of readiness within existing
resource levels.
In your view, what are the most significant benefits and risks
associated with the FRP?
Answer. It is my understanding that the FRP has been developed to
provide our country with a more agile and flexible naval force capable
of surging quickly to deal with unexpected threats and contingency
operations. I have not, however, had an opportunity to perform an in-
depth study of the Plan. I can assure you, however, that if I am
confirmed, I will review this and related programs aimed at providing a
higher level of readiness.
Question. What additional demands for intelligence are incurred by
implementing the FRP?
Answer. Without completing a more thorough review of the FRP, it
would not be possible for me to answer this question. If confirmed,
however, any additional demands placed upon intelligence will be
considered within my review of all programs developed to provide a
higher level of readiness.
mine countermeasures capability
Question. Congress has been particularly interested in the Navy's
ability to respond to the asymmetric threat posed by mines. The Navy
has had mixed results in fielding robust mine countermeasures
capabilities.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that the Navy
maintains its focus on achieving robust mine countermeasures
capabilities for the fleet?
Answer. I certainly recognize the importance of having a robust
mine countermeasure capability. If confirmed, I will support the
fielding of capabilities necessary to meet this important mission.
However, I have not had the opportunity to be fully briefed on this
matter, and thus I am not in a position to opine on the specific steps
needed to ensure a robust mine countermeasure capability.
housing privatization
Question. The Department of Defense has been engaged in the
privatization of many of its support functions. Among the most
significant privatization efforts are military family housing units and
utility systems.
What challenges do the Navy and Marine Corps face in implementing
housing privatization?
Answer. I recognize the benefits of a public private venture
program. However, I have not had an opportunity to analyze the specific
challenges faced by the Navy and Marine Corps in their housing
privatization program. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department
of the Navy is implementing the program in the most effective way
possible.
investment in infrastructure
Question. Witnesses appearing before the committee in recent years
have testified that the military services underinvest in their
facilities compared to private industry standards. Decades of
underinvestment 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 Navy
and Marine Corps are investing enough in their infrastructure?
Answer. My experience in industry is that timely facility
maintenance must be performed to avoid putting mission at risk and to
control cost growth. Facility maintenance must be a key consideration
in budget formulation. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Chief
of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Secretary
of Defense, and Congress to assure appropriate investment in Department
facilities.
implementation of base closures and realignments
Question. The 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
process has resulted in the recommended closure or realignment of
numerous major naval installations. The DOD installation closure
process resulting from BRAC decisions has historically included close
cooperation with the affected local community in order to allow these
communities an active role in the reuse of property.
In your view, what are the roles and responsibilities of the
Department of the Navy within the 2005 BRAC property disposal process
to work with local communities?
Answer. The Department of the Navy needs to follow all prescribed
BRAC statutes, Federal regulations, and Department of Defense policies
and provide timely communications with the local communities regarding
closure plans and installation status.
Question. If confirmed, what goals would you establish to assist
affected communities with economic development, revitalization, and re-
use planning of property received as a result of the BRAC process?
Answer. If confirmed, and if BRAC 2005 is approved, I intend to
vigorously support the Department of Defense goals to expeditiously
dispose of property in order to facilitate economic development within
the affected community. I will also work with local communities to
facilitate expeditious conversion of property to civilian use.
Question. What plans do the Navy and Marine Corps have in place to
assist DOD personnel who lose their jobs as a result of BRAC actions?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Navy and Marine Corps to use all
available placement and transition assistance programs established by
the Department of Defense.
department of the navy science and technology
Question. For fiscal year 2006, the Department of the Navy plans to
dedicate approximately $1.8 billion to science and technology (S&T)
programs, which comprises 1.4 percent of the total departmental budget,
and $448 million to basic defense research, or 0.36 percent of the
total Department of the Navy budget.
Do you believe that the current balance between short- and long-
term research is appropriate to meet current and future Department of
the Navy needs?
Answer. A balanced approach to short-term and long-term research is
critical to our Nation's future. Although it may appear easier to focus
upon short-term research needs, long-term research is an essential
aspect of stewardship. If confirmed, I intend to evaluate the S&T
program and ensure that the appropriate balance is created.
Question. If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding
the importance of innovative defense science in meeting Navy and Marine
Corps missions?
Answer. I have had a long held belief that innovative, high payoff
research is an integral part of any S&T investment portfolio. If
confirmed, I will engage the S&T Corporate Board (Vice Chief, Assistant
Commandant, and ASN RD&A) to ensure the Department of the Navy has
adequately addressed this critical area. I would also work closely with
the Director of DARPA to leverage their technology investments.
Question. If confirmed, what guidance would you give to ensure
research priorities that will meet the needs of the Navy and Marine
Corps in 2020?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support a balanced program of S&T
investment in basic research, applied research, and advance development
across the spectrum of naval needs. I will seek an S&T program that
responds appropriately to the needs of today's Navy, tomorrow's Navy,
and the Navy after next.
defense integrated manpower human resources system (dimhrs)
Question. DIMHRS is a single integrated human resources pay and
personnel system for all the armed services and the Defense Finance and
Accounting System (DFAS), and is intended to replace many of the
systems currently used to perform personnel management and pay
functions. DIMHRS has been under development for several years and has
come under criticism for cost growth, delays in implementation, and not
meeting the expectations of each Service. The Acting Deputy Secretary
of Defense has directed a review of DIMHRS in order to determine its
future.
What are your views of the need for completion of implementation of
DIMHRS and what specific benefits, if any, would the Department of the
Navy derive from this system?
Answer. I understand that DIMHRS is an ambitious initiative that
was designed to address these issues. As with all major development and
acquisition processes, it is critical to weigh cost growth, schedule
delays, and expectation shortfalls associated with the scale and
complexity of the environment in which they are being developed.
Additionally, it is important to consider all of these needs as they
relate to the entire Department of Defense.
With respect to the Department of the Navy, there is a need for a
high performing, integrated human resources pay and personnel
management system, that can keep pace with the increasing demands for
accurate personnel information arising from Service and Joint
operations. Deployed marines and sailors need to focus on the mission
at hand--they, and their families should not have to worry about
whether or not their pay is being correctly administered.
delivery of legal services
Question. What is your view of the respective roles of the General
Counsel and Judge Advocate General of the Navy in providing the
Secretary of the Navy with legal advice?
Answer. The roles of the General Counsel and Judge Advocate General
(JAG) are well defined by law, regulation, and Secretarial instruction.
Each provides direct legal advice to the Secretary of the Navy. The
General Counsel is the chief legal officer for the Department, the
Secretary's principal legal adviser, and the Designated Agency Ethics
Official. The Navy JAG is the senior military lawyer in the Department,
alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official, and specializes in
military justice and other related areas. Most important is the close
professional and personal partnership that exists between the General
Counsel, the JAG, and the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) to the Commandant
of the Marine Corps (CMC). If confirmed, I will strive to continue to
promote the strong communication, transparency, and mutual support that
their current relationship engenders.
Question. What are your views about the responsibility of staff
judge advocates within the Navy and Marine Corps to provide independent
legal advice to military commanders in the fleet and throughout the
naval establishment?
Answer. Staff judge advocates are essential to the proper
functioning of fleet and shore-based commands of the Navy and Marine
Corps. It is important that commanders receive timely, professional
legal advice from staff judge advocates whom they trust implicitly.
Likewise, staff judge advocates afloat and ashore must have the
confidence, integrity, and expertise necessary to provide their
respective commanders sound counsel and legal advice.
Question. What are your views about the responsibility of the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy and the Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant to provide independent legal advice to the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, respectively?
Answer. The Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the
Marine Corps should receive independent legal advice from their senior
uniformed judge advocates.
national security personnel system (nsps)
Question. What are your views on the strengths and weaknesses of
the NSPS implementation steps undertaken within the Department thus
far?
Answer. I am aware that a significant amount of effort has been
expended by the Navy to implement NSPS. I am not, however,
knowledgeable of the specific steps that have been undertaken.
Question. What do you believe will be the benefits of NSPS when
implemented, and what steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure a
smooth and effective transition?
Answer. As I understand it, NSPS will provide additional
flexibility as well as the ability to attract, develop, and maintain a
new generation of civilians in public service. If confirmed, I will
ensure that we aggressively train all personnel on the procedures of
the NSPS, as well as encourage all leadership to avail themselves and
their workforce to NSPS.
navy and marine corps personnel recruiting and retention
Question. The retention of quality sailors and marines, officer and
enlisted, active-duty and Reserve, is vital to the Department of the
Navy.
How would you evaluate the status of the Navy and Marine Corps in
successfully recruiting and retaining high caliber personnel?
Answer. Overall, the Navy and Marine Corps are doing a great job
recruiting and retaining high caliber personnel for Active-Duty and
Reserve service. Both Services have exceeded their goals for Active-
Duty enlisted accessions and new contracts in fiscal year 2005.
It is my understanding, however, that the Navy is experiencing
difficulty in the competition for medical professionals in both active
and Reserve community. Additionally, Reserve recruiting and retention
has been challenging. If confirmed, I am committed to working with the
entire Navy team to ensure that we overcome these problems.
Question. What initiatives would you take, if confirmed, to further
improve the attractiveness of Navy and Marine Corps, active and Reserve
service?
Answer. Recruiting and retaining the right people for the right
jobs is more challenging than ever before. If confirmed, I will work
with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps to find ways to further improve the naval services'
attractiveness as an employer of choice.
active-duty navy end strength
Question. The Active-Duty end strength for the Navy was reduced by
7,900 personnel for fiscal year 2005. The administration has proposed
an additional reduction of 13,200 personnel for fiscal year 2006. This
total reduction of 21,100 personnel in 2 years would result in an
authorized end strength of 352,700. Even before these personnel cuts
were proposed, many were concerned that the personnel tempo was
adversely affecting the quality of life of Navy personnel and their
families.
Do you support these significant reductions in Active-Duty end
strength?
Answer. Reductions predicated on adopting new technologies,
implementing 21st century personnel management strategies and
processes, and where appropriate, shifting certain functions to Reserve
component, government civilian or contractor personnel, present valid
opportunities to reduce strength and capitalize on associated cost
savings, while maintaining, and even increasing, warfighting
capability. If confirmed, I am committed to, in close coordination with
the Chief of Naval Operations, and consistent with the outputs of QDR,
further evaluate the appropriate size, shape, and skill mix of the
force.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to control
personnel tempo so that active-duty Navy personnel will have reasonable
periods of time to spend with their families between deployments?
Answer. Although the global war on terror has created a high demand
for naval forces, the needs of Navy families as well as operational
needs must be fully considered when constructing deployment and
underway schedules.
senior military and civilian accountability
Question. While representative of a small number of individuals,
revelations of abuses of rank and authority by senior military and
civilian leaders and failures to perform up to accepted standards are
frequently reported. Victims of such abuses often report that they felt
that no one would pay attention to or believe their complaints.
Accusations of unduly lenient treatment of senior officers and senior
officials against whom accusations have been substantiated are also
frequently heard.
What are your views regarding the appropriate standard of
accountability for senior civilian and military leaders of the
Department?
Answer. It is essential to maintain a culture that is supportive of
a capable, ethical and diverse workforce. This culture must be rooted
in the Navy's core values of honor, courage, and commitment. A critical
aspect of such a culture is to hold individuals accountable for abuses
of their rank or authority. Senior civilian and military leaders must
uphold the highest standards of principled leadership. Even if
isolated, any abuse of rank or authority can undermine trust in a
military organization. As a result, we must ensure prompt and thorough
investigation of complaints, as well as swift and equitable treatment
of those few personnel who fail to demonstrate exemplary conduct. At
the same time, we must not lose sight that the Navy continues to imbue
its leaders with the tenets of principled leadership through its
commitment to ethics and leadership training.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
senior leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps are held accountable for
their actions and performance?
Answer. The Navy has a historic and ongoing commitment to inculcate
its officers and sailors from the outset of their careers with the
Navy's core values. This commitment is further extended through a high
level of accountability that is placed upon commanding officers and
senior leaders. If confirmed, I will continue to foster and enforce the
Navy's earnest commitment to the highest ethical standards of
principled leadership and service.
navy support to ground forces
Question. The Navy has been challenged to find new ways of
supporting the Army and Marine Corps by taking on nontraditional
support functions.
In your view, what are the kinds of nontraditional support the Navy
feasibly can provide, and what additional missions, if any, should the
Navy be assigned in the global war on terrorism?
Answer. The Navy needs to lean forward using Navy sailor skill sets
and core competencies to support nontraditional missions in the global
war on terror. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of Defense,
all the Services, and Congress to ensure we have Navy forces ready to
fight where and when we need them, and that we continue to employ Navy
skills and capabilities in every manner possible in the global war on
terror.
Question. Given that these are new roles for Navy personnel, what
additional training and equipment has been provided, or, in your view,
needs to be provided?
Answer. A critical aspect of the Secretary of the Navy's
stewardship is the responsibility to ensure that those people entrusted
to him receive the appropriate equipment and training to perform their
job. I have not had the opportunity to be fully briefed on the types of
equipment or additional training necessary to address this new,
evolving threat. However, if confirmed, I plan to work with the entire
Navy team to ensure that the necessary amount of training and equipment
is provided to servicemembers.
prevention and response to sexual assaults
Question. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Personnel conducted a hearing on policies and programs
of the Department of Defense for preventing and responding to incidents
of sexual assault in the Armed Forces. In late April 2004, the DOD Task
Force on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault issued its report and
recommendations, noting ``If the Department of Defense is to provide a
responsive system to address sexual assault, it must be a top-down
program with emphasis placed at the highest levels within the
Department down to the lowest levels of command leadership. It must
develop performance metrics and establish an evaluative framework for
regular review and quality improvement.''
What is your evaluation of the progress to date made by the Navy
and Marine Corps in preventing and responding adequately to incidents
of sexual assault?
Answer. I am aware that the Navy has undertaken several important
measures to address the prevention and response to sexual assaults and
harassment. I have not, however, had an opportunity to fully review
these programs. This is clearly a high priority for me and is an
essential aspect of maintaining the appropriate Navy and Marine Corp
values. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Navy and Marine Corps
continue to be proactive in the development of adequate means to
prevent and respond to incidents of sexual assault.
Question. What problems do you foresee, if any, in implementing the
revised policy with respect to confidential reporting of sexual
assaults by sailors and marines?
Answer. I understand and support the objectives of confidential
reporting and if confirmed, I will review the policy implementation as
part of a review of the overall sexual assault prevention and response
programs.
Question. If confirmed, what actions do you plan to take to ensure
that senior civilian leaders of the Department of the Navy have day-to-
day visibility into incidents of sexual assault and the effectiveness
of policies aimed at preventing and responding appropriately to such
incidents?
Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate the current reporting systems
accessible to Department senior civilian and military leadership to
determine whether or not modifications would be appropriate.
sexual harassment and violence at the united states naval academy
Question. The Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence
at the Military Service Academies reported that ``Historically, sexual
harassment and sexual assault have been inadequately addressed at both
Academies [United States Military Academy and United States Naval
Academy]. Harassment is the more prevalent and corrosive problem,
creating an environment in which sexual assault is more likely to
occur. Although progress has been made, hostile attitudes and
inappropriate actions toward women, and the toleration of these by some
cadets and midshipmen, continue to hinder the establishment of a safe
and professional environment in which to prepare military officers.
Much of the solution to preventing this behavior rests with cadets and
midshipmen themselves.''
If confirmed, what actions would you take to encourage midshipmen
to step up to their responsibility to create a culture where sexual
harassment and sexual assault are not tolerated?
If confirmed, what other actions would you take to address the
continuing problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault at the U.S.
Naval Academy?
Answer. The mission of the U.S. Naval Academy is to develop
midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically to become combat leaders
of the highest character to lead sailors and marines. Midshipmen are
expected to live and uphold the highest standards, just as they will be
expected to do as officers in the Navy and Marine Corps. The standard
set is very clear: sexual harassment and assault are not tolerated.
If confirmed, I will take the findings and recommendations of the
Defense Task Force to heart. Their comprehensive review and insightful
recommendations will help in the Department's continuing commitment to
improve its efforts to prevent and respond to sexual harassment and
assault.
I am committed to monitor the progress of these efforts through the
use of the chain of command, personal visits and observation, and, the
use of all available oversight mechanisms such as the Board of Visitors
and the United States Naval Academy's Executive Steering Group.
military to civilian medical conversions
Question. The Navy plans to replace thousands of military personnel
with civilians and has focused on conversions of medical billets deemed
not to be needed for medical readiness. Yet the committee has been
informed that in locations at which sailors and marines are assigned,
such as Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, Twentynine Palms and Camp
Pendleton, California, and Recruit Training Center, Great Lakes,
Illinois, access to services could be impeded by planned conversion of
medical, dental, pharmacy, and mental health positions to civilian
positions which cannot realistically be filled by civilian substitutes.
What are your views on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of
military to civilian conversions in reducing costs, and, if confirmed,
would you support a review of the Navy's conversion plan to assess the
availability of high-quality civilian medical and dental personnel to
serve military members and their families?
Answer. My experience with outsourcing has taught me that it is
often possible to find ways to reduce overall costs without a reduction
in the quality of service. If confirmed, I am committed to exploring
opportunities for military to civilian conversions while ensuring that
such conversions don't create shortfalls in services.
human capital
Question. The Navy has a large civilian workforce that is integral
to the support of the Navy's worldwide mission.
What is your vision for an effective human capital strategy for the
Navy's civilian workforce?
Answer. My vision for an effective human capital strategy is one
that results in a highly-motivated, well-educated, highly-trained, and
multi-skilled mix of people. This requires best practices in human
resources management that will support attracting, developing, and
retaining this workforce, such as those being implemented under the
NSPS.
Question. The development and implementation of a recruitment
strategy to attract talented, motivated, and diverse job applicants at
all levels is critical to the Department's ability to develop and
maintain the workforce it desires. The flexibilities inherent in the
NSPS will provide us with the tools needed to compete effectively for
talented and motivated workers, and to retain the best and the
brightest. The reforms will provide supervisors and managers greater
flexibility in managing our civil service employees, facilitate
competition for high quality talent, offer compensation competitive
with the private sector, and reward outstanding service. It will build
greater pride in the civilian workforce and attract a new generation of
civilians to public service. Properly executed, these changes also will
assist us in better utilizing the Active-Duty Force by making it easier
to employ civilians in jobs currently filled by uniformed military
personnel.
Do you believe that the Navy has appropriate planning processes in
place to identify and address gaps in the capabilities of its civilian
workforce?
Answer. Gaps in the capabilities of the civilian workforce is a
critical issue. If confirmed, I intend to engage in an aggressive and
competitive program to ensure that the Navy has the most effective
civilian workforce for the 21st century.
Question. What do you view as the greatest challenges in recruiting
and retaining a highly skilled civilian workforce?
Answer. Competition from private industry and their willingness to
tailor compensation and benefits packages in a highly flexible and
adaptive way is a significant challenge.
personnel and health benefit costs
Question. The cost of the Defense Health Program, like the cost of
medical care nationwide, is escalating rapidly. Similarly, the cost of
personnel as a key component of the Services' budgets has risen
significantly in recent years.
If confirmed, how would you approach the issue of rising health
care and personnel costs?
Answer. Rising costs associated with health care pose a significant
threat to the fiscal strength of organizations nationwide--whether
governmental or private. Streamlining and effective cost accounting
alone cannot adequately ameliorate the effects of future rising medical
costs. The Department must consider more fundamental changes to the way
it does business.
Costs associated with personnel are by far the largest part of the
Department's budget. A key priority is to operate as efficiently and
effectively as possible with respect to utilization of personnel. The
military and civilian force structure must be right sized for the
mission but not any larger than necessary. As stewards of the
taxpayers' money, the Department needs to utilize the fiscal resources
it dedicates for personnel in the optimum manner. A key part of this
thought process is to ensure that the Department apportions that part
of the budget devoted to personnel on those benefits that are the most
valued to naval personnel. Medical is just one piece of the overall
benefit package.
If confirmed, I will seek new options and approaches to address the
rising cost of health care and other personnel costs and work with
Congress to address this critical matter.
quality of life programs
Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you establish to
ensure that military quality of life programs are sustained and
improved for Navy and Marine Corps members and their families?
Answer. Quality of life for Navy and Marine Corps personnel of all
ranks and their families is a key component to ensuring personnel
readiness, job satisfaction, and competitiveness in the job market. The
Department's quality of life programs must provide high quality
services to deliver these desired outcomes. If confirmed, I intend to
work with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the
Marine Corps to maintain focus and commitment to the quality of life
needs of all naval personnel.
Question. What challenges do you foresee in sustaining quality of
life programs, and are there new initiatives that you would undertake,
if confirmed, to ensure the availability of high quality services,
including child care, education, and recreational opportunities, for
sailors and marines and their families?
Answer. It is important to understand what makes for a high quality
of life so that the Department of the Navy can make the wisest
investment of its resources. Operational commitments--abroad and at
home--place stresses on naval personnel and their families. The
Department should continually seek to improve and innovate, identifying
those benefits that provide the greatest levels of satisfaction and
find the best and most appropriate means to make them available.
ballistic missile defense
Question. Do you view ballistic missile defense--for both deployed
forces and the U.S. homeland--as a core mission for the Navy?
Answer. Yes, defense against ballistic missiles of all ranges
should be a core mission for the Navy. It has become evident that the
ability to address the wide range of threats from ballistic missiles
requires significant flexibility. With oceans covering 70 percent of
the Earth's surface, the Navy is uniquely able to position its assets
in appropriate locations to accomplish this mission. This flexibility
allows the Navy to be responsive to continually changing ballistic
missile threats to our Nation and to U.S. interests overseas. If
confirmed, I will work with appropriate organizations to assure that
the unique capabilities of the Navy are leveraged to best effect in
support of our Nation's ballistic missile defense programs.
readiness levels
Question. What is your assessment of the current readiness of the
Department of the Navy to execute its assigned missions?
Answer. For over 229 years our naval forces have stood ready to
answer the Nation's call. Today's forces maintain this proud tradition
and are currently engaged in combat and combat support missions in
Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and stand ready to
answer the call across the spectrum of missions called for in the
National Military Strategy. Additionally, sailors and marines have been
on the front lines conducting humanitarian assistance and disaster
relief missions in the Gulf Coast as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. This heightened OPTEMPO and Navy support in nontraditional roles
such as the tsunami relief efforts in Indonesia have added additional
stress on naval forces. Navy will sustain the operational readiness of
its forces through the Fleet Response Plan and its associated training
and maintenance processes, along with the dedication and ingenuity of
our people. If confirmed, I will continue this proud tradition of
readiness.
What do you view as the major readiness challenges that will have
to be addressed by the Navy and Marine Corps over the next 3 years,
and, if confirmed, how would you approach these issues?
Answer. The most significant readiness challenge the Department
will face in the near term is managing the OPTEMPO with the
multiplicity of missions the Navy and Marine Corps are supporting.
Mindful of the results of both BRAC and QDR, if confirmed, I will
work with the CNO, to review the current issues of the fleet; craft a
clear, concise vision and execution plan; develop a means to track real
savings for future use; work closely with my counterparts in the other
Services, OSD, Congress and defense industry leaders; and deepen the
relationship within the Navy and Marine Corps team.
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.
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 Saxby Chambliss
cleanup of allegheny ballistics laboratory
1. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Winter, I have been in discussions with
the Navy recently regarding seeking reimbursement from government
contractors for cleanup of environmental contamination at government-
owned, contractor-operated facilities. This relates to one of my
constituents, Hercules, which the Navy is holding liable for costs
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) for cleanup activities at the former Allegheny
Ballistics Laboratory in West Virginia. Hercules maintains that it was
a responsible partner with the government for five decades and operated
strictly by the rules of its contract which stated that the Navy would
assume responsibility for any damage to the property resulting from
Hercules' operation of this facility. However, the Navy is attempting
to assign Hercules a $70 million liability. I do not know if you are
aware of this situation, but if you are, I would appreciate any
comments you have, and if you are not, I would appreciate your
assurances that you will look into this situation immediately, if you
are confirmed.
Dr. Winter. I am not familiar with the issues relating to the
cleanup costs associated with the operations of the Allegheny
Ballistics Laboratory. I do assure you, however, if confirmed, I will
certainly look into the situation promptly.
navy end strength
2. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Winter, the Department of Defense is in
the process of transformation and finding ways to conduct operations
more efficiently and cheaply which I whole-heartedly applaud. While the
other Services are either remaining stable or growing in size, the Navy
continues to downsize. In fiscal year 2006 the Navy will reduce 13,000
Active-Duty billets (3.5 percent), and 10,000 Selected Reserve billets
(12 percent). Based on your corporate experience, what is your
perspective on downsizings of this nature as they affect efficiency,
performance, and morale of the workforce?
Dr. Winter. Downsizing based upon noted inefficiencies is an
appropriate transformation tool. If done properly, such a downsizing
can improve efficiency, productivity, and morale. My approach to
downsizing is based upon many factors, including the adoption of new
technologies, the implementation of new personnel management
strategies, and the ability to shift various functions to alternative
providers.
3. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Winter, based on your corporate
experience, what are signs that an organization may be downsizing too
much?
Dr. Winter. Based on my corporate experience, an organization that
downsizes too much, or too quickly, displays a number of indicators.
These indications include an increase in accidents, a heightening of
maintenance problems, or an overall increase in the number of mistakes
performed during normal day-to-day operations. An increase in
individual personnel performance issues, such as a greater use of sick
leave, may also be noted.
4. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Winter, if you are confirmed, what will
be your approach to reviewing the manpower requirements of the Navy and
ensuring that the Navy recruits and retains the appropriate number of
sailors?
Dr. Winter. Recruiting and retaining the right people for the right
jobs is more challenging than ever before. As a result, it is necessary
to involve all aspects of the Navy team in considering new and creative
approaches. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with the CNO to
explore innovative approaches to the manpower recruiting and retention
challenge.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
navy space
5. Senator Levin. Dr. Winter, in your view should the Navy continue
to participate in space acquisition programs? If yes, what in your view
is the best way to ensure participation in the future?
Dr. Winter. The Navy will continue to remain a critical user of
space systems. As such, it is crucial that the Navy remains capable of
influencing decisions regarding the requirements for these systems. One
of the best ways to accomplish this objective is through continued
participation in the acquisition process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
need for persian gulf presence
6. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Winter, during the Cold War, the United
States protected its interests in the Persian Gulf by relying on local
allies and preparing facilities that would permit a rapid intervention,
but we did not keep large combat forces deployed there on a permanent
basis. This worked very well, even when we were facing the Soviet
challenge, and we used this same approach to expel Iraq from Kuwait in
1990-1991. Since then, we have kept thousands of combat troops in the
region, and some argue that their presence has fueled the rise of
extremist groups like Al Qaeda. Can the United States return to an
offshore balancing strategy in the Gulf, and rely primarily on local
actors and our own air and naval forces?
Dr. Winter. Maintaining security with a small footprint is a proven
strategic objective that naval forces are ideally suited to provide. If
confirmed, I will work with Secretary Rumsfeld, the Joint Staff, and
all of the Services to ensure that the unique capabilities of the Navy
and Marine Corps are best leveraged to support this objective.
war cost and modernization
7. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Winter, are you worried that the costs of
the Iraq war are going to prevent the Navy from modernizing its forces
in a timely manner?
Dr. Winter. Modernization of naval forces is a key objective for
the Navy. The cost of war is likely to have an effect upon the finances
available to perform this modernization. If confirmed, I intend to
carefully examine the Department's modernization needs and then balance
those needs with an appropriate level of fiscal restraint.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
submarine base new london
8. Senator Lieberman. Dr. Winter, in reaching its decision to keep
Submarine Base New London open, the BRAC Commission found that broad
synergy derived from the proximity of the base and operating forces to
Electric Boat, and to world-class undersea expertise resident at local
distinguished institutions including (but not limited to) the
University of Connecticut (Marine Sciences Department) and the
University of Rhode Island (Graduate School of Oceanography). The
Commission found that the co-location of these facilities and expertise
created a unique Center of Excellence that should be maintained.
The Navy is in the early stages of building and fielding the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The LCS is intended to be a flexible
platform designed with different modules to handle multiple missions.
Two important LCS modules will be for antisubmarine warfare and for
countermine activities. These are important missions that are
complementary to other undersea activities and offer us the opportunity
to build on the synergy at New London that the BRAC Commission
identified.
Because of the BRAC Commission decision and the deployment of the
LCS, the Navy has a unique opportunity to deliberately develop
Submarine Base New London into a more comprehensive hub to be not just
a Submarine Center of Excellence, but instead to become a true Undersea
Center of Excellence. To accomplish this, we should base the new
antisubmarine and countermine LCS modules at New London with the attack
submarine force already stationed there. Combining these activities at
New London would enable the Navy to build a true Undersea Center of
Excellence and would give this Nation an even greater advantage in
undersea operations than we enjoy today. Will you commit to exploring
this idea and seriously address the issue of developing New London into
a broader Undersea Center of Excellence?
Dr. Winter. Yes. If confirmed, I will explore this idea.
______
[The nomination reference of Donald C. Winter follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 6, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Donald C. Winter, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Navy, vice
Gordon England.
______
[The biographical sketch of Donald C. Winter, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Donald C. Winter
Donald C. Winter is corporate vice president and president of
Northrop Grumman's Mission Systems sector. He oversees operations of
the business and its 18,000 employees, who offer value-added solutions
through information technology systems and services; systems
engineering and analysis; systems development and integration;
scientific, engineering, and technical services; and enterprise
management services. Dr. Winter was named president and CEO of TRW
Systems (which was acquired by Northrop Grumman in December 2002) in
January 2000.
Dr. Winter began his TRW career when he joined the TRW Systems
Group Research Staff in 1972. He spent the next 8 years directing
research and development activities in laser physics and applications.
From 1980 to 1982, he was with the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) as program manager for space acquisition,
tracking, and pointing programs. During that period, he was awarded the
Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service.
Dr. Winter rejoined TRW in 1982 and held senior systems engineering
and program management responsibilities for a variety of space system
programs.
From 1990 through 1997, as vice president and general manager of
the Defense Systems Division of TRW's Space and Electronics (S&E)
business, Dr. Winter directed space systems activities that supported
the national defense effort. These activities included prime contracts
for development and deployment of space systems, systems engineering
and support, operations and maintenance, and development of advanced
technologies directly related to new and evolving systems.
During 1998 and 1999, he served as vice president and deputy
general manager for group development, S&E. In that role, he managed
S&E's business development, including the unit's marketing, planning,
international, engineering, and technology functions.
Dr. Winter serves on the board of directors for the USO of
Metropolitan Washington and the Wolf Trap Foundation and on the board
of governors for the Electronic Industries Alliance.
Dr. Winter earned a bachelor of science degree (with highest
distinction) in physics from the University of Rochester in 1969. He
received a master of science degree and a doctorate in physics from the
University of Michigan in 1970 and 1972, respectively. He is a 1979
graduate of the USC Management Policy Institute, a 1987 graduate of the
UCLA Executive Program, and a 1991 graduate of the Harvard University
Program for Senior Executives in National and International Security.
In 2002, Dr. Winter was elected a member of the National Academy of
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 Donald C.
Winter 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 Charles Winter, aka Don Winter.
2. Position to which nominated:
Secretary of the Navy.
3. Date of nomination:
6 September 05.
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 15, 1948; Brooklyn, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Linda Jo Engel on June 15, 1969.
7. Names and ages of children:
Benjamin Andrew Winter, 30; Jonathan David Winter, 27.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
9/62-6/65, Oceanside High School, Diploma, 6/65.
9/65-6/69, University of Rochester, BS Physics Summa Cum Laude, 6/
69.
9/69-3/72, University of Michigan, MS Physics, 12/70, PhD Physics,
3/72.
10/78-3/79, University of Southern California, Certificate
(management), 3/79.
9/86-6/87, University of California, LA, Certificate (management),
6/87.
8/91, Harvard University, National and International Security
Program.
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, President, Mission Systems, Northrop Grumman
Corporation (formerly TRW Systems), Reston, VA.
7/82-11/99, TRW, Redondo Beach, CA, Various senior executive
positions including VP and Division General Manager, Defense Satellite
Division and Deputy General Manager for Group 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.
8/80-7/82, Program Manager, Defense Advanced Research Projects
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.
Elected Officer (Corporate Vice President) Northrop Grumman Corp.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
USO of Metropolitan Washington; Member, Board of Directors.
Electronic Industries Alliance; Member, Board of Governors.
Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts; Member, Board of
Directors.
National Academy of Engineering; Member, Vice Chair Peer Committee
Section 12.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Associate
Fellow.
Manhattan Beach Badminton Club; Member.
Republican National Committee President's 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.
Member, President's Club, Republican National Committee.
(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.
2000 (payroll deduction) - $500 to TRW Good Government Fund.
2001 (payroll deduction) - $720 to TRW Good Government Fund.
2002 (payroll deduction) - $2,600 to TRW Good Government Fund.
1/10/03 - $1,000 to Republican National Committee.
2/5/04 - $1,000 to Republican National Committee.
4/27/04 - $5,000 to National Republican Congressional Committee.
10/4/04 - $1,000 to National Republican Senatorial Committee.
10/5/04 - $1,000 to Republican National Committee.
2/4/05 - $1,000 to Republican National Committee.
4/5/05 - $1,000 to National Republican Senatorial Committee.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Rackham Fellow, University of Michigan.
Elected Member, National Academy of Engineering.
Defense Meritorious Service Award.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive 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.
[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.
Donald C. Winter.
This 9th day of September 2005.
[The nomination of Donald C. Winter was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on October 27, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on November 10, 2005.]
NOMINATIONS OF HON. JOHN J. YOUNG, JR., TO BE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING; J. DORRANCE SMITH, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS; DELORES M. ETTER, TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION; GEN
BURWELL B. BELL III, USA, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND
TO BE COMMANDER, UNITED NATIONS COMMAND/COMBINED FORCES COMMAND, AND
COMMANDER, UNITED STATES FORCES KOREA; AND LT. GEN. LANCE L. SMITH,
USAF, FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER,
UNITED STATES JOINT FORCES COMMAND AND SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER
TRANSFORMATION
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Inhofe,
Collins, Talent, Thune, Levin, Dayton, and Clinton.
Other Senators present: Senators Stevens and Inouye.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: William M. Caniano,
professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff
member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff member; Thomas L.
MacKenzie, professional staff member; Elaine A. McCusker,
professional staff member; Stanley R. O'Connor, Jr.,
professional staff member; Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff
member; and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff
member; Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J.
Leeling, minority counsel; Peter K. Levine, minority counsel;
and Arun A. Seraphin, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Micah H. Harris, Jessica L.
Kingston, Jill L. Simodejka, and Pendred K. Wilson.
Committee members' assistants present: Mackenzie M. Eaglen,
assistant to Senator Collins; Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to
Senator Talent; Stuart C. Mallory, assistant to Senator Thune;
William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Kimberly
Jackson, assistant to Senator Dayton; and Andrew Shapiro,
assistant to Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good morning, everyone. How pleased we all
are to have before us this morning such a very distinguished
group of nominees, both civilian and military, for posts in our
Government. We welcome the three civilian nominees: Secretary
John Young, well known to the Senate, Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, nominated
to be the Director of Defense Research and Engineering;
Dorrance Smith, who has been nominated to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; and Dr. Delores Etter,
who has been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition. I very much
enjoyed my visits with each of you in the course of the
proceedings here.
We also welcome General Burwell Bell, U.S. Army, nominated
to be the Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces
Command, and U.S. Forces Korea; and Lieutenant General Lance
Smith, U.S. Air Force, nominated to be the Commander, U.S.
Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), and Supreme Allied Commander
Transformation. They will be in our second panel.
I welcome my two distinguished colleagues from the Senate.
Gentlemen, we will pause for a moment if each of you would like
to proceed with your introductions. Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
honored to be here once again to present John Young, Secretary
Young, to the committee. From 1991 to 2001, John served as a
staff member on our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He is
truly bipartisan. During that time our committee chairmanship
moved back and forth between my distinguished colleague and
myself. John worked for both Senator Inouye and me in the same
position. He was a valuable member of our staff.
He came to our committee as a Congressional fellow from the
Sandia National Labs. He became a professional staff member in
1993 and served as the staff analyst for a variety of
Department of Defense (DOD) programs. John reviewed and offered
funding recommendations for our subcommittee on all DOD
aircraft procurement programs. He also analyzed Navy aircraft-
related research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E)
programs defense-wide and within the Air Force. He provided
analysis of the activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA).
President Bush nominated John to serve as Assistant
Secretary of the Navy, as we all know, for Research,
Development, and Acquisition in 2001. He has proven in this
role that he is a skilled leader, dedicated to ensure that our
men and women in uniform have the resources they need to
complete their missions.
He was instrumental in achieving significant improvements
to the Navy's acquisition programs, making many of those
programs more efficient. He used innovative methods to achieve
cost savings in a variety of programs which had a tremendous
benefit to the Department of the Navy.
His success in the role of Assistant Secretary led
President Bush to nominate him to serve as Director of Defense
Research and Engineering. I am confident that Secretary Young
will approach this new position with the same commitment and
dedication he has exhibited during his time with the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee. He will fill a role performed by
very able people we have all known in the past, and I am sure
he will distinguish himself in this new position.
I am delighted to be here with the co-chair of our
subcommittee, the co-chair of the Commerce Committee, my good
friend, to support the nomination also, and I would yield to
him.
Chairman Warner. The Senator from Hawaii, the distinguished
Senator Inouye.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF HAWAII
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman and Senator Levin, I am
pleased to join my friend and colleague Senator Stevens in
introducing John Young, the President's nominee to be Director
of Defense Research and Engineering. More than 4 years ago I
had the pleasure of introducing Mr. Young to this committee as
the President's nominee for the position of Assistant Secretary
of the Navy, and I am pleased to once again speak for him in
this new position for which he has been nominated.
As Chairman Stevens noted, John Young came to the
Appropriations Committee in 1991 as a young, 28-year-old
American Institute of Astronautics fellow from Sandia. He
already had an engineering degree from Georgia Tech, a master's
from Stanford, and a lot of experience in the aerospace
industry. His capabilities were so outstanding that he came to
the committee for a 12-month assignment and, Mr. Chairman, we
kept him for 10 years.
John Young left the committee to serve as Assistant
Secretary of the Navy. In this position, as Chairman Stevens
has pointed out, he has earned high marks for instituting
innovative practices in the Navy acquisition programs. His
accomplishments are too numerous to list, but his tireless
efforts to reform our business practices in shipbuilding,
aircraft manufacturing, and weapons procurement are well known
to this committee and to the entire defense industry.
I have never met anyone who has had anything but the
greatest respect for his talent, his knowledge, and his very
pleasant demeanor.
So Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, I once again recommend him
to you without equivocation.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, colleagues. We on
this committee are deeply honored that you would find the time,
but the cause is good. He is an outstanding individual and will
continue to serve his Nation with great distinction, I am
confident.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Senator Roberts is due at any time, but we will proceed and
we will interrupt for Senator Roberts when he arrives. Should
he not be able to make it, I will insert his statement for the
record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Roberts follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Pat Roberts
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this opportunity to
voice my strong support for Dr. Etter, who is before the committee as
the nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition. Dr. Etter is the Joan of Arc of Science
and Technology--a proven and steadfast advocate for technological
investment in our military and an outstanding choice to oversee the
Navy's research and development efforts.
I first met Dr. Etter through my work as the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. At that time, Dr.
Etter was the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and
Technology. During her tenure there, Dr. Etter displayed a thorough
command of Department of Defense (DOD) science and technology programs,
and an understanding that a strong and consistent investment in such
programs has been and will continue to be the primary means for
allowing the United States to confront the uncertain and evolving
threats to national security in the 21st century. During that time, I
often relied on Dr. Etter's expertise and strong support for creating,
developing, and implementing an aggressive science and technology
program within the individual Services, and across the Department.
When Dr. Etter and I first began working together, I recall I had
some serious concerns regarding one particular services's science and
technology program, and the impact it would have on the other Services
and the defense technology investment overall. After asking Dr. Etter
to ``ride shotgun'' with me as we worked to get the country's science
and technology dollars back, I understood then why we would one day see
her before the committee again, as we do today. I was thoroughly
impressed with her dedication and commitment to building a true, long
term base for the development of science and technology programs. She
is a true advocate.
Dr. Etter understands that it should be a priority of the DOD, the
individual Services, and this committee, to maintain a strong, stable
investment in science and technology programs. Such an investment is
critical to develop superior technology that permits the U.S. to gain
military advantage today, provides flexible options to future
warfighters, and continuously hedges against technological surprise.
The military scope of our enemies will be forever changing--adapting to
create asymmetrical conditions of warfare that our current forces may
not be designed to address. Dr. Etter understands that our ongoing
efforts to maintain current advantages and military superiority must be
founded in strong and robust programs that embrace the investment and
development in science and technological initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, Dr. Etter served with
distinction as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and
Technology. She is also a member of the National Science Board, the
National Academy of Engineering, and the Defense Science Board, and
currently serves on faculty at the United States Naval Academy where
she was the first recipient of the Office of Naval Research
Distinguished Chair in Science and Technology. She has received the
Department of the Navy Distinguished Public Service Award, the
Secretary of Defense Outstanding Public Service Medal, and the
Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal.
One thing is clear--Dr. Etter is well qualified for this position.
She has the understanding, initiative, and leadership to serve with
honor as the next Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition. With that, I strongly endorse the
confirmation of Dr. Etter, and urge my colleagues in this committee to
vote favorably upon her nomination.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. I thought at this point in time I would
ask the first panel to introduce your families. Secretary
Young, would you kindly introduce your family and those
attending.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity. We made the choice to have my children stay in
school today. My wife Barbara is with me. I would also like to
note my extended family team here, who helped me recently to
work in the Navy on acquisition programs, Captain Jim
McManamon, Colonel Bill Anderson, and Daniele Wright, are
critical members of the team in acquisition in the Navy.
Chairman Warner. I think it is marvelous that you bring
your senior staff in. I always reflect on my time in the
building and what extraordinary individuals I had as senior
staff. I might say to those in attendance that both of my
executive assistants (EA) eventually became Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO). So there is hope afterwards.
Mr. Smith, I believe you have some guests.
Mr. Smith. My family is in Houston, Texas, sir. They could
not be here today.
Chairman Warner. All right. Well, they are here in spirit.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Etter.
Dr. Etter. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have members
of my family here. First, my husband Jerry. We have recently
celebrated our 38th anniversary. He was in the Air Force as an
officer for 12 years. My brother is here from Tulsa, Oklahoma,
Ron Van Camp. My daughter is on the west coast and has three
very young children, so she was not able to join us. But in her
place, I have brought some midshipmen from the Naval Academy.
The Naval Academy has a very wonderful program that matches
members of the local community with plebes or freshmen as they
come in, and these four midshipmen are some that we are
sponsoring.
I would like to introduce them to you. We have Will Snead
from Ohio.
Chairman Warner. If you gentlemen would stand, please, and
lady, stand, please. Thank you very much.
Dr. Etter. Carleigh Gregory from Virginia, Matt Nunez from
Ohio, and Matt Warshaw from Louisiana.
Chairman Warner. We welcome you. We congratulate you on
your appointments and your service to your Nation in the
Academy, and good luck.
I am going to pass over my material on Secretary Young. I
think I can just put it in the record. There is quite a bit
there. We are delighted, of course, to have this opportunity to
have you before us.
Mr. Smith, I enjoyed our visit, as I said very clearly. You
have an extraordinary career in journalism. You are very modest
about it. You have an Emmy Award, a winning television producer
with over 30 years of media experience. You served as senior
media adviser to Ambassador Paul Bremmer from 2003 to 2004, and
you are responsible for a developing state-of-the-art
communications facility in Baghdad for the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA). Mr. Smith worked to establish the
fledgling Iraq Media Network and was awarded the Secretary of
Defense Medal for Exceptional Public Service.
He has also given public service with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) in 2001, overseeing media coverage in
the aftermath of the terrorist attack in New York on September
11, 2001; and also with the White House staff as Assistant to
the President of the United States for Media Affairs from 1991
through 1992.
We thank you for your past service and your willingness to
continue that service. I think you are facing some of the most
challenging times in the contemporary history of our country
and your background reflects that you are able to accept that
challenge and meet it.
Dr. Etter, I so enjoyed our visit. You are no stranger to
the committee, having served from June 1998 through July 2001
as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and
Technology. You presently serve on the Electrical Engineering
Faculty of the United States Naval Academy as the first
recipient of the Office of Naval Research Distinguished Chair
in Science and Technology. This, according to my staff, makes
her a world-class ``wires'' professor, a formidable entity
indeed.
We get up here and we start reading these things and we do
not have the slightest idea of what it is all about. I happen
to have graduated from the Naval Research Laboratory here in
Washington, DC, and was awarded a third class petty officer
stripe in 1946. That is as much as I got out of there. But I
will look into this. Maybe I can go back and pick up mine. That
is pretty good. I like that.
I commend you for pursuing the technical challenge of
training. In our visit we exchanged our mutual concern for the
growing shortage of young men and women who are willing to
undertake the arduous task of pursuing technical studies,
whether it is mathematics, electrical engineering, computer
sciences, or the like, and at the same time nations in the
world, notably India and China, are far ahead of us in the
technical education of their young people.
Thank you.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you and let me join you
in welcoming our witnesses here this morning. I do know our
first nominee, John Young, from his work here in the Senate in
the 1990s: a professional staff member on the Defense
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. He is extremely
well-qualified, well-liked. I look forward to his being
promptly confirmed. I think we all know of his background and
of his competence and of his pleasant demeanor which Senator
Inouye pointed out. We are always delighted to have Senator
Inouye in our presence.
I am not familiar with either of our other two nominees, I
am afraid. I look forward to asking them some questions and
welcome not just the three nominees that we have here, but also
those who have accompanied the nominees--family, plebes,
friends, supporters, well-wishers all. They are all welcome and
they play an important part in this confirmation proceeding.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
As is the longstanding tradition of this committee, we ask
all our nominees, military and civilian, to answer a series of
advance policy questions. The nominees have responded to those
questions and, without objection, I will make the questions and
their responses part of the record.
I also have certain standard questions we ask of every
nominee who appears before the committee and would now ask, if
our two senior military officers would likewise stand so I do
not have to repeat this twice. If you would be kind enough,
gentlemen, to just stand in the background.
The first question: Have you adhered to the applicable laws
and regulations governing conflicts of interest.
Mr. Young. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Dr. Etter. Yes.
General Bell. Yes.
General Smith. Yes.
Chairman Warner. I note all agreed.
Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which
would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation
process?
Mr. Young. No, sir.
Mr. Smith. No, sir.
Dr. Etter. No, sir.
General Bell. No, sir.
General Smith. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record in hearings?
Mr. Young. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Dr. Etter. Yes.
General Bell. Yes.
General Smith. Yes.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to Congressional requests?
Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
Dr. Etter. Yes, sir.
General Bell. Yes, sir.
General Smith. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
possible reprisal for their testimony or briefings before the
Congress of the United States?
Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
Dr. Etter. Yes, sir.
General Bell. Yes, sir.
General Smith. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
Dr. Etter. Yes, sir.
General Bell. Yes, sir.
General Smith. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communications, in a
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee of
the Congress of the United States, or to consult with the
committee regarding the basis for any good faith delay or
denial in providing such documents?
Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
Dr. Etter. Yes, sir.
General Bell. Yes, sir.
General Smith. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I thank all witnesses.
Secretary Young, if you would like to make an opening
statement, we are delighted to receive it.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members
of the committee. It is a privilege to have the chance to
appear before you today as the President's nominee to serve as
the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. First, I am
most grateful to Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye for their
very kind introductions. These gentlemen have steadfastly
supported our Nation's defense capability because of lessons
they learned earlier, knowledge gained through dangerous
service and personal sacrifice. I was indeed fortunate to
follow their leadership and to learn from them as a staff
member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The Nation
has been most fortunate to benefit from their dedication of
their entire adult lives and their personal energy to keeping
America strong and free.
Chairman Stevens was the key advocate of my ability to
serve this administration as the Navy acquisition executive. I
am most grateful for this committee confirming me to that job.
Equally important, Chairman Warner, you and members of the
committee have provided tremendous support for Navy and Marine
Corps programs, allowing your naval acquisition team to resolve
many challenges and to make key changes in the acquisition
process. I have truly enjoyed this rare chance to serve.
As you warned at the first hearing, Mr. Chairman, the
Pentagon is inclined to demand long hours of those who work to
change and shape programs. My wife, Barbara, and my children,
Nathan, William, and Catherine have made my determined service
possible. Barbara has made sure that our household continues to
function and the kids make every game and lesson, even as she
works full time. I cannot serve without her support.
Chairman Warner. You might mention the names and the ages
of that family. This record is printed up, and I still have my
old, yellowed hearing record from 35 years ago when I sat in
that chair, and your kids might want to read about themselves
some day.
Mr. Young. I am very proud of my oldest son, Nathan Young,
who is 14, has passed his mom and insists on measuring every
day to see if he has passed me. My middle son William is 11 and
has a competitive intensity that is somewhat like mine. He is
determined to win and is convinced he will be an Atlanta Brave
in the future. My daughter Catherine is a brave and determined
soul. She broke her leg earlier this year when she was 7. She
is now 8 and fully recovered. Kids do get well and keep going,
and she is ready to go skiing again, I believe.
Thank you for that chance, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. I am truly honored to be nominated by President
Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld to serve as the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering, commonly called DDR&E. The record of
accomplishment by individuals previously serving as DDR&E makes
the task of upholding that tradition daunting. However, if
confirmed I will work with determination to shape and guide our
investment in the future and our Nation's defense capability.
The Nation currently faces threats across a broad spectrum,
from nation states developing peer capabilities to terrorist
organizations harnessing available technologies and
unconventional techniques. The task particularly before the DOD
research and engineering team is to apply the same available
technologies and, where necessary, harness American know-how to
devise new concepts in order to defeat the threats the Nation
faces today and the threats that we may face in the future.
We must undertake this work with urgency. The men and women
who are prepared to sacrifice for this country deserve
absolutely no less. If confirmed, I will seek to meet this
challenge, relying on the ingenuity of scientists and engineers
in the government, industry, and academic communities. We will
seek to accelerate the development and delivery of
capabilities, working to facilitate action and to avoid the
friction and inertia of the current process.
The support of this committee and Congress will be
essential in any effort to enhance our current processes and
pursue our strategic goals. I am grateful for your
consideration of my nomination, and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. It was
an excellent opening statement. I am so glad that you
acknowledge the important contribution of your family. I feel
that is true both of the civilian structure in the building as
well as the military structure, and at every turn I welcome
references to that support, which is absolutely essential.
I would only say to you and those in attendance, every
decision made after 8 o'clock in the Pentagon is reversed
usually the next morning. Get them home.
Now we have Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank President Bush for having the
confidence to nominate me and Secretary Rumsfeld for the
opportunity to serve. It is an honor for me to be considered
for such an important position. The challenges facing public
affairs at the DOD are great. Events of the last year have
demonstrated that the role and responsibilities of the U.S.
military around the world are expanding. Whether fighting the
global war on terror, responding to natural disasters like
Hurricane Katrina, or the earthquake in Pakistan, the men and
women of our Armed Forces are on the front lines.
I believe they represent the best of America. Effectively
telling their story has become essential for our National
security. Communicating their varied missions in an open,
honest, and transparent way is both a challenge and an
opportunity. If confirmed, I will strive to use all the
resources, assets, and expertise of the DOD to further the
goals of our Armed Forces.
I thank the committee for its time and consideration of me
for this unique position.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
Dr. Etter.
Dr. Etter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a special honor
for me to be here today. I thank President Bush and Secretary
Rumsfeld for nominating me for this position and for the
opportunity to serve my country if confirmed.
Growing up in a small town in Oklahoma, I would never have
imagined I would be sitting in this room preparing, if
confirmed, to accept responsibility for the Department of the
Navy's research, development, and acquisition programs. I am
here today because of the wonderful university system in this
country that opens its doors to anyone willing to work hard. I
am a product of the State university systems that are the envy
of the world. I attended Oklahoma State University, the
University of Texas at Arlington, Wright State University in
Dayton, and the University of New Mexico. I have been on the
faculties of the University of New Mexico, University of
Colorado at Boulder, and the United States Naval Academy. I
also spent a year as a visiting faculty member at Stanford
University.
Each of these schools has helped prepare me for the
opportunities that I have today. I recognize that educational
opportunities that I have had available are only there because
of the freedoms we enjoy in this country. To keep our democracy
strong, we must have a military that can ensure our national
security.
I am very proud to have had the opportunity as Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology to help make
sure this country has the technology edge it needs for the
future. If confirmed in this position, I look forward to
working to make sure the men and the women of the Navy and the
Marine Corps have the equipment, systems, and platforms that
will give them advanced capabilities to complete their missions
and to ensure our national security.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Dr. Etter. I am much
taken by that record of all your various academic posts. But
you are right in the front lines now. All of the theories, you
are going to have to put them to work or cast them aside,
whatever the case may be.
We will now proceed with 6-minute rounds of questions for
each member.
Mr. Young, I will ask that question which you have been
asked repeatedly for a very long time, and that is what do you
forecast for the ability of the Department of the Navy to get
adequate funds for shipbuilding, and how in your new post will
you help facilitate that challenge?
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, you know this almost better than I
do. Admiral Mullen, as the new CNO, has placed a priority and
that is the choice that will have to be made. A priority set of
choices will have to be made within the overall Navy enterprise
budget to ensure that adequate funds are devoted to
shipbuilding. Admiral Mullen and I have discussed this, and he
has agreed to take a hard look at some of the requirements
issues that have driven costs. So, in combination with setting
aside appropriate budget resources and keeping requirements
constrained, I think the Navy can indeed increase the
shipbuilding rate and deliver the fleet that the Nation
expects. It will take discipline to do that.
Chairman Warner. Well, I have my own theories, and that
is--and you can just listen to them; you do not have to comment
on it--I do believe that the situation is so serious--and I am
not faulting this administration, or the previous
administration. I am not into the political arena on this. What
is the latest count, 233 ships at sea, give or take a ship? Ask
the captain over there.
Mr. Young. Please.
Captain McManamon. 281.
Chairman Warner. 280?
Captain McManamon. Right, 96 at sea, 281 available for
deployment?
Chairman Warner. Well, all right. I looked at another
statistic. I think there are a lot of patrol boats you have in
there.
My point is I think that--and I intend to do this, take an
initiative with our distinguished President and suggest that
this requires a separate allocation of funding, quite apart
from the annual POM process, the division of funds between the
three military departments, and to begin a down to earth, long-
term shipbuilding program to try, not just to restore numbers,
but to bring the elements of the fleet up to where they can
continue to defend this Nation and our interests abroad.
Our concept of defense is basically based on forward
projection, as you well know, and that requires naval power any
way you look at it. So you will not be in the direct line on
that, but stand by.
Mr. Young. I am certainly, after 4 years, sympathetic to
your concerns and would be happy to talk to you, Mr. Chairman.
I think there are aspects of our budget process that do make it
a challenge to protect those resources, and so your initiatives
will probably be welcomed.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Turning to another subject which troubles us all, and that
is the improvised explosive device (IED) problem, which is
growing, maybe not in numbers of incidents, but the
consequences of the various ordnance packages being put
together now are just horrendous. They are defeating in many
ways all of our efforts to armor and up-armor and side-armor
and everything else our vehicles.
This committee, I am proud of its record, periodically,
about every 30 days, has a group over from the Joint Task Force
in the DOD, and I think we are scheduled here very shortly to
have another meeting. I would like to have your perspective on
this, and particularly in your new position, where you have the
reins of all of the research and defense capabilities of this
country in many respects.
Are we doing everything? Is there more that can be done?
Because these are just tragic types of injuries, and oftentimes
they are so serious that they make it difficult for us to
fulfill the missions that we have over there. Those of us who
have visited and continue to visit--I just returned here a few
weeks ago--I do not see any of the young people in uniform
flinching from going out and confronting this risk every day.
I just want to make certain that our technology base here
in America, manufacturing base, is doing everything possible to
address this situation.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, we are doing a great deal, but I
am not prepared to tell you there is not more that can be done,
and we will seek to uncover all those rocks. In fact, pending
in my office is an effort to buy additional jammers to deal
with an evolution of the threat, if you will, to avoid any
classified issues.
Under Secretary England's leadership, we created a year and
a half ago Operation Respond to try to equip the marines as
they went back into Iraq. We bought jammers in advance of the
requirement and the need to do that. A year or so ago we signed
for robots from the sources that were available that could go
out if we found the IEDs, to disarm them.
We have used our aircraft in the Navy, Growlers and other
aircraft, to find and, if possible, jam. I think people are,
with the help many times of the men and women in the field,
using every tool available to deal with this threat. It is a
difficult and agile threat. So we are going to have to keep
pace with it. We have used some special skills at the Naval
Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren, Virginia, their explosives
expertise, to understand how the enemy is building the devices,
how they are fusing the devices, so we are always knowledgeable
about what our challenge is to address the threat. I assure you
we will continue to push this very hard, because until we can
stop these losses we will not be ahead of this curve.
Chairman Warner. I visited Dahlgren here some months ago
and saw their work. I am curious. Has that, without identifying
it because it has a certain classification, but has that piece
of extraordinary equipment been utilized yet in the Iraqi
theater?
Mr. Young. Assuming we are talking about the same thing, I
did not mention that. I am glad you referenced it. My last
report is we are conducting some of the last rounds of testing
here in the U.S. to make sure we understand how it will operate
in theater and then preparing to get it into the theater.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
My time is up. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Secretary Young, there has been a suggestion made by
a number of people that we modify the acquisition process to
include the service chiefs in the acquisition chain of command
for major defense acquisition programs. What is your position
on that?
Mr. Young. Senator Levin, I thank you for the chance on the
advance policy questions to comment. I very much thank you for
the chance to comment now.
I believe the framers of Goldwater-Nichols were remarkably
prescient in putting a member of the President's team on the
buying side to represent the taxpayers and the citizens, and
they put the requirements function in the hands of the service
chiefs so they can set requirements, and there is a creative
tension, like the checks and balances throughout our
Government. So we have that dialogue to ensure we buy to
reasonable requirements that can be met by the technology, be
met within the budget, and represent the best use of the
taxpayers' dollars.
I believe pushing that function to the service chiefs poses
a great risk of increasing requirements, increasing costs, and
I believe it would be a disservice to the President, and I
oppose that.
Senator Levin. Dr. Etter, you would be involved somewhat in
that, too. Do you have an opinion on that?
Dr. Etter. I certainly support the answer of Secretary
Young. I think Goldwater-Nichols is the right way to do this,
and I look forward to continuing the work that Secretary Young
has set up in the Navy.
Senator Levin. Secretary Young, your predecessor does not
seem to have spent a great deal of time exercising oversight
over the activities of DARPA. It is officially under the
direction of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering.
There have been a number of concerns raised about the lack of
oversight over some of the DARPA programs, such as the Total
Information Awareness program, and the failure to ensure that
DARPA programs are consistent with and coordinated with service
research efforts.
What is your relationship going to be with the Director of
DARPA, if you are confirmed?
Mr. Young. Senator, in my time here in Congress I reviewed
the DARPA account and found it to be quite fun, to be honest
with you, to spend days combing through the technology. So
maybe to the anxiety of DARPA, I expect to go back to that
front and learn and grow and guide that program. It is
important for the director to be able to run the agency, but I
expect to exercise the DDR&E's role in guiding the priorities
and objectives of the DARPA program, and also working to ensure
that investment gets in the hands of the Services and,
therefore, the hands of the warfighter.
Senator Levin. Mr. Smith, you wrote a piece in the Wall
Street Journal a few months ago called ``The Enemy on Our
Airwaves'' which talked about an American who was taken hostage
in Iraq, whose name is Jeffrey Ake. A video of him in captivity
was shown on al Jazeera and then shortly afterwards the
American TV networks aired the same video. You called that a
vivid example of the ``ongoing relationship between terrorists,
al Jazeera, and the networks,'' using his words, the
``networks'' referring to the U.S. networks.
You made reference to that relationship in a number of
places in this article, that there is a relationship between al
Jazeera, terrorists, and the American television networks. You
then made the statement that ``Osama bin Laden, al Zarqawi and
al Qaeda have a partner in al Jazeera and, by extension, most
networks in the United States.''
That is a very serious allegation. Did you really mean that
there is a relationship between al Qaeda and the U.S.
television networks?
Mr. Smith. Senator, given the time that I spent in Iraq
from June 2003 to September--sorry, September 2003 to June
2004, when I was running the Iraqi Media Network, you learn how
the enemy operates from a communications standpoint. What I was
revealing there is a relationship that exists, that the enemy
is quite aware of and they use it, and they understand that if
they have a piece of video and they give it to al Jazeera and
it gets on al Jazeera, by extension it gets on the six major
networks in the United States. That is part of their
communications strategy that we saw time and again.
I was basically just revealing the nature of that
relationship.
Senator Levin. Does that make them a partner? Does that
really make the television networks of the United States a
partner of Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi and al Qaeda? Those are
the words you used, that they are a partner. I know they are
going to be used--if our enemy succeeds in using propaganda
successfully. Obviously, they are going to try to use whatever
tools they possibly can, including the fact that we have free
speech in this country and we have television networks that can
run whatever they want to run.
But does that establish a relationship between the U.S.
television networks?
Mr. Smith. There is a relationship that exists there.
Senator Levin. What is the relationship?
Mr. Smith. The relationship is a cooperative one where they
trade video. If al Jazeera airs something, they have access to
whatever it is that al Jazeera airs.
Senator Levin. Does that create a relationship in your
judgment?
Mr. Smith. I think it is a relationship. I think it is a
semantical debate, sir.
Senator Levin. You are going to play a very critical role,
if you are confirmed, in terms of information.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Our enemy obviously wants to use our freedom
for their own advantage. There is a difference between that and
characterizing, and, I think, mischaracterizing and unfairly
characterizing, that effort on the part of our enemy to use our
freedoms to their advantage and turning that into a
relationship between the television networks--and you name
every one of them--and our enemy. I think it is an unfair
characterization and it troubles me if it implies anything in
terms of what your view is of your role as running information
for the DOD.
Mr. Smith. Well, if I may, sir, the larger point that I was
making, is that the United States Government--and I wrote this
as a private citizen at the time. What disturbed me was the
manner in which this information would be shown on the networks
here and in the Middle East, and that our government needed a
policy that was consistent in dealing with al Jazeera, that as
we were fighting a war on the ground we needed to also
recognize that there is a war of the airwaves, and it is one
that we should engage in.
Senator Levin. Does our Government run the networks?
Mr. Smith. No, I was saying that as it relates to dealing
with al Jazeera--which I was in Iraq, we dealt with this. For
instance, in Baghdad we had a rapid response team so that when
al Jazeera would put out information that was incorrect and
other news organizations who they were involved with would come
and ask us whether it was correct or not, we had the ability to
tell them whether it was correct or not. I was basically making
that point, that the Government needed a policy of dealing with
all the information coming out of the Middle East and in
instances where it was incorrect we should have a policy of
dealing with that.
Senator Levin. Promptly responding to information and
propaganda.
Mr. Smith. That we needed to do that, yes, sir.
Senator Levin. I could not agree with you more. That is
very different from labeling our networks as partners with our
enemy and saying that they aid and abet our enemy because they
make private decisions, uncontrolled by our government, as to
what to run on those networks. I think it is a very serious
mischaracterization. It is troubling to me if it suggests what
your approach is going to be to information, if you are
confirmed in this position. I hope it does not reflect that
approach because, as you pointed out in your opening statement,
you think that it is important that the missions and our
activities be reported in an open, honest, transparent way, and
that does not mean labeling people who run pieces of tape for
our networks, who are free to run under our Constitution what
they choose, for you to label them as aiders and abettors or as
partners with our enemy. It seems to me that is an unfair
labeling of people who are engaged in providing news to our
people.
I will leave it at that. But again, I am troubled very much
by that article.
Thank you.
My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Let me just give you a different perspective, Mr. Smith,
since Senator Levin brought it up. I quite frankly do not agree
with him on that. It shows that in this panel up here you have
Senators that are not in lockstep with each other. We do not
agree all the time.
I can tell you right now, if there is one thing that
bothers me more than anything else it is the bias that is in
the media. I think it is very serious and I think we need to
talk about it. I think most people in my State of Oklahoma have
heard me talking about it long enough that they understand what
is going on over there.
I would have to say that I was very proud. First of all, I
probably have been in Iraq more than any other member of this
committee. I suggest that is the case. Just about every month I
go over there, and I think it is a responsibility of this
committee to see what is going on over there and to get an
accurate picture of it, because I find that those individuals
on this panel that are most critical of the war itself are the
ones who do not go over there and spend the time with the
troops.
Now, the comment was made about aiding and abetting the
enemy. Let me just read something. One of my favorite people
that I ran into over there was this Lieutenant Colonel Tim
Ryan. I have been using this, and I have talked to him about it
over there as he was leading troops in and out of battles. He
said:
``The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world
view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further
erosion of international support for the United States' efforts
there and the strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and
recruiting efforts''--``the strengthening of the insurgents'
resolve and recruiting efforts, while weakening our own.
Through their incomplete, uninformed, and unbalanced reporting,
many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding
and abetting the enemy.''
I would suggest that maybe if you said it or did not say
it, that is not as important as the fact that those troops who
are in the field fighting for their lives and the freedoms of
the people over there, they are using that language. It is very
strong language.
I would also say that the insurgents are benefiting from
that. We have a letter that we intercepted from bin Laden's
deputy, Zawahiri, which was sent to the leader of the
insurgency in Iraq, Zarqawi, that says: ``I say to you that we
are in a battle and that more than half of this battle is
taking place in the battlefield of the media.'' They are
winning that battle, and we have to do something about it.
First of all, let me just ask you a question. I think we
would all agree, whether or not we agree how bad the media is,
we would all agree that we need to get the real story out
there. Do you have any new ideas on how we might be able to
accomplish that, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Senator, if confirmed I would like to return to
the region.
Senator Inhofe. You were there for what, 9 months?
Mr. Smith. I was there for 9 months, from September 11,
2003, to June 2004, and during that time built the filing
center for the international press, credentialed all of the
press, basically connected Baghdad to Washington so that we
could communicate in an open and transparent and honest way.
From what I can gather, having not been back there, the
situation on the ground is certainly different. The
communications and how we communicate back from Baghdad, Iraq,
to here is different.
I do not think that I could make any assessment, without
going over there and physically seeing. As we saw yesterday
with the car bombs outside the Palestine and Sheraton Hotels,
the challenging situation that the journalists are in requires
us to figure out how to communicate with them in October 2005.
One of the highest priorities that I would have, would be to go
there and see exactly how information is getting out, how the
briefings are going, how the credentialing process is, and the
danger at the checkpoints in moving journalists.
All of these issues I think are best understood by going to
the site and seeing precisely what the issues are and then
trying to recreate in some way the ability to work with the
journalists there so that the story that exists there is
getting out in a real-time basis.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I would hope so. What I try to do,
Mr. Smith, when I go is concentrate in certain areas. A few
trips back, I spent the whole time in the Sunni Triangle
because that is where supposedly, they hate us the most. I
would mention a couple little anecdotal things and maybe ask
you how we can get this out so that people can know what is
going on.
One would be in Fallujah, where we had a former brigade
commander for Saddam Hussein who had hated Americans, until he
started training his Iraqi security forces with our marines.
Now, as a result of that he learned to love the marines and
love the American people and the freedoms that we are bringing
to that country. Right in the center of Fallujah, he told me
that when they rotated the marines out, he said, we got
together. They had been involved in embedded training. He said:
We actually cried together at the time they left.
Now, that story, nobody ever hears things like that. Over
at the same time in Tikrit, when they blew up one of the
training centers and there were 40 people either killed or
injured badly, and each family of each person who was killed or
injured supplied another family member to go in and be trained
for them.
Stories like that, that need to get out, how can we get
those stories out?
Mr. Smith. Well, I think one way would be to reinvigorate
the embed program. I think the logistical and physical
difficulties in a place like Fallujah for a correspondent in
Iraq is overwhelming. Without military help, without the
Defense Department assets, it is very difficult for them to get
in a car and go to Fallujah and cover a story like that without
risking their lives, because the security situation is what it
is.
I think we have to analyze the security situation as it
relates to the communications environment and see what we can
do to get these stories out in an open and honest way and in a
timely fashion.
Senator Inhofe. Somehow shame the press into repeating some
of these stories.
Well, my time is not quite up. I would like to show you
something to demonstrate the bias of the media. To put these
numbers in perspective, and I want you to look at this, the
number of editorials--this is talking the New York Times and
the Washington Post--since March 2004 about the U.S. detainee
policies, including Abu Ghraib, were 90, 9-0, 90 editorials.
The number of editorials since March of 2001 about the
beheading of hostages by terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, such
as Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, only eight. Eight editorials
concerning that and 90 concerning perhaps what a lot of people
like to think are abuses that we are responsible for. Now, I
can assure you that they love that over there, to use that in
Iraq.
Lastly, one of the terms that I coined at this table during
one of these hearings to show you that the troops do listen and
are alert, I referred to the cut-and-run caucus is alive and
well, and one of the troops came up to me last week while we
were watching night operations. They said: Well, I can see in
Washington the cut-and-run caucus is alive and well, but it is
nice to see we have someone on our side up there on the Hill.
Well, these things need to be talked about, and I applaud
you for what you have done so far and you have a big job to do
that. Maybe the rapid response can be sophisticated and
enhanced in some way that it can do a better job.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We could have a lengthy discussion here about our various
perceptions of what constitutes bias in the media. I find for
myself and I believe others that bias is in the eyes of the
beholder. We tend to believe that the media that presents
stories differently from how we perceive them is biased and
that present stories that are consonant with how we perceive
things are of course accurate.
I am more than not impressed with the media and the courage
that it takes for journalists, print, television, you name it,
to be over in Iraq and often giving eyewitness accounts of
battles in Fallujah and other very dangerous places. It may be
that their perspective from that particular vantage point is
slightly skewed one way or another, because they are reporting
accurately what is going on. That may not be representative of
the entire picture, but in a free country that is their
obligation, to report what they see, what they can find, and to
do so as objectively and honestly as possible. Our democracy
depends upon that, whether we agree or disagree with every
particular story or every particular editorial.
I will say without being hard-pressed, I think the media
has done and continues to do a remarkable job of telling us
what we cannot see, because we cannot be there every day. They
are risking their lives in the process of doing so along with
our incredibly courageous men and women in the Armed Forces who
are doing the same.
Mr. Smith, I would like to ask you about information coming
to our particular committee. We have struggled in this
committee, I think members on both sides of the aisle, because
I do not think it is a partisan issue, to get accurate
information. For example, the strength of the Iraq indigenous
forces, the number of uparmored vehicles that are being
produced, that are over in Iraq, that are not. We get
conflicting information or contradictory information.
How can you help us to get accurate information and assure
us that, especially when you are representing the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD), and I am respectful of that, we are
going to get accurate information?
Mr. Smith. Senator, I look forward to working with this
committee in a timely and open manner, and I would like to
establish the kind of relationship where you think that you are
getting the information from the DOD; in those situations in
which you feel like, for whatever reason, that information is
not forthcoming, I will do my level best to solve that problem.
Senator Dayton. Do you consider it part of your
responsibility, sir, to assure us to the best of your ability
that the information we are being provided is accurate?
Mr. Smith. Absolutely.
Senator Dayton. Okay.
You would not hesitate to either contradict that or to go
back and get better information if you, even before it came to
us, believed that that was not fully accurate?
Mr. Smith. I would do my best.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
Secretary Young, I commend you for keeping your kids in
school as opposed to being here and for your dedication to your
family. I commend all three of you for your willingness to
serve our country and make the sacrifices, and your family
members who make those sacrifices, in terms of lost time with
you and the like.
Along the lines of what Senator Warner was exploring, how
do we improve defense research and engineering and transforming
that into equipment that can benefit our fighting soldiers? Is
there anything we can do in the Senate or in Congress to
accelerate that process? What can you do administratively to do
so?
Mr. Young. I think there are a couple of things that are
done now and may need to be done with more energy. One is to
better pair some of the research community with the people
buying platforms and programs and see if they can make plans to
insert those technologies where they fit or let the people that
are on that front line of delivering hardware help shape
investment areas where they feel they are short. That
connection is there, but not as robust in some areas.
Second, the budget process is going to be a challenge.
Today we are building the 2007 budget. The services finished
several months ago, so it is really in the hands of the OSD for
bigger level adjustments. But if you have a new technology that
could move on a 2-year cycle and you cannot get into the budget
until 2008 and so you will not have money until October 2007,
that is not very agile.
I do not know if we can solve that, but I do think we want
to talk to Congress about ways to be more agile, especially
against issues like IEDs, where if we see an idea we need to be
able to put money on it now, not in 2008.
Senator Dayton. I think that is an excellent point, and I
trust that you would bring those to our attention immediately
if we can expedite any of that.
Dr. Etter, I would ask you a similar question. What can we
do to expedite the acquisition of necessary equipment so our
fighting forces have the very best available at all times?
Dr. Etter. Senator, I think this is a very important issue.
It is always frustrating to have technologies that we are aware
of that we do not get out into fielded systems for our men and
women. I think this is really critical.
One of the programs that I have watched over the last few
years that I think is doing an excellent job is the Advanced
Concepts Technology Development (ACTD) program. This is the
ACTD program. That is one that works with prototypes and gets
them out into operational units and also has service buy-in. I
think that is a very good program.
However, it is not sufficient. There is still a lot more
that needs to be done and that is something that I will look
forward to trying to find some new ways to help improve the
technology transition.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
The distinguished Senator from Missouri.
Senator Talent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to add my voice to others thanking you all for being
willing to do this. These are interesting and difficult times
that we live in.
Dr. Etter, let me just approach you with my concern. I will
not omit the others. Mr. Smith probably would not want to
comment since it is not really his area, but Secretary Young
might. I am concerned about the industrial base and concerned
about whether we are approaching industrial base issues in an
intelligent and comprehensive way. Just as an example, we have
had about 400 foundries close in the country in the last 3
years. There are now only four in the country capable of
pouring specialty alloys and stainless steel castings to
precise military specifications. We all have a sense, I think,
that in other parts of the supply base as well, we are narrowed
down now to a pretty thin number of suppliers in many cases for
goods that we would say are pretty vital.
All this, I think, is sort of a gut feeling that we have
sitting here, and probably you have had. I bet Secretary Young
has had this concern in the back of his mind. It is a real
problem in the area of shipbuilding. You and I discussed this
privately a little bit, that because of various concerns as we
buy fewer ships that the industrial base is beginning to
disappear, which means we are not going to be able to buy more
ships if we decide to do that down the road or we are going to
have to depend on overseas suppliers, where there are obviously
some concerns.
A lot of our casting works, for example, have gone over to
the Chinese, and I do not think any of us feel comfortable with
relying on Chinese foundries for this stuff.
Are we approaching this systematically enough? Should we
come up with a list of areas that we really believe for
security reasons are so vital that in those areas we have to
sustain the industrial base? What do you think about that? How
high a priority is this for you?
If you want to comment too, Secretary Young, just based on
what you have done in the past, please do so.
Dr. Etter. Senator, I think this is a very critical issue,
and I think it is one that will be at the top of my list if
confirmed into this position. I think there are a number of
issues that relate to this. Certainly competition is one, that
as we get to fewer and fewer suppliers things become more
expensive because we do not have the competition.
I am also very concerned about single points of failure. I
think, as we have seen, it can be natural disasters or it could
be terrorist attacks, but I think we also have to be concerned
about having multiple sources of important capabilities or
products. I do not have specific comments at this point that I
can add, but I can tell you that this will be a very important
issue for me. I know that it is particularly important in the
shipbuilding areas.
Senator Talent. Maybe this is an area where each of the
acquisition assistant secretaries could come up with their own
lists and their own sense, and then the services could meet and
try and come up with some more comprehensive list of areas
where they have concerns. I believe that if we approach this in
a more systematic way, first of all we will have some sense of
security that we are doing something about it, and we will be
able to do it in the most efficient way also, because I am sure
a lot of these things are interrelated.
Maybe in some areas we have to rely on overseas suppliers,
but after we look at it and we make a judgment that they are
very secure, that we do not have to worry about that. It is
something we are getting from Britain for example--but right
now I do not have any sense that any of us have a good enough
handle on this.
Do you want to make a comment, Secretary Young?
Mr. Young. Senator, I certainly agree with your comments.
When the Department a couple years ago dealt with Buy-America
legislation and this committee was particularly leading the
effort to get that balance right, it forwarded to Secretary
Wolfowitz and institutions that we should look very hard to the
things that are critical to our ability to operate and
understand domestic supply aspects of that.
We learned some lessons in the early stages of Operation
Iraqi Freedom, and so I think that work has been started, but
needs to be brought to greater light. Then we will have to see
how we make those choices within the system, I and the
acquisition team feel intense pressure right now on price and
the perception that prices are too high in the face of
requirements that are very high. Those are extreme competing
forces when put together with the budget reality that make it
very hard to make those industrial decisions.
Some choices we will make in certain programs right now
will make those programs more expensive and they will have
industrial benefits. But it is hard to make those competing
forces and reconcile them, especially within the building and
here on Capitol Hill.
Senator Talent. One of the points that I like to make, Mr.
Secretary--to the extent that these security concerns or
prudential concerns really are valid--then at the end of the
day we should care about them from a budgetary standpoint as
well. Dr. Etter mentioned the importance of competition. If we
make a mistake in this area and there are vital supply lines
where we are hostage to some other competitor, it is going to
end up costing us a lot more money. I am just convinced of it.
Or if we have to scramble to rebuild the industrial base at
a certain point, we will be throwing money at it. I have seen
this in so many areas. I have been around here long enough now
to see this, that short-term concerns about the budget can
drive you to take measures that end up costing you more, as
well as imperiling your security. If we have some kind of a
systematic overlay on all of this, it will help protect us
against giving in to those kind of short-term concerns.
I hope you feel that way, Dr. Etter, and that you will work
within the system. It could be a real lasting contribution that
you make, assuming that you are confirmed, to the security of
the country, and I am sure that you will make others as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator, I would like to associate myself
with your observations. You have been one of the most steadfast
proponents of shipbuilding on this committee and continue to
express very forthrightly your views.
Senator Talent. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not have a home
State interest in shipbuilding directly.
Chairman Warner. No, last I saw there is no dockage in
Missouri.
Senator Talent. No, no. I have been very forthright on
that, because we are always accused here of just trying to
protect our home State interest, as if that is a bad thing, by
the way. That is sort of why we are here. I wish people would
understand that people in the military supply business can get
to us because we represent them, and they see all this on the
ground, and a lot of them are real patriots and, apart from
their own business, they are worried about the long-term
ability of our industry to supply our needs.
I think all of us up here share this. We could end up
getting caught. I do not want to be in a situation where we are
running short on something, and we cannot get it because the
Chinese decide they are not going to send it that week. We
could be there.
I appreciate your leadership and Senator Levin's on this as
well.
Chairman Warner. Well, we thank you very much.
We will now go into a second round of questions.
Dr. Etter, have you had the full opportunity to express
your views, subject to confirmation of course, with regard to
what you hope to do regarding shipbuilding? It is clearly a
matter that is very much before this committee, and I just want
to make sure the record has all your thoughts in it at this
time.
Dr. Etter. I do understand that shipbuilding is going to be
a very important part of my responsibilities. I have talked to
a few people about this issue, so I understand some of the
current issues. I know the concern about that really relates to
the previous discussion of making sure that we have sufficient
capacity as needed.
I am looking forward to the results of the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR), because I think that will give some
guidance in this area. I am also looking forward to meeting
with Admiral Mullen and understanding his views and
requirements in this area. With the understanding of that and
some of the acquisition reforms that I hope I am able to bring
to the Department, I know there are some studies being done
now. Retired General Kadish, is leading a study. I am hoping
that some of the recommendations that will come out of the
study will be ones that I will be able to take to heart and
apply to this issue. I know it is an important issue and it is
one that I am going to look at very closely, if confirmed.
Chairman Warner. I thank you for that. I notice that in the
advance questions you suggest, ``challenge industry to maintain
the efficiency required to compete in the commercial sector by
transitioning as many shipbuilding contracts as possible to
fixed-price type contracts.''
It is well known that the United States shipbuilding
industry is almost entirely supported by the Navy and the Coast
Guard. Just the wage scales make it exceedingly difficult for
these yards, other than the military and the Jones Act, to get
competition in this area.
But try hard.
Dr. Etter. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. All right.
Mr. Smith, we discussed in my office the concern that I and
members of this committee have regarding the protection of
journalists as they are embedded with our forces in the various
areas of conflict the world over, as a matter of fact. I
frankly think that embedding is a good step forward in the
profession, and I support it, and I think the journalists,
although we can argue about what they wrote and what they did
not write, but by and large they are accepting hardships and
risk commensurate with those in uniform.
I think this subject requires your immediate and personal
attention. I provided you with letters that have been forwarded
to me by very responsible individuals making, I thought, a
strong case for the review. I brought it to the attention of
Generals Abizaid and Casey on their recent visit here in the
United States when they briefed Congress and appeared before
this committee. They assured me that they, independent of the
Secretary of Defense, would also initiate reviews on it.
I think the record should reflect a little bit about your
concern because you have done some study on this subject.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir, thank you for the letter. I read it
last night, and it would be part of the mission that I would
undertake if confirmed to go to the area of operation and meet
with the journalists and find out firsthand what we can do to
ensure their safety or make their ability to get in and out of
places in a more secure way.
I recognize the severity of the lifestyle that they have in
covering the story and I think I would, as we did when we
served with the CPA, take the necessary steps to try to
accommodate them as much as possible.
Chairman Warner. I thank you for that. I look forward to
working with you.
Showing my generation, we talked a little bit about Stars
and Stripes. I sort of grew up with that editorially
independent newspaper; it has been published continuously since
1942 in Europe, 1945 in the Pacific. We used to refer to it as
the hometown newspaper because that was about all we had a
chance to get in some of those locations.
There is some effort afoot to make Stars and Stripes
available to servicemembers stationed in the United States.
Now, if this is a subject with which you have no familiarity, I
suggest you wait until you have had an opportunity to study it.
Mr. Smith. I would like to look into that in the future,
Senator.
Chairman Warner. That is a very good answer.
I think it is of value to the folks back here at home. I am
not sure just what the financial situation is that would
require that to be made available here. The fact that you will
look into it, I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. We are due to have a vote, I say to my
colleagues. But, I see Senator Thune here.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we are going
to be moving toward a vote here pretty soon, and so I will not
prolong it.
Chairman Warner. Take your full time, Senator.
Senator Thune. I appreciate that. I want to welcome our
nominees today, and I appreciate your willingness to serve and
echo what I am sure has already been said about the important
work that you will be doing and that is ongoing with our
military in the various theaters of operation.
I had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Smith in my office
here recently and one of the many issues and many challenges I
think that we face in places like Iraq right now is this whole
ability to be able to communicate the good work that our troops
are accomplishing there. One of the things I hear more than
anything else in visiting with our service personnel who have
been on the ground in that theater is that they do not believe
that the good work that they are doing is fully appreciated by
the American people, principally because a lot of that is not
effectively communicated.
I know you will undertake to do the analysis of how we can
best report and inform the American people about the good work
that is being accomplished there. I appreciate some of your
comments and observations about that the other day in my
office, and I want to let you know that we are fully supportive
of and interested in any efforts that you can make in that
regard, and I want to thank you and the other nominees for
their service.
There are, of course, many of us who day-in and day-out, in
this committee and throughout the entire Congress, are very
interested in the progress that is being made in Iraq and
Afghanistan and are very grateful for the service of our
troops. We had a couple of South Dakotans just in the last week
who were killed in different theaters of operation. Those are
very difficult in any circumstance and the loss of life is
always tragic. We want to make sure that it is not in vain and
that the goals that we are striving to accomplish there are
being achieved.
I do not have any questions in particular at this time, but
I want to again extend our support to you as you begin to
undertake the jobs that you have in front of you. I know that
you appreciate the enormous responsibility that comes with
that. We hope that as you begin to undertake those
responsibilities we will continue to make good headway in the
objectives that we are trying to achieve in those various
theaters of operation.
Thank you again for your willingness to serve your country
in this capacity, and we look forward to working with you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Etter, on the shipbuilding issue, many members of this
committee and the Senate and the House have expressed concern
about the relatively small number of ships that we are building
each year. You have been asked about that. This problem is
going to get worse because of the cost overruns. The budgets
are not being lived up to with the Navy in terms of
shipbuilding any more than they are with other major weapons
systems, by the way. The ships are not unique in this regard.
What do you believe that the Navy and the DOD should do to
try to get the cost of the shipbuilding programs under control?
Do you have any recommendations for them?
Dr. Etter. Senator, I have a few general comments in this
area. I think that as one looks at programs that are going over
cost and over budget there are often some common things that we
note. For example, many times we are trying to put technology
into the programs that is not mature enough yet. I think one of
the areas that I intend to look at closely is the technical
maturity of capabilities that we are putting into systems.
I think another area that I plan to look at closely is the
software area. As you look at systems today, often the software
comprises as much of the system as the hardware. I think
looking at how we might be able to do software in a more
disciplined way so that we can reduce some of the costs and the
schedule overruns caused by its development will be another
area I am going to look at.
I understand that a key responsibility in my position, if
confirmed, will be to figure out how we do a better job on
schedule and cost. There are a number of areas that I plan to
look into to do that. Thank you.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Secretary Young, there was a reference made to the
manufacturing and industrial base and how it is so important to
our security that it be strong. What steps do you think should
be taken to ensure that the manufacturing and industrial base
is sufficient to meet our future needs in the Department?
Mr. Young. I think at least a couple of ideas are on the
table and there may be more beyond that if I am confirmed in
the job and have a chance to work the issue. I am aware of a
recent Defense Science Board study that talks about the need
for science and technology investment in manufacturing
technology to help the Nation's competitiveness, to help lower
the costs of weapons systems, the issue you have raised. I have
seen an initial brief of that and want to get more details on
it, but I do believe there is an opportunity to make an
investment in this area in technologies that can enable us to
lower the costs of our systems and that technology can be
adapted in other places in industry for the benefit of the
country.
Another area of investment here is understanding what
technology areas and what elements in the industrial base are
critical to us. Seeing what is possible within the rules and
the requirements, because at the end of the day, as Secretary
England says, we can really only buy to the requirements. But
if the requirements support it and if we can understand better
going into it, we can make some strategic choices that will
help that industrial base stay healthy. We have sought to do
that in several programs in the Navy.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Smith, going back to this article which you wrote, one
of the comments that you made had to do with Qatar and the fact
that they reportedly provide $100 million a year to al Jazeera.
Then your questions are: ``Does Qatar's funding of al Jazeera
constitute state sponsorship of terrorism?'' That is the
question you asked. What is your answer to that question?
Mr. Smith. Sir, I just posed the question as to whether or
not the funding of a network to the tune of I think it is over
$100 million, that obviously has a collaborative relationship
to some degree with terrorists, did that not mean there was
some relationship between that government and the terrorists
through al Jazeera?
Senator Levin. Do you have an opinion?
Mr. Smith. It an interesting, irrefutable fact that if the
$120 million that was being given to al Jazeera went away, that
al Jazeera would not exist the way that it does today. That is
the point.
Senator Levin. But do you have an answer to your own
question, whether or not the funding by the government
constitutes state sponsorship of terrorism? Do you have an
opinion on that question which you asked?
Mr. Smith. I do not at this time.
Senator Levin. All right. You asked another question: ``As
long as al Jazeera continues to practice in cahoots with the
terrorists while we are at war, should the U.S. Government
maintain normal relations with Qatar?'' Do you have an opinion
on that question which you asked?
Mr. Smith. Not at this time.
Senator Levin. Do you have an opinion as to whether we
ought to maintain our forward headquarters of the Central
Command (CENTCOM) in Qatar?
Mr. Smith. Not at this time. I think we should maintain our
CENTCOM headquarters.
Senator Levin. In Qatar, even though they provide support
to al Jazeera? What is the basis for that? If they may be
sponsoring terrorism by providing funding to al Jazeera, how in
heaven's name would you think we ought to maintain our forward
headquarters there?
Mr. Smith. My position in public affairs would not have any
relationship to where our troops are deployed.
Senator Levin. Yes, but you are not in public affairs yet.
Mr. Smith. Sir, and when I wrote the piece I was a private
citizen, in April 2005.
Senator Levin. That is why I am asking your opinion as a
private citizen.
Mr. Smith. Pardon?
Senator Levin. That is why I am asking your opinion as a
private citizen. Do you believe as a private citizen, which you
are, that we should maintain our forward headquarters in Qatar?
Mr. Smith. As a private citizen I do, yes.
Senator Levin. Even though they provide $100 million plus
to the people who are in cahoots with terrorists?
Mr. Smith. I do, yes.
Senator Levin. Why?
Mr. Smith. I think that there are other ways to deal with
the Qatar-al Jazeera relationship other than where CENTCOM is
based.
Senator Levin. I am troubled by your answer here today to
my question about whether or not the U.S. television networks
have a relationship with terrorists, the named terrorists that
you mentioned: Osama bin Laden, al Zarqawi, and al Qaeda. Your
answer to my question whether they are partners is that there
is a relationship between al Jazeera and the networks. But you
do not answer my question as to whether or not you believe as a
private citizen it is a fair characterization to say that our
television networks are partners with Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Smith. I said they are partners with al Jazeera.
Senator Levin. You said that ``Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, al
Qaeda have a partner in al Jazeera and, by extension, most
networks.''
Mr. Smith. ``And by extension.''
Senator Levin.--``in the United States.''
Mr. Smith. That is correct.
Senator Levin. Do you think that is a fair
characterization?
Mr. Smith. I think that is the truth, sir. They have a
relationship with al Jazeera.
Senator Levin. By extension, you think it is a fair
characterization that therefore they have a partner in our
networks?
Mr. Smith. I think they have a relationship with al Jazeera
and al Jazeera, I believe, has a relationship with terrorists.
Senator Levin. I am just asking you whether or not you
think that was a fair characterization, your statement?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Levin. Is it also fair to say that the networks aid
and abet terrorism by showing film that they have shown?
Mr. Smith. I think it is fair to say that the terrorists
understand that by having film shown in al Jazeera it will then
be shown on the networks.
Senator Levin. Do you think it is a fair characterization
now to say that the networks aid and abet terrorism by showing
that film?
Mr. Smith. I do not.
Senator Levin. What did you mean, then, when you said
``What if one of the networks had taken a stand and refused to
air the hostage video on the grounds that it was aiding and
abetting the enemy, and that from this point forward it would
not be a tool of terrorism propaganda?''
Have you changed your mind since you wrote that?
Mr. Smith. I was raising the point that you never know
where this video comes from and that the networks--just simply
because it plays on al Jazeera does not mean that it should
necessarily play on any given network.
Senator Levin. My last question. It has to do with what is
paid for by the United States and what the government does
control here, and that has to do with the Armed Forces Radio
and Television Service (AFRTS). Our regulations require that
that programming be characterized by fairness and balance in
terms of political programming.
Have you looked at the talk shows which are carried by the
Armed Forces Radio Network?
Mr. Smith. Not since I have returned from Iraq, Senator.
Senator Levin. When you were there did you look at them?
Mr. Smith. Periodically, they were on one of the monitors
in my office, yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Do you think it would be a fair balance to
only run conservative talk show hosts and not progressive talk
show hosts? Would that represent, if it is true, a fair
balance?
Mr. Smith. I did not.
Senator Levin. I am not asking you what you did then. I am
just saying now. I am not saying that you had anything to do
with this. I am saying right now, and you are not in the
decisionmaking process right now. If right now, the AFRTS only
runs conservative talk shows, not progressive talk shows, would
you consider that to be a ``fair and balanced presentation''?
Mr. Smith. I would have to look at the overall program
schedule for AFRTS and, if confirmed, I would do that and try
to make a determination if that was the case.
Senator Levin. If it were?
Mr. Smith. I think that I would apply the directive, which
says AFRTS should be fair and balanced, and I believe in that.
That is what it should be, and if it was not, I would do what I
could to make it fair and balanced.
Senator Levin. I thank you.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin.
It is the chair's desire to have this panel remain and,
upon the return from our vote, I will ascertain if there are
Senators who are now voting, have not been here this morning,
and desire to ask questions. We will proceed to the second
panel as quickly as we can, and thank you very much.
We stand in recess until the call of the chair.
[Recess from 10:55 a.m. to 11:12 a.m.]
The committee will resume its questions with the first
panel. We recognize two colleagues that have joined us, but I
see the Senator from Maine, who is a very distinguished member
of our committee and an authority on shipbuilding. You have
before you two very valuable sources of information.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. These
witnesses are of particular interest to me, and I appreciate
the opportunity to join you today.
Secretary Young, I want to begin by wishing you well in our
new position. We have had a great deal of contact over the past
few years in your role as the chief acquisition officer for the
United States Navy. I have not always agreed with your
decisions, but I have always appreciated your candid,
straightforward responses to my questions.
Dr. Etter, we face a lot of challenges with shipbuilding.
We have seen a decline in the number of ships that we are
building. We are seeing costs go up, due in my view in part to
the instability in the shipbuilding budget. We also face a
problem within Congress in the way that we fund ships.
Have you looked at alternative strategies for funding
shipbuilding that would allow the costs to be spread over a
number of years, rather than fully funding a ship upfront in 1
year?
Dr. Etter. Senator, I have looked at some of the different
ways that people have suggested we might be able to do
shipbuilding and in particular, multi-year strategies. I think
those ideas look very promising. If confirmed in this position,
this is one of the things that I expect to look at very
closely, because I understand the importance of shipbuilding,
not only to the Navy but to the country in terms of national
security. I will be looking very closely at various ways that
we can work this issue.
Senator Collins. I believe that if the shipbuilders could
be assured of a steady, even flow of funding that would allow
them to better plan their workforce, that not only would it
bring much-needed stability to the industrial base, but it
would also lower costs to the Navy and ultimately to the
taxpayers. I hope you will work with the distinguished chairman
of this committee and all of us who have this as a goal. This
can be a win-win for the Navy, for the taxpayers, and for the
shipbuilders if we bring stability and predictability in the
funding streams that support shipbuilding.
Dr. Etter. Thank you. I look forward to doing that.
Senator Collins. The second issue that I want to raise with
you was an ill-conceived strategy by the Navy, from the Navy,
to move to only having one shipyard build the DD(X). This
winner-take-all strategy would have jeopardized at least one of
the two major surface combatant shipyards, possibly Bath Iron
Works in my State, or Ingalls Shipyard in Mississippi.
It is my hope that the Navy, having looked at the effects
of a natural disaster on the Ingalls Shipyard, has thought
better of pursuing a one shipyard strategy. I believe that the
impact of Hurricane Katrina on the shipyard in Mississippi
demonstrates the folly of the Navy relying on only one shipyard
as a source for the DD(X) or for any other ships that are vital
to our naval capacity.
Are you familiar with the controversy over the winner-take-
all, one shipyard strategy advanced for the DD(X) and with
Congress's great concern and efforts to dissuade the Navy, both
through conversations and legislatively, from pursuing that
strategy?
Dr. Etter. Senator, I have not been briefed on that
program, and so I would not be able to respond directly to it.
I do understand the concern about a single shipyard and the
vulnerabilities that that poses. It is an issue I am going to
be looking at very closely.
Senator Collins. Well, I look forward to talking with you
in more depth about that strategy. Many of us had advocated
last year and had warned that it would be a mistake for the
Navy to rely on a sole supplier. I think that the recent tragic
events of Katrina have demonstrated that our warnings were well
taken.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank the Senator from Maine, and I am
glad you brought up that concept of the two-yard industrial
base. I think we have to keep a watchful eye on that here in
this committee as we go along.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. The distinguished Senator from New York.
The Senator from Minnesota has had the opportunity for one
round. He may seek other.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the
nominees. I want to especially express appreciation to Mr.
Young, whom I have enjoyed working with in your previous
position as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition,
and appreciated greatly your objectivity and fairness in
deciding a number of contentious contracting issues, including
the Marine One contract.
Your new position, Mr. Young, will place you in a critical
role to help define the DOD research agenda. As you may know,
the Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, New York, is a world
leader in the development of revolutionary cybersecurity
technologies, and I would like you to know you are invited to
come up and visit Rome Labs for yourself and to see what we are
doing in cybersecurity.
My invitation is related to a larger concern I have about
the direction of funding for science and research within the
DOD. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, otherwise
known as DARPA, has seen some significant cutbacks in the last
several years. The Department's science and technology programs
are absolutely essential and what they have historically done
is to make investments in our Nation's universities and
innovative high tech small businesses in areas such as
robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and the
like, and we have obviously seen the results of that research
grow into new capabilities that have been proven effective in
the global war on terrorism, operations in Iraq, and elsewhere,
but also in the civilian world with the spinoffs.
That is why I am concerned that the Department seems to be
systematically underinvesting in fundamental and long-term
research programs. The Department's science and technology
request for 2006 was down $2.8 billion from the 2005
appropriated levels and even $28 million below the original
2005 budget request. In fact, the request is so low it has
triggered a congressionally-mandated Defense Science Board
review of the effects of these lowered science and technology
investments on our National security, and I look forward to the
results of that review.
But I think it is important that we stop a minute and think
about the consequences of these cutbacks. Of particular concern
with respect to how DARPA is being treated is that we used to
have a division between applied research in DARPA and more
innovative, almost blue sky research. In fact, much of the blue
sky research is what it is most famous for, and the spinoffs
have fueled the economy, not just our National security and
military capability.
The National Academy of Sciences in a recent report
requested by the committee recommended that DOD begin to try to
redress the imbalance in its current basic research allocation.
I have been surprised to have members of the information
technology community come and express their concern. They do
not have any stake in the DARPA research, but they know how
essential it is to keep our overall national research and
science and technology edge.
So the Defense Science Board has raised concerns over
DARPA's funding of computer science, and that it is
particularly concerning because DARPA has further limited
university participation in its computer science programs,
including non-fiscal limitations, such as the classification of
work in areas that were previously unclassified, precluding
university submissions as prime contractors on certain
solicitations, reducing the periods of performance to 18 to 24
months.
This kind of short-term focus is not conducive to
university programs to address broad fundamental technological
and scientific challenges, especially when we know that
research in computer science will be at the very core of
networkcentric warfare. So I would hope, Mr. Young, that you
would look into this and, assuming that you are confirmed, that
you would take this as a very serious charge, because we just
had another study by the National Academy of Sciences that
basically said the United States is losing its technological
and scientific leadership, and that is going to have long-term
consequences, certainly for defense, but also for our standard
of living and our economic prosperity.
I do not have a question so much as a plea, that we try to
address this, because we are moving further and further behind.
The last point that I wanted to make really goes to Mr.
Smith. I know before I arrived there were some questions by
some of my colleagues about the diversity of opinions that
should be part of the free exchange of information and ideas in
our society. It is, after all, one of the hallmarks of who we
are as a Nation. It is what we fight for. It is what we stand
up for.
I was recently concerned to see that what I thought was
going to be the addition of diversity to Armed Forces Radio
with the addition of a different voice than Rush Limbaugh, who
has been on for years, with the addition of Ed Schultz, who is
a very funny and quite provocative and effective raconteur, was
pulled. It seemed a little suspicious to many of us because it
followed his making fun of the staged press conference with the
soldiers in Iraq and the President.
I do not think that our Armed Forces would be surprised by
making fun of that. We know enough about what they see and how
they view the world. It was disturbing because it seemed like
it was an act of censorship, in effect. Certainly, as long as
Mr. Limbaugh has been on, I do not know anybody who has tried
to take him off, and he has said outrageous things about many
people with no foundation in fact over many years.
I would hope that decision would be revisited and that we
would, not just in word but in deed, demonstrate our commitment
to diversity of opinions inside and outside our military, and I
think at least to better decisionmaking.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, do you have further
questions for the panel.
Senator Levin. One additional question about embedded
reporters with the military units, Mr. Smith. What are the
rules relative to access to classified material for the
embedded reporters?
Mr. Smith. I am not familiar with them at this time,
Senator.
Senator Levin. When you were in Iraq that was not an issue?
Mr. Smith. No, sir. The embeds had pretty much gone out of
business, which is one of the problems. By the time I got
there, the embed program had been dismantled, I believe.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Well then, that raises an interesting
question in itself. If the embed program, as we learned during
the early part of this conflict, is abandoned, what has taken
its place to permit the journalists to pursue their
responsibilities with equal vigor as they did when they were
embeds?
Mr. Smith. Senator, I believe that there are from time to
time embeds with various----
Chairman Warner. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Smith. The program that ran through the taking of
Baghdad by the time that we got there with the CPA--we did some
individual embeds, but as I recall it was not a robust program
the way that it was before. It is one of the things that I
would like to look at if I am confirmed and try to
reinvigorate.
Chairman Warner. Today the assignments over there are just
as tough, if not tougher, than they were when they were
accompanying the troops on the early initial thrusts up to
Baghdad. So in my visits I have seen them at all the forward
areas that I visited here recently. So if they are not
embedded, they are there under some other statue.
Mr. Smith. I will look into it.
Chairman Warner. Now, colleagues, I would like to proceed
to the second panel. Hearing no desire for further questions, I
thank each of you. There will be additional questions coming
from members and the record will remain open for some 48 hours,
and we ask that you reply to those questions as quickly as
possible. Thank you very much. We have had an excellent hearing
and I again commend each of you for undertaking this additional
chapter of public service.
We will now proceed to the second panel. [Pause.]
Thank you very much, gentlemen. At this time I wonder if
you would introduce to the committee those distinguished guests
that are accompanying you.
General Bell.
STATEMENT OF GEN BURWELL B. BELL III, USA, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, UNITED NATIONS
COMMAND/COMBINED FORCES COMMAND, AND COMMANDER, UNITED STATES
FORCES KOREA
General Bell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I might
introduce my wife Katie, my partner of 36 years, since I came
into the military from college, and she is seated right here
behind me. We have had a wonderful, wonderful marriage over all
these years in the military, and I am very proud of her. She is
probably the greatest patriot in my family, and I look at
myself as a pretty good patriot. She is a terrific American.
If I might just introduce quickly two other members of my
party: Lieutenant Colonel Chuck Sexton, one of my military
assistants. Chuck commanded an infantry battalion in Baghdad
recently and has come to work for me in Europe. Lieutenant
Colonel Dave Toczyk, who served on the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) International Security Assistance Force
staff in Kabul, Afghanistan, and is also on my staff in Europe.
I just want to thank them for their service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Do you wish to make mention for the record
of other members of your family who cannot join today?
General Bell. Mr. Chairman, my son was not able to join me.
He is dealing with a hurricane in Florida. He and his wife live
in Tampa, and I believe would have been here could they have
made it, but they are still in Tampa today, sir.
Chairman Warner. Well, thank you very much.
Now, General Smith.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. LANCE L. SMITH, USAF, FOR APPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, UNITED STATES JOINT
FORCES COMMAND AND SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER TRANSFORMATION
General Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to introduce my wife Linda. She has been with
me actually for longer than 37 years. We got married in
college. I married a much younger lady, I will tell you that. I
have two great sons, both of whom are in Wilmington, North
Carolina, in the computer business. They are looking at trying
to deal with Wilma as it comes up the coast after just skirting
Tampa right now.
Chairman Warner. Probably making more money than you ever
will.
General Smith. Sir, each one of them is doing that.
My wife is the daughter of an Army officer. I am the son of
an Army officer. My father and mother were marines in World War
II.
Chairman Warner. Extraordinary.
General Smith. Then he did the Montgomery GI Bill and then
came back in the Army. I regret that I have no Navy in my
blood, but I am from Virginia, sir, so I hope that helps.
Chairman Warner. Yes, you made that very clear. But you
will be splashing around in a lot of salt water down in the
Norfolk region.
It is interesting, for the record, Senator Levin, he is
going to occupy the Virginia House on that historic row of
homes there on the naval base in Virginia. That house, I say to
your wife, I have been a guest in many times over the years,
and I actually had a little something to do with patching it up
once. But it is a tiger to deal with. Good luck.
General Smith. If confirmed, sir, we look forward to that.
Chairman Warner. I am sure. That is wonderful. Well, I
thank you very much.
Both of you came into our United States military during the
Vietnam era, with General Smith actually serving as a combat
aviator and General Bell going over to face the Warsaw Pact in
the Cold War. So both of you are warriors in your own right and
throughout your careers the extraordinary accomplishments each
of you have, and I commend the President and all those for
finding such extraordinary two men who are willing to stay on
with their families and continue in public service in very
challenging positions.
Again back to you, General Bell. You have a distinguished
history of assignments, including Command of III Corps in Fort
Hood, Texas, from August 2001 to 2002, Commander of the Army
Armor Center, Fort Knox, July 1999 to 2001; served as executive
officer to the Commander of CENTCOM during Operations Desert
Shield and Desert Storm--is that not interesting--and as an
assistant division commander of the 1st Infantry Division and
chief of staff of the U.S. Army Europe forward headquarters in
Hungary during Operation Joint Endeavor in the Balkans. An
extraordinary record.
Likewise, your record is equally extraordinary, General
Smith. One of the Air Force's most distinguished combat pilots,
having earned the Silver Star flying over Vietnam in the A-1
Skyraider. We visited together about that aircraft. I was not
in a flying status, but they were in our squadron in Korea. It
was the A-1, the same model that you had.
General Smith. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. It could carry a lot of ordnance.
General Smith. It sure could.
Chairman Warner. Commanded two fighter wings and led two
air expeditionary deployments in Southeast Asia. During our
office call, General Smith admitted to being the last Vietnam
combat pilot still on Active-Duty. What about your colleague in
Turkey?
General Smith. Sir, he flew A-37s. I am the last Skyraider
driver on Active-Duty that I am aware of.
Chairman Warner. Skyraider. Well, the other plane had its
difficulties, too.
General Smith. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. We want to make sure, because I had the
pleasure of being with Senator Stevens when we visited his new
headquarters there in Turkey. A very outstanding gentleman.
Among your previous command assignments, you served as
Deputy Commander, U.S. Forces Korea, from 2001 to 2003;
Commander of the Air Force Doctrine Center, and Commandant of
the Air War College. Extraordinary.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just join you in
welcoming our two very highly-qualified nominees, welcoming
their families, their spouses and their supporters. Between
them they have 70 years of service to our Nation. Neither one
of them look that old, but it is a long time of service, and we
commend them on it.
We are fortunate to have officers like our two nominees.
This Nation is stronger because of your service and because of
the strength and the support of your spouses and your families
that made that service possible. So we greet you, we commend
you, and we look forward to your rapid confirmation.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
The Joint Forces Command, I watched the evolution of that
very important command over the years. Obviously we are
privileged to have it in our State of Virginia. As the Deputy
Commander of the CENTCOM, you have had opportunities to work
with this Joint Forces Command. You have a very distinguished
predecessor in Admiral Giambastiani, who is a man of just
unlimited energy, ideas, and vision.
How do you propose to meet these force requirements,
particularly the joint staff and other combatant commands, to
meet these force requirements that are facing you in this new
post?
General Smith. Mr. Chairman, that is certainly a challenge.
I have had the opportunity to be on the receiving end of those
forces and what Joint Forces Command has done in concert with
the Services. It has really worked hard to be able to provide
the kind of forces that can join in combat and be prepared when
they get there. A great deal of that has to be given credit to
Admiral Giambastiani, as well as the service chiefs, as it is
much better now than it was certainly when I first arrived at
CENTCOM.
Several things have happened that, if confirmed, I would
certainly continue and pursue even further. One is to try and
make sure that we identify the forces that are going to come
over to theater and the individual augmentees as early as
possible in the process, so that we have an opportunity to
train them, both as a unit and then as individual augmentees,
through some very innovative programs that have been developed.
One is the mission rehearsal program, exercise program,
where the unit that is coming over to take command, for
instance Multinational Corps-Iraq, goes through a simulation,
modeling and simulation, with the people that will actually be
going and taking part in leadership roles in Iraq or
Afghanistan. That is very effective and it allows them to find
gaps in their knowledge and to make sure that the people are
prepared for what it is that they are going to undergo.
There is also another program for individual augmentees,
which really assists those people that cannot take part in
those exercises in going through distributed learning and a
variety of other methods of distance learning to be able to
prepare themselves for the positions that they will take.
So as the joint provider, I think those are the critical
elements to make sure that we are getting the forces over there
that are trained and capable of performing the mission.
Chairman Warner. Also, the command has I think admirably
met the requirements for natural disasters, particularly
Hurricane Katrina. In the integration with the National Guard,
it had a heroic role in that situation, and the Reserve Forces
and other elements of our National power. I do believe that it
would be incumbent upon you to review early on what was right
about that operation and what needs to be corrected for the
future. Will you undertake that?
General Smith. Sir, I certainly will.
Chairman Warner. I will come back to General Bell.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
General Bell, the issues in North Korea continue to bedevil
us. Senator Clinton and I wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post
back in July suggesting that the administration inject some
greater urgency into the negotiations process, and it appears
now that there is such urgency that is being reflected. But the
problem is that time seems to be on North Korea's side in some
respects at least.
North Korea has likely continued to manufacture and
reprocess plutonium over the last 4 years since it walked away
from the Agreed Framework. The main advantage of that Agreed
Framework was that it froze plutonium and it put it under
safeguards. I am just wondering what your assessment is of the
usefulness of freezing plutonium production in North Korea? Is
that something we should strive mightily to achieve?
General Bell. Thank you, Senator. I think we should strive
mightily to denuclearize North Korea. I think that is
everyone's objective. It is certainly in the interests of all
the parties in northeast Asia and for that matter the world
community to see a North Korea that is at peace with its
neighbors, denuclearized, and without weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs). In that context, any effort that should be
brought forth to ensure that they could not in the future
prepare or bring forth nuclear weapons would be in all of our
interests.
Senator, I cannot specifically address the issue of
plutonium at this point. I would be happy, if confirmed, to
come back and give you some more details, but I do know that it
is in all of our interests to see a denuclearized North Korea
and a North Korea that is at peace in the world community.
Senator Levin. Thank you. What military confidence-building
measures do you believe might be available to be instituted
between the U.N. Combined Forces Command, us obviously, and the
North Koreans?
General Bell. Thank you, Senator. I think those are
important, that confidence measures be instituted. To a certain
degree, over the last couple of years we have seen confidence
measures. For example, since 1990 we have had a repatriation
program that has thankfully brought many Americans lost in the
Korean conflict home. Since 1995 we have had 38 teams that have
been given access to North Korea. Regrettably, those teams are
on hold right now pending further negotiations.
The activities between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and
North Korea to have cross-border engagements, whether it is
industrial engagement, family reunions, et cetera, I think, all
begin to build towards discussions, dialogue, and the
enhancement of confidence-building.
With all of that, nonetheless, I think the maintenance of a
strong deterrence with the full realization by all parties that
if deterrence were to fail that the alliance could defend the
ROK is vital. I would, if confirmed to this position, certainly
pursue along all avenues opportunities for confidence-building
measures, both militarily and, if I could assist and make
recommendations in other areas as well, while ensuring that we
maintain a strong deterrence and capability to defend.
Senator Levin. Relative to the need to maintain a strong
deterrent, there was the recent Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report that found that the readiness of our
prepositioned equipment in Korea was below what it should be.
In addition to that readiness problem, which represents an
operational risk and would reduce the ability to deter, the
report also highlights another problem which is of equal
concern to me, and that is that they are finding that the
internal readiness reporting systems were overstating the
readiness of our equipment and as a result, senior DOD leaders
and Congress received a misleading readiness picture.
I am wondering if you could give us your current
understanding of the status of efforts to improve the readiness
of our equipment and to address those other issues relative to
reporting which the GAO raised?
General Bell. Senator Levin, I have had the opportunity to
read that report, and it is my understanding from other reports
I have read that there was a significant value in the report
done by the GAO. Some of the Army prepositioned equipment--and
I believe that is what we are speaking about here directly--was
found to not be as ready as we had either hoped or perhaps even
reported.
If confirmed, the agency that is directly responsible for
the maintenance of that equipment, the Army Materiel Command,
in partnership with the Commander, U.S. Forces Korea, must
ensure that our prepositioned stocks are, one, ready, and two,
that everybody knows that they are ready.
In my past lives serving in the Army, I have had the
opportunity for my units to draw that very equipment and employ
it on exercises in the ROK and then return it to its
warehouses, and we found when I had the opportunity to use it,
to be in good working order. So the fact that it was found not
to be in tip-top shape is disturbing, but I would offer to you
that every report I have read since then is that the Army
Materiel Command and U.S. Forces Korea have ensured that the
equipment has been brought back to its proper configuration.
With respect, Senator, to reporting, one of the most solemn
responsibilities of military leadership is to ensure that we
understand the status of our forces across all the readiness
functions, whether it is materiel readiness or personnel
readiness or personnel training, report that fairly and
accurately to our superiors, and then get something done about
it.
Senator, if I am confirmed to this position I will maintain
that perspective. I will ensure that we report accurately and
that if we need help I will make sure that is well known. I can
assure you that I will be honest and forthright in my
assessments.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
My time is up. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank both of you for your extraordinary service
to our country and your willingness to continue. General Bell,
given your perspective on the situation in Europe and also now
in Korea, we have just gone through or are going through a very
difficult process, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), of
closing bases and consolidating in the United States. It was at
least my understanding from the outset in meetings with
Secretary Rumsfeld that the intention was to parallel that with
an international BRAC.
Do you think we have done or are doing all that we
reasonably can to consolidate bases and to reduce to a still
effective number the number of Active Forces we have in Europe,
Korea, and elsewhere in the world with which you might be
familiar?
General Bell. Senator Dayton, thanks for that question. I
am not an expert on anything, I suppose, but if there is
anything I could claim knowledge on it is this subject with
respect to Europe. We have an aggressive plan in place, and
properly so, to redeploy to the United States our heavy armor
forces that are currently stationed in Europe and are in many
cases deployed to Iraq, but nonetheless redeploy them from
Europe, to the United States and put them in bases as
adjudicated by the BRAC process here in the United States.
With respect to Army bases in Europe, we have had for the
last 10 years 234 separate Army installations. The plan that we
put forth for the near-term future will take that number down
to 88, grouped around, instead of the current 13 major
community hubs, 4 community hubs. So you can see in terms of
consolidation, we are going to experience in Europe about a
two-thirds reduction in consolidation of bases for the Army.
I would offer to you also, Senator, that in doing that it
is incumbent on us all to make sure that, first, we retain our
very best facilities. There has been a significant investment
strategy in Europe since the end of the Cold War, and we do not
want to walk away from those really good facilities that we put
a lot of money into.
Then we also want to ensure that as we fall in on these
main operating bases, that we provide our soldiers, our
families, our civilian work force, and for that matter the
entire military, with the best possible working, training, and
living conditions that the American military servicemember
needs and deserves, whether they are overseas or here in the
United States.
So we are aggressively pursuing a consolidation,
redeployment activity that will reduce significantly the cost
to the American taxpayer of maintaining this force in Europe.
Senator Dayton. What is the approximate time frame for
that?
General Bell. Senator, we have already begun. In fact, for
this fiscal year which has just started, by next summer one of
our infantry divisions, mechanized infantry, really an armor
division, First Infantry Division, flag will be returning to
the United States to, as I understand it, Fort Riley, Kansas.
So we are aggressively returning equipment to stocks, moving it
into the supply system so it can be refurbished if necessary,
for that armor division, which is one of the two divisions that
we are going to send back to the States.
We anticipate over 11 installations next summer alone being
shut down and put into the process of returning to the host
nation. The process has started.
We were looking at about a 10-year period to get all this
done in Europe. With the right amount of resourcing, with the
opportunities, and keeping in mind that we have to ensure that
the force participates in combat operations as it should, so I
cannot do some things while parts of the force are in Iraq, but
nonetheless I believe we can accomplish this in 5 years, not
10. The planning that we have done reflects a 5-year plan, with
the opportunity, if we cannot get that done in 5 years, to
stretch it a little bit. But I hope we can pull it off in 5
years, Senator.
Senator Dayton. Well, I thank you for the clarity of your
response. Thank you very much.
General Smith, in your response to the questionnaire that
you provided to the committee you say that the commander serves
as the chief advocate for jointness and interoperability to
champion the joint warfighting requirements of the other
combatant commanders, and then you delineate five major areas.
Compared to say 10 years ago, 15 years ago, how much progress
have we made in achieving that kind of interoperability? Where
are we in achieving progress, and what more immediately lies
ahead?
General Smith. Sir, I would say we are probably somewhere
along the 50 yard line, and when we started we were back on our
own goal line. There are still legacy systems out there that
anecdotally we have problems with, telephones that cannot talk
to one another and the like. We are not at the point yet where
a program as it is being developed is born joint, which is
where we are trying to get.
But clearly, we are much better at establishing standards
and architectures that as the services build their systems it
makes it possible to link and talk to other systems. That is
effective much of the time. It is not effective all of the
time. Part of my role should I be confirmed, is to try and move
that closer to the day when all systems are born joint and
those systems that exist out there can talk to each other and
operate together.
Senator Dayton. Recognizing that there is the chain of
command, are you still willing to bring to this committee's
attention and to Congress those areas that are deficient or
with recommendations for how we can act to streamline or
improve them?
General Smith. Absolutely, sir. In many cases it is through
you that we can make many of these things happen. I mean,
Goldwater-Nichols is a case in point.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
Senator Levin [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome both of you and also your wives. I note
that this is a joint service responsibility, and I appreciate
their service as well as yours.
General Smith, I appreciated the opportunity to talk with
you in my office last week. I have a special interest in Joint
Forces Command. I have visited Norfolk twice as part of my
participation in the Joint Forces Command's Transformation
Advisory Group, and I think that the command that you are about
to assume has a particularly critical role to play in
developing processes and technologies that support joint
operations.
I appreciated the candor that you displayed in answering
Senator Dayton's response, because I think the 50 yard line is
probably about right. I am not sure we can take another 10 or
15 years to get to the goal line, and I believe that we need to
hear from you after you have gotten your feet on the ground
about what more we can do to assist Joint Forces to moving some
of these critically needed technologies and components like
interoperability forward.
I also think our acquisition and procurement system could
benefit from a joint approach, and hope that you will consider
that issue once you are confirmed. I do look forward to working
with you in the future.
General Bell, I think that you have a particularly
difficult assignment facing you right now. We all know the
reasons. Senator Levin spoke in some detail about the nuclear
challenges we face from the North. But we also face a fraying
of our relations with the people of South Korea and their
understanding of the importance of our position there and what
we have done over so many decades to really provide them the
freedom that they have enjoyed to develop the economy that is
now providing so many benefits for the South Koreans.
In effect you will have a diplomatic role as well as a
military one. I know you understand how important that is and I
appreciate your taking it on.
I want to just follow up on some of Senator Levin's
concerns. In February, North Korea declared its self-imposed
moratorium--that its self-imposed moratorium on long-range
missile testing was over. On April 28, at a hearing of this
committee I asked Vice Admiral Jacoby, the Director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency, whether North Korea has the
ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device.
In your estimation, what is the best way to deter North
Korea from conducting long-range missile tests?
General Bell. Thank you, Senator Clinton. I think the first
and most important way is to ensure that the North Koreans
understand that our alliances are not just intact, they are
strong, and that the community of free nations led by the
United States is willing to defend our democracies, and that
for them to pursue WMDs, nuclear weapons, and missile
technology on which potentially these kinds of weapons could be
mounted is not in their best interests and certainly not in the
best interests of a peaceful world.
I think first we have to be strong in our own readiness and
our own capabilities. Second, I think we are properly
positioned to enter into a dialogue with the North Koreans
through the Six-Party Talks. These talks have been fruitful in
recent times. They represent all the countries that are most
engaged in this area of the world with respect to the
assurances of a peaceful and stable Korean peninsula. I think
our ambassador to these talks, Ambassador Hill, has achieved
great success recently. Everything must be verifiable and we
have to proceed forward, but I would say in the context of the
Six-Party Talks that the assurances that we both denuclearize
or that we see a denuclearized North Korea as well as a
standing down of the technologies, missile and otherwise, to
deliver these weapons is important, and that we should support
this process and ensure that it goes forward successfully.
Senator Clinton. Related to that, General, given North
Korea's record of proliferation of missiles and illicit trade
activity, what is the best way to deter North Korea from
selling nuclear material or technology to rogue states or
terrorist groups?
General Bell. Well, the best way to deter them, Senator
Clinton, would be to make sure that they do not have the stuff
to sell or to market. I would hope again that the Six-Party
Talks would lead to a regimen where these kinds of weapons
would be removed from the North Korean inventory. That is
first.
Second, we need to assure that our alliances, friends, and
partners around the world assist us in ensuring that not only
do they not participate in proliferation, but that they also
inform those who they have close contacts with not to do the
same. I think that the United States and all of our allies
around the world, friends and partners should draw a very sharp
line on this issue and ensure that we, first, state clearly
that we do not want them to participate in anything that could
proliferate these kinds of weapons. Second, if they do, we
would like to discuss that with them as to what it means to our
relationships.
From a military perspective--and I readily admit to you
that I have certain diplomatic roles. But from a military
perspective, my view would be to make sure that our alliance
with the ROK and the coalition members remains strong, so that
that piece of deterrence and defense if necessary is never at
doubt. I can assure you, Senator, that if I am confirmed to
this position that will be my focus.
Senator Clinton. I really appreciate that very much,
General, because I think we are at a critical juncture,
obviously, in our relations with the north, which is obvious
from the Six-Party Talks and the threats they pose, but I think
also with the south. I think that there is a lack of
understanding and a sense of almost historical amnesia that we
have to combat and make sure people understand what the stakes
are.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
Returning to a second round, General Bell, this committee
over the years has been very careful in its oversight of your
troop situation, the difficult conditions under which they
serve, and to the extent that they have accompanied families.
We have taken the initiative to help in the pay and benefits
arena.
I want you to have the opportunity to get over there and
make your own assessment, but I just want your commitment that
you would not hesitate to come before this committee if you
felt that there were situations that needed to be addressed
legislatively.
General Bell. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that I will do
that, and I appreciate you affording me that opportunity and I
look forward to having that opportunity in the future if I am
confirmed.
Chairman Warner. Now, our President and the Secretary of
Defense and others, presumably in consultation with the
Secretary of State, have determined they are going to reduce
substantially the troop level over a period of time. I hail
that. But under the current protocol, you are commander in
chief of United Nations forces, is that correct?
General Bell. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Should there be a tragic misfortune of
combat breaking out, you then become commander in chief of all
military, including South Korea; is that correct?
General Bell. That is correct.
Chairman Warner. To what extent--and probably you have to
wait until you get over there, but I want to raise this--are we
reviewing with South Korea, a very proud, strong, emerging
country and one that has invested so heavily in its national
security. I think the stabilization of the Korean peninsula is
in large measure due to the extraordinary--I think it is the
eleventh strongest economy in the world now. Is that a subject
that is under review at this time, that command structure?
General Bell. Mr. Chairman, the command structure between
the United States and the ROK, principally are the two parties
that we are talking about, is under review today and has been
over the years since we have entered into a treaty, a mutual
defense treaty, with the ROK.
If I might just for a second, Mr. Chairman, remind us all
that when we first entered into a more peaceful environment
following the armistice agreement back in 1953, at that time
the United States through various command arrangements
maintained command and control of not just our military force,
but also the ROK forces, even in peacetime. As we have moved
over the years and as their economy has improved and their
standard of living has improved and their ability to form and
train their military services has improved and they have in
fact produced a very top quality military, those command and
control arrangements have been reviewed and altered.
In fact, just several years ago the command and control of
the ROK military forces in peacetime was returned to the ROK,
leaving the United States' senior military commander, his
capacity as Combined Forces Commander, in charge or, if you
will, in the command seat during conflict or during wartime.
I think the issue for the future is, one, that our alliance
has to be maintained to ensure defense capability and
deterrence; and two, that we as good partners should continue
to look at command arrangements, as we do in our other
alliances. I would offer that, irrespective of what command
arrangements that we believe are best suited for the peninsula,
unity of effort will always be necessary. So whatever
arrangements are made in the future, if confirmed, I would
ensure that we were able to absolutely be very confident that
the unity of effort to bring military capability to bear would
not be compromised in any way, shape, or form. That would be my
area of focus, Senator.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, General.
I wish to say to both of you distinguished officers and
your families: Well done in the past, and I wish you the very
best for your pursuit of the next chapter of your distinguished
military careers. I have every confidence that you will fulfill
those missions with the dignity and professionalism that you
have had ever since you were second lieutenants. So I wish you
well.
Senator Levin, I am going to turn over this hearing to you
and take off.
Senator Levin [presiding]. Thank you. I just have a few
additional questions for General Smith and then we can recess.
Thank you.
General, this is a question that relates to your present
position as Deputy Commander of U.S. CENTCOM. I have some
concerns about the loyalty of the Iraqi army. We all have
concerns about how well and how speedily they are being
trained, and those have been well-discussed in depth--how
quickly, how many units of the Iraqi army and other security
forces are being trained. But I also have a nagging doubt about
the loyalty issue, so that we are not just training Iraqis, but
that we are taking the steps necessary by vetting to try to
assure that those forces will be responsive to the national
authority rather than to clerics, for instance.
Can you just share with us any concerns or thoughts you
might have on that issue?
General Smith. Yes, Senator Levin. We share the same
concerns. We are building a volunteer force over there, and it
is difficult certainly in the enlisted ranks to vet those
people that are coming to volunteer to join. Certainly, in our
anxiousness to get as many people on board as possible, there
is an opportunity for those that have different loyalties to
join.
Now, we use Iraqis to try and vet those people as well as
possible, but I have little doubt that we will not be 100
percent successful in that. We will have to rely on the
commanders, the noncommissioned officers (NCOs) that we are
building. We are taking special interest in vetting carefully
and then in training to ensure that their loyalties are to Iraq
and not to a tribe or an ethnic group or a religious group.
It is one of the reasons why building the leadership
structure has taken longer than we would have liked. I have
confidence that in the senior NCO corps, in the officer corps,
that, given the patience and the time being consumed on the
part of the Iraqis as well as the Multinational Force-Iraq,
that we will build an officer corps that is loyal to Iraq for
the most part.
We are going to have to rely on them to recognize those
folks within their enlisted ranks that are really not
supporting the cause.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
General, I understand that the Secretary of Defense
proposed to NATO that the chains of command for the
International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan be
merged with the U.S.-led counterterrorism force, but that a
number of NATO allies rejected that proposal. Does the
existence of separate chains of command in Afghanistan raise
concerns?
General Smith. Sir, it does. Our goal is to have a senior
U.S. officer, or coalition officer, who would be dual-hatted,
with a role within the NATO force over there and at the same
time a role through the CENTCOM chain of command that would
ultimately report to General Abizaid. I think that will
ultimately work, and we will work this through the NATO
structure to ensure that our red lines, CENTCOM's red lines,
are met.
Now, those red lines primarily are the freedom to maneuver
and be able to take on the counterterrorist fight and go after
al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and Zawahiri, those folks that are
operating primarily along the Afghan-Pakistan border.
In doing that, we absolutely recognize that we are going to
have to coordinate closely with the NATO folks. So we will work
through the various chains of command to ensure that we can do
that. We understand some of the nations' resistance to merge
the two because there are nations that do not want to get
directly involved in the counterterrorist fight, and we
understand that. We will work through that, Senator, and build
something that allows us to do the mission that we are required
to do.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Two years ago Congress gave JFCOM limited acquisition
authority on a pilot basis. You indicated in response to the
committee's advance questions that you would like to see
Congress extend and expand JFCOM's acquisition authority. DOD
has yet to specifically request any funding for JFCOM to
exercise this authority. I am just wondering whether you expect
that the Department will request specifically funding to
support JFCOM's acquisition authority in the 2007 budget
request?
General Smith. Sir, I do, if for no other reason than that
my predecessor is now the Vice Chairman, and it is on his list
to do. It is an issue that you have raised, that has the
interest of this committee, to make sure that we get
technologies rapidly to the warfighter. We have seen the
benefit of that from CENTCOM and I would hope that that would
be extended, yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Just one last question for you. What do you
see as the proper role for the JFCOM in training of our forces?
It is still primarily a title 10 responsibility of the military
services, but do you think that the JFCOM is doing too little
or too much to guide joint training at this time?
General Smith. Sir, I am going to have to spend some time
on the job to reflect on some of those issues. I clearly
understand the Service responsibility to train, equip, and
provide forces. What Joint Forces Command provides is those
lessons learned and those standards that they can train to, or
at least they can use in their training programs. Where we
focus our joint training primarily is in the joint task force
area, where the Services come together and where they have to
operate as a joint and combined staff.
In that area, we have made huge headway. How we interact
with and impact the Services is something that one of our great
senior mentors down there, General Gary Luck, and I had a
serious conversation about yesterday and about how to go about
performing that. Should I be confirmed, that is one of the
things that I will have to look at very early on.
Senator Levin. Fair enough.
The chairman was speaking for the entire committee when he
thanked you for your service, for your commitment, for your
professionalism. All of us look forward to your assuming these
new duties.
With that, we will stand adjourned. We thank your wives
again, too. That can never be said enough.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Hon. John J. Young, Jr.,
by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD)
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities
and the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These reforms have also
vastly improved cooperation between the services and the combatant
commanders in the strategic planning process, in the development of
requirements, in joint training and education, and in the execution of
military operations.
Have your views on the importance, feasibility, and implementation
of the Goldwater-Nichols Act reforms changed since you testified before
the committee at your confirmation hearing on June 27, 2001?
Answer. No, my views have not changed. I remain firmly committed to
the complete and effective implementation of the reforms brought about
by the Goldwater-Nichols Act.
Indeed, with regard to acquisition, I believe that Congress was
remarkably prescient and thoughtful in allocating responsibility for
requirements to the Service Chiefs and responsibility for acquisition
to the Service Secretariat. This allocation creates a creative tension,
which ensures competition and creativity as well as best value for the
taxpayer. I believe proposals to change this aspect of Goldwater-
Nichols by shifting acquisition to the Service Chiefs would be a
disservice to the President and our Nation's taxpayers. The debate over
requirements, technology, cost and capability should begin at levels
below the President and the Secretary of Defense. There is great risk
in such a change of even further overstating of requirements, growing
unfunded requirements lists, and further escalation in the cost of
weapon systems.
Question. Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-
Nichols Act provisions based on your experience as ASN(RDA)? If so,
what areas do you believe might be appropriate to address in these
modifications?
Answer. I do not see a need for modifications of Goldwater-Nichols
in the areas affecting acquisition. The civilian and military roles
defined in the act produce a healthy tension that balances warfighting
needs with taxpayer interests.
Based on my experience as the Department of the Navy Acquisition
Executive, I would be strongly opposed to recent studies proposing
modifications that would shift acquisition program management to the
Service Chiefs. For the sake of the taxpayer, there needs to be a
constant debate at all working levels between the acquisition team--led
by presidential appointees--and the requirements community--led by the
Service Chiefs and the Joint Staff. The debate should encompass
available technology, cost, affordability, delivered capability, joint
options, and alternative solutions.
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E)?
Answer. The DDR&E is the principal staff advisor to the Under
Secretary of Defense (AT&L) and to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary
of Defense for research and engineering matters. The DDR&E serves as
the Chief Technology Officer for the Department of Defense.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe that my responsibilities and service as the
ASN(RDA) coupled with my experience as a professional staff member on
the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee as well as experience
working in a variety of positions in industry provides me with a strong
and extensive background in research and engineering issues.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the DDR&E?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the current duties outlined in
DOD Directive 5134.3 DDR&E to ensure that the directive provides the
necessary authorities and flexibilities to develop research and
engineering opportunities to enhance military capabilities.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense will assign to you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Secretary to assign me duties
and functions commensurate with those of a Chief Technology Officer,
and any others as he may deem appropriate.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. Section 139a of title 10, United States Code, and DOD
Directive 5134.3 discuss the responsibilities and functions of the
DDR&E. Other sections of law and traditional practice also establish
important relationships outside the chain of command. Please describe
your understanding of the relationship of the DDR&E with the following:
The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Deputy Under
Secretary to provide advice and assistance commensurate with the role
of a Chief Technology Officer, including development of policies for
rapid technology transition, science and technology investment
priorities and funding levels, and current and future military
capabilities.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)).
Answer. The DDR&E is subject to the authority, direction, and
control of the USD(AT&L). If confirmed, I expect to be a key player in
Office of the USD(AT&L) and provide the leadership for the research and
engineering community.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to foster a close working
relationship with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to
ensure our research and engineering needs are synchronized across the
Department.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief
Financial Officer).
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer) to ensure investment
in research and engineering is in balance with the overall priorities
of the Department.
Question. The Service Secretaries.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to foster a close working
relationship with the military department secretaries to ensure their
research and engineering priorities, and technology investments are
supporting the overall Department goals and are in balance.
Question. The Service Acquisition Executives.
Answer. Research and engineering is the first step in the overall
acquisition process, so I view the Service Acquisition Executives as a
primary customer of research and engineering. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the Service Acquisition Executives on research and
engineering matters.
Question. The Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA).
Answer. If confirmed, I will exercise authority, direction, and
control over the Director of the DARPA and work with DARPA to ensure
their efforts are supporting the overall Department research and
engineering goals.
Question. The Director of the Defense Technology Security
Administration.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Director of Defense
Technology Security Administration on technological issues pertaining
to international acquisition and export activities.
Question. The Joint Staff.
Answer. Research and engineering provides new operational
capability options to the warfighter. I view them as another primary
customer of research and engineering. If confirmed, I will work closely
with the Joint Staff on issues relating to research and engineering
with the goal of understanding the requirements process and specific
capability needs in order to ensure our warfighters are affordably
equipped with superior warfighting capabilities.
Question. Director, Defense Test Resource Management Center.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Director, Defense Test
Resource Management Center to consider technology options and alternate
procedures for enhancing the test and evaluation of DOD systems.
Question. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Director, Operational
Test and Evaluation to consider technology options and alternate
procedures for enhancing the test and evaluation of DOD systems.
MAJOR CHALLENGES
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the DDR&E?
Answer. Major challenges to the DDR&E come from several different
factors that shape technology development. The first is to maintain our
superior warfighting capability in a fiscally constrained environment.
The second challenge comes from balancing near- and far-term technology
efforts to provide technology solutions to today's problems and new
capabilities for tomorrow's force. A third major challenge is the pace
and globalization of technology development. Finally, providing
technology to meet the immediate and future warfighter needs for the
global war on terrorism represents an urgent challenge. Across this set
of challenges, we must ensure the taxpayer's dollars are invested in
priority areas and provide a good return on that investment for the
Nation and our warfighters. If confirmed, I look forward to focusing
research and engineering efforts to identify and address these and
other emerging challenges.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would do my best to address the challenges
identified. As a starting point, I plan to review RDT&E programs and
processes with emphasis on coordinating investment strategies,
leveraging technology from all sources (including commercial), and
pursuing more effective transition of RDT&E results into affordable
acquisition programs. I will, of course, work closely with the RDT&E
community. I also expect to be an integral part of the Office of the
Secretary of Defesne (OSD) team and to work closely with the Joint
Staff, Services and Agencies, and Congress to get optimum value from
our RDT&E investments.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the DDR&E?
Answer. If confirmed and appointed, I will review the initiatives,
processes and performance of the DDR&E organization and the DOD
research and engineering enterprise in an effort to ensure that the
enterprise is best positioned to provide superior oversight and results
on the Department's research and engineering programs. Based on my
experiences, I believe that key challenges to performing the functions
of DDR&E are the budget process and its lack of funding flexibility,
the current requirements generation processes, the resistance to change
and greater jointness, and the need to attract, retain and empower
highly-capable people.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would do my best to position the
organization for success as expeditiously as possible.
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, I would develop and refine priorities to
address the major challenges facing the DOD research and engineering
program.
INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget request for science and
technology (S&T) is less as a percentage of the total Department budget
than the fiscal year 2005 budget request for S&T programs. The fiscal
year 2006 budget request for S&T is also below the previous year's
requested level and requires a certification to Congress in response to
fiscal year 2000 defense authorization legislation.
What role should the DDR&E play in the detailed development and
coordination of service and agency S&T investment strategies, programs,
and budgets?
Answer. The DDR&E must ensure that the Service programs are in
balance with the overall Department goals, must collaborate with other
Federal departments and agencies to ensure DOD programs are
complementary with other S&T programs in the Federal Government, and
must seek to balance S&T programs between competing near-term and long-
term needs.
Question. What, in your view, is the role and value of S&T programs
in meeting the Department's transformation goals and in countering
irregular, catastrophic, traditional, and disruptive threats?
Answer. The DOD S&T program has a long history of developing
superior technologies and capabilities to address the current and
future security threats. The Department's investment in S&T has
historically given our forces the technological superiority to prevail
over predicted threats and the agility to adapt quickly to
unanticipated threats. I believe this role is still valid in today's
strategic environment. As the pace of global technology availability
increases, with a commensurate increase in the pace of threat
evolution, the role of a well balanced S&T program is more important
than ever.
Question. Are there any S&T areas that you view as underfunded by
the Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review in detail the DOD S&T portfolio
to assess appropriate levels of investment for specific technology
areas. I expect to see shifts in S&T investments in response to
changing needs and opportunities on a continuing basis. Areas where I
see our needs increasing are in technologies that can help us defeat
the tools and tactics of terrorists and lower acquisition and life-
cycle costs.
Question. In your judgment, will the funding levels in these areas
affect the Department's ability to meet the threats of the future?
Answer. If confirmed, after the review of the DOD S&T portfolio, I
will take appropriate action, if necessary, to balance the investment.
I believe S&T funding is important to our future capabilities, and I
would be concerned if funding levels ever became seriously out of
balance with the rest of our Defense program.
BASIC DEFENSE SCIENCE
Question. A recent National Academy of Sciences study entitled
Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research noted that ``the
need for discovery from basic research does not end once a specific use
is identified, but continues through applied research, development, and
operations stages. . . . DOD should view basic research, applied
research, and development as continuing activities occurring in
parallel, with numerous supporting connections throughout the process.
. . . Senior DOD management should support long-term exploration and
discovery and communicate this understanding to its research
managers.''
Given the continuing nature of basic research and the broad
implications and applications of discovery-focused and innovation-
focused sciences, what criteria would you use to measure the success of
these programs and investments?
Answer. If confirmed, I would review the National Academy of
Sciences study to consider their conclusions and assess the benefits of
new measures and criteria. By its very nature, the output of basic
research is difficult to track. It may take many years to produce
results, it may be an apparent dead end that reappears in an unexpected
application, and it is almost impossible to forecast which of the seeds
we plant will bear fruit. In general, basic research output can be
measured in at least three areas: (1) New knowledge--publications in
reference journals, (2) Intellectual capital--students supported,
degrees awarded, (3) Tech transitions--new knowledge (scientific
findings) picked up in technology and development programs by the
Services and industry. One overarching goal is to ensure organizations
funded by DOD and the broader research community possess an
understanding of our broad areas of need. Effectively communicating
these defense priorities will provide a general direction from which to
pursue scientific discovery. If confirmed, I expect my additional
criteria will include measuring the quality of DOD-sponsored research
through the various peer reviews and external review panels the
Department uses and ensuring that our investments emphasize technology
areas where it is essential that DOD be the world leader.
Question. How would you determine whether there is an adequate
investment in basic research to develop the capabilities the Department
will need in 2020?
Answer. I'm not aware of any accepted formula for determining the
appropriate level of investment for basic research. I do however
recognize that past investments in basic research have been vital to
the warfighting advantage we have today. The appropriate level of basic
research investment today should be viewed with an eye on historical
impact, taking into account that stability of funding is paramount in
the effective execution of the basic research program. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with this committee to ensure that DOD S&T
investment is adequate and in balance with the overall DOD investment
strategy.
COORDINATION OF DEFENSE S&T WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Question. The DOD currently executes approximately 8 percent of the
total Federal basic and applied research portfolio.
Do you believe the mechanisms of coordination between Federal
civilian agencies and the Department are adequate to ensure that the
military can best leverage the advances of agencies such as:
National Science Foundation on defense needs for basic science?
Answer. Adequate coordination and collaboration processes appear to
exist. If confirmed, I will ensure that dialogue between the Department
and the National Science Foundation is open and transparent to our
decisionmaking.
Question. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on
hypersonics and other space research and the viability and availability
of testing facilities?
Answer. Adequate coordination and collaboration processes appear to
exist. If confirmed, I will ensure that dialogue between the Department
and the NASA is open and transparent to our decisionmaking.
Question. National Institutes of Health (NIH) on areas in which
military medical research and vaccine development overlap with civilian
medical needs?
Answer. Adequate coordination and collaboration processes appear to
exist. If confirmed, I will ensure that dialogue between the Department
and the NIH is open and transparent to our decisionmaking.
Question. Intelligence Community (IC) in setting defense research
priorities to prepare for future threat environments?
Answer. Adequate coordination and collaboration processes appear to
exist. If confirmed, I will ensure that dialogue between the Department
and the IC is open and transparent to our decisionmaking.
Question. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on homeland defense
and national security-related science?
Answer. Adequate coordination and collaboration processes appear to
exist. If confirmed, I will ensure that dialogue between the Department
and the DHS is open and transparent to our decisionmaking.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with other Federal
agencies and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to improve
coordination?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to keep an open dialogue
with other Federal agencies and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
DEFENSE LABORATORIES AND TEST FACILITIES
Question. The DDR&E is responsible for the oversight of matters
associated with research and engineering and the technical workforce at
Defense laboratories operated by the military services or other
Department components.
If confirmed, how would you work to ensure that the DOD
laboratories facilitate development of capabilities to meet the needs
of the acquisition and warfighting communities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support close collaboration between
the acquisition, technology, and operational communities to identify
current needs and to anticipate future operational needs arising from a
changing national and world security environment.
TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
Question. The Nation is confronted with a dispersed enemy which is
expert at using relatively simple, inexpensive technology to achieve
destructive and disruptive results. The committee has focused on
creative prediction of, and adaptation to, continuously changing
threats. Past investments in long-term research have resulted in the
Department's ability to rapidly advance technologies and solutions from
the laboratory to confront emerging threats.
What are the weaknesses, if any, of the current Defense S&T
strategic planning process?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the Department's S&T strategic
planning process to ensure continued consistency with broader DOD goals
and objectives as well as look for opportunities to inject technology
options into DOD plans as appropriate. As an observer and participant
in these processes, I can tell you one of the weaknesses in terms of
advancing technologies, especially in technology areas of rapid change,
is the lack of funding flexibility and the extended timelines of our
requirements and budget processes.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work to ensure that strategic
plans are utilized during the budget planning and programming process?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use the strategic guidance to work
with DOD components to align S&T investments in concert with DOD goals
and objectives.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the
last few years. The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget proposes
increases across a spectrum of technology transition programs.
Challenges remain, however, in integrating the transition of new
technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons systems
and platforms.
What challenges exist in technology transition within the
Department?
Answer. One of the principal challenges to transition is the lack
of funding flexibility and the extended timelines of our requirements
and budget processes. Successful transition requires an appropriately
mature technology, a user need, an insertion window in the program of
record and budgeted resources for implementation. This alignment is
hard to achieve and maintain, and the gap between S&T and acquisition
often needs bridge funding in the execution year. DOD has a limited
number of technology transition programs and amount of funding to
bridge these gaps, and we have used those tools effectively in recent
years.
The Military Services have made strides in focusing their S&T
investments on key gaps in their future core military capabilities, and
in accelerating critical technologies to end users. It remains a
challenge to preserve and apply resources to long-term technology areas
that promise substantial return beyond the current fiscal horizon.
Transition of proven technologies underpinning uniquely
transformational and joint capabilities also continue to be a challenge
demanding careful oversight.
Question. What is the role of the DDR&E in facilitating
communication between technical communities, acquisition personnel, and
end-users to speed technology transition?
Answer. DDR&E brings the overarching perspective to orchestrate
complementary technology development efforts and foster productive
interagency projects. With a view of research, development, and
engineering investments across the Department, DDR&E can bring diverse
projects into focus on specific evolving needs. DDR&E is a focal point
for rapid transition of technologies into fielded systems and an
advocate for innovative technical solutions to Defense-wide goals such
as energy independence. I would add the resource sponsor community to
that list, and state that the role of the DDR&E is to work closely with
all of those communities at the DOD corporate-level and at the Service-
and Agency-level to make sure our S&T portfolios include transition-
oriented investments and processes that bring the key stakeholders into
alignment with a transition agreement. In the Navy, we use a process
called Future Naval Capabilities. An important DDR&E role is to find
best practices and facilitate their broad implementation in DOD.
VENTURE CAPITAL STRATEGIES
Question. In recent years, several components of the DOD have
attempted to follow the lead of the IC by using venture capital firms
to make investments in developing technologies.
What role do you believe that venture capital firms should play in
DOD's investments in developing technologies? What advantages and
disadvantages do you see in the use of venture capital strategies?
Answer. Venture capital firms can provide DOD with additional
knowledge of innovative, emerging commercial technology areas relevant
to DOD needs, particularly in areas of rapid commercial innovation.
Venture capital firms can also provide early insight into technology
companies that might not otherwise engage with DOD, potentially
expanding DOD's sources for products and ideas. Venture capital firms
are good sources of technical and business judgment in the areas where
they invest, and are well attuned to where the commercial market will
be in a few years. It is important to note, however, that the venture
capital objective is to make money, while DOD's objective is visibility
of, and access to, emerging technologies. The various ongoing DOD
programs are all considered experiments, and DOD is investing at a
level that is very low compared to large venture capital firms. It will
take a few more years for DOD to understand the advantages and
disadvantages of the various strategies. I believe, however, that the
commercial success of U.S. venture capital firms is a strong argument
for continued DOD learning from the venture capital community. If
confirmed, I will review our strategies, and the terms and conditions,
for our venture capital and investments.
Question. Are there particular categories or types of technology
for which the use of venture capital strategies are or are not
appropriate?
Answer. Venture capital firms and strategies work well in
technology areas in which there are significant commercial markets.
Venture capital firms focus on portfolio companies that have high
commercial potential and on an exit strategy for investors to recoup
their investment in a few years. Prime technology areas are information
and communication technologies as well as biotechnology. Many DOD
technology needs may not present significant commercial opportunities,
and high profit margins are not consistent with current acquisition law
and regulations. DOD interaction with venture capital firms is likely
to be most appropriate in areas where we need COTS or COTS-derivative
solutions and want to be positioned to be an early adopter.
Question. When DOD does decide to use venture capital strategies,
what steps do you believe the Department should take to ensure that DOD
funds are invested in technologies and companies that properly reflect
national defense priorities, avoid the potential for conflicts of
interest by industry partners, and ensure that the Department's
investments are not diluted?
Answer. I believe there is significant value in communicating DOD's
operational challenges and technical interests to non-traditional DOD
supplier companies affiliated with the venture capital community and in
identifying and fostering adoption in the near-term of technology
solutions from non-traditional supplier companies. If confirmed, I will
explore means to ensure DOD Funds are invested in technologies and
companies that properly reflect national defense priorities, avoid
potential conflicts of interest, and ensure DOD's investments are not
diluted.
TANGO BRAVO
Question. The Tango Bravo program is a collaborative effort managed
by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Navy
with the goal of incorporating advanced technologies into submarines.
Some of these technologies, such as shaftless propulsion and weapons
exterior to the pressure hull, could enable development of smaller and
less expensive submarines, with equal or greater capabilities.
What is your understanding of the technical maturity of the
technologies being developed under the Tango Bravo program?
Answer. The technical maturity of the component technologies
varies. However, the integration of these technologies into systems
that meet the requirements for submarine use is relatively immature.
For example, much work has been done with electric motor technology to
make them smaller, lighter and more powerful. However, very little work
has gone into making them quiet and reliable enough in a harsh seawater
environment to be suitable for submarine propulsion or control
applications. Tango Bravo is looking to evaluate this in sufficiently
large scale to obtain credible results.
Question. When do you think some of these technologies could be
ready for design into a new class of submarine, or spiraled into the
current class of submarines under construction?
Answer. Tango Bravo is expected to produce measurable results in 36
months and conclusions in 48 months (i.e. by 2009). The final results
of the technology demonstrations will be carefully examined by the Navy
to determine the appropriate follow-on actions. Depending on the
success of the demonstrations and the follow-on development required,
2009 is the earliest that the technologies would be available for
inclusion in a design effort.
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COOPERATION
Question. What is your assessment of the value of cooperative
research and development programs with international partners?
Answer. As technology advancement becomes increasingly global,
these cooperative programs become increasingly important to DOD.
Question. In your view, what are the obstacles to more effective
international cooperation, and, if confirmed, how would you address
those obstacles?
Answer. International industry involvement is essential, and this
means that intellectual property control, export controls and other
business issues can become obstacles. If confirmed, I would look to
pilot programs with our allies to develop best practices.
Question. How will increased international technology cooperation
affect our domestic defense industrial base?
Answer. Our defense industrial base operates in a global economy
and will be strengthened by well formulated international technology
cooperation programs.
Question. How should DOD monitor and assess the research
capabilities of our global partners and competitors, and of the global
commercial sector?
Answer. This is an important issue for the 21st century, when we
can reasonably expect that many technical advances will originate
outside the U.S. I believe this is an issue of strategic importance,
and if confirmed, would look to the Defense Science Board or a similar
advisory body to take a fresh look at this long standing issue.
TEST AND EVALUATION
Question. Rapid fielding initiatives, spiral development, the
balance between operational and developmental testing, a reorganization
of the budgeting process for the major ranges and test facilities, and
requirements for joint testing strategies are a few of the challenges
facing the Department's operational, test, and evaluation activities
and the newly created Defense Test Resource Management Center.
What are your views on the adequacy and effectiveness of the
Department's test and evaluation activity?
Answer. Test and evaluation is a critical component of the
Department's research, development and acquisition process. It is
imperative that our test facilities, ranges, and processes provide the
best possible support to the development and fielding of our weapon
systems. I believe the Department's current test and evaluation
processes are adequate and effective. If confirmed, I would like to
evaluate potential improvements in developmental test and evaluation
efficiency.
Question. What is the impact of rapid fielding requirements on the
standard testing process? For small systems? For large systems?
Answer. Rapid fielding requirements have and will continue to
stress the standard testing process for all systems. However, rapid
fielding is imperative in our efforts to equip our troops with
unmatched capability and limit the risk posed by agile or asymmetric
threats.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the USD (AT&L) and the DOT&E
to ensure testing requirements are satisfied.
Question. What role should the Department's test and evaluation
organization play in setting criteria for listing of equipment, like
armor, in the General Services Administration (GSA) catalog?
Answer. Criteria for listing equipment in the GSA catalogue should
stem from input from all communities involved, including T&E, whenever
appropriate.
SMALL BUSINESS ISSUES
Question. The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program
accounts for approximately $1 billion in defense research grants
annually.
If confirmed, how would you work to ensure that the program serves
a useful purpose in meeting the Department's research goals?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my priorities would be to thoroughly
review the SBIR program and to evaluate any adjustments which could
enhance the value of SBIR investments to the DOD, our warfighters,
taxpayers, and the participating businesses.
Question. What guidance or direction do you consider necessary
regarding transition of the research results of these programs to major
weapons systems and equipment?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to encourage the transition
of successful SBIR projects through: conferences, such as the recent
DOD Phase II and Beyond conference which brought together successful
SBIR companies with major defense contractors and Service Program
Executives; and increased emphasis on Phase II transition through our
Phase II Enhancement Program. The DOD Phase II enhancement program
allows the defense component to provide additional SBIR funding when
the company attracts non-SBIR mission funds to transition research
results to specific systems. I believe the best practices that have
made the Navy effective in SBIR transitions could have benefits. These
include strong involvement by PEOs and SYSCOMs in defining SBIR topics,
training and assistance to small businesses to facilitate transition,
and holding forums to showcase SBIR products to acquisition programs
and other potential investors. If confirmed, I plan to conduct a
thorough review of the SBIR program to consider the adequacy of current
policies and evaluate enhancements to better enable transitioning
research and linking SBIR projects and participants with major weapon
system acquisition programs.
Question. What emphasis would you place, if confirmed, on
participation by the acquisition community in setting research
priorities for the SBIR and in accepting new solutions into existing
programs of record?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to actively involve the
acquisition community in identifying its research needs and transition
opportunities for all research including SBIR. I would expect to
increase the emphasis on SBIR coordination and linkage with the
acquisition community.
Question. In your judgment, are modifications needed to the
Department's SBIR program to ensure it meets the Department's goals and
is updated to support research costs of the small business community?
Answer. It is too early for me to make a recommendation. More study
is needed to formulate an opinion. However, one of my priorities, if
confirmed, will be to review all aspects of the SBIR program and
evaluate opportunities to improve the program's effectiveness.
Specifically, I want to review DOD policies and applicable statutes to
see if changes could further facilitate transitions and small business
opportunities. I see transitions and linkage of small businesses to
larger acquisition programs as a major benefit to both DOD and small
businesses. If confirmed, I will work with this committee and the Small
Business Administration (SBA) to address the fiscal factors impacting
the SBIR program.
TECHNICAL WORKFORCE AND LABORATORY PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Question. The Department's research and development laboratories
perform unique functions in serving national security missions and do
not readily fit into the general operational management structure.
Congress has enacted legislation granting special authorities to the
Secretary of Defense for flexible management and personnel
demonstration experiments at the laboratories and has exempted the
demonstration laboratories from inclusion in the National Security
Personnel System until 2008.
What are your views on the most effective management approach for
these facilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support continuation of approaches
that support and enable the operational excellence and relevance of our
laboratories to better meet warfighter requirements.
Question. In your view, does the Department have adequate technical
expertise within the government workforce to execute its designated
acquisition and technical development missions?
Answer. I believe the Department has adequate technical expertise
within the government workforce to execute its technical mission.
However, the demographics of our technical workforce suggest a large
number of retirements in the next 10 years. Thus, we must take
appropriate steps to address this issue and to assure that the
Department will have access to the scientists and engineers necessary
to maintain our technical expertise. I believe the current operational
superiority of DOD is a result of the continued technical expertise of
scientists and engineers in the U.S. If confirmed, I will work to
assure we have the right mix of talent, expertise, and skill to
continue to meet our needs in the DOD.
Question. What particular workforce challenges does the office of
the DDR&E have?
Answer. Replenishing the technical workforce as the current
scientists and engineers retire will be a challenge. As always, when we
replace those retiring from our current technical workforce we are in
competition with America's private sector. However, we now face an
additional challenge. America's students are not as interested in
science and engineering as they were almost 50 years ago. The number of
U.S. citizens choosing to study science and engineering in our
universities is declining relative to the numbers that we are educating
from other countries. Since most of our technical employees require
security clearances, we must assure the Defense Department can attract
sufficient numbers among those that can qualify for clearances.
Ensuring we have an adequate supply of technical talent to meet the
needs at the Department now and in the future remains a continuing
challenge to DOD. If confirmed, I will place a priority on addressing
this challenge.
DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD STUDY
Question. Have you reviewed the ongoing work of the current Defense
Science Board Task Force on the roles and authorities of the DDR&E? If
so, what are your views of this work and, if confirmed, how would you
plan to utilize the findings of the Defense Science Board Task Force?
Answer. I have not reviewed the ongoing work from the Defense
Science Board Task Force on the roles and authorities of the DDR&E. If
confirmed, I will review the findings and work with the leadership of
the DOD on determining what findings and/or recommendations should be
implemented.
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 DDR&E?
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 James M. Inhofe
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITIONS BUDGETING
1. Senator Inhofe. Secretary Young and Dr. Etter, I am concerned
about the state of our research and development and procurement and
acquisitions programs across our United Stated military. After our
country's victory in the Cold War, the Clinton administration reduced
our military appropriations excessively in search of a so-called
``peace dividend'', accounting for cuts of $430 billion from fiscal
year 1994-fiscal year 2001. In fact, after concentrating to keep the
former Soviet Union in check in the preceding 45-odd years, we should
have been steadfast in advancing our weapons systems to combat future
threats. Instead, in the National Defense Authorization (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year 1997 we had projected reductions of 25 percent of the
acquisitions personnel force over a 5-year period. This has put us
behind in acquiring new weapon systems which has narrowed the advantage
our military has maintained against that of other nations' armed
forces. This has resulted in systems that require far more maintenance
than is prudent in a war-time environment, decreasing the envelope of
safety for our warfighter.
Earlier this year witnesses such as General John Jumper and
Secretary Michael Wynne testified before this committee that one of the
reasons we are seeing delays and problems in bringing new weapons
systems online is because we have cut too deeply in the research and
development and acquisitions career fields. This cut excessively
reduced personnel whose profession is to shepherd these systems through
R&D to the acquisitions process, and ensure the systems meet the
military's specifications, budget requirements, and have a schedule of
bringing a system online while its technology still meets the threat it
was designed to combat. I'd like both of you to comment on the adequacy
of the R&D budget, personnel numbers for DOD, and in your case, Dr.
Etter, the U.S. Navy, and what Congress may be able to do to assist you
in your very timely role of recapitalizing our military, should you be
confirmed.
Mr. Young. Balancing the Department's competing resource
requirements within a constrained fiscal environment continues to be a
challenge. A strong research and development program is important to
maintain our technological edge. The Department strives to fund
research and development programs at a level appropriate to maintain
the technological superiority we currently enjoy.
Achieving this technological superiority requires innovation from a
stable workforce with science, math, and engineering skills. Several
trends show continued erosion of domestic production of scientists and
engineers to a point where the U.S. may no longer be the primary
innovator in several areas crucial to national security. To reverse
this trend, the Department submitted a legislative proposal to make
permanent and expand the Science, Mathematics, and Research for
Transformation (SMART) Program that was established by section 1105 of
the Ronald W. Reagan NDAA for Fiscal Year 2005. The expanded program,
called the National Defense Education Program (NDEP), should increase
the pool of U.S. scientists, mathematicians, and engineers eligible for
security clearances, thereby building our future workforce and
enhancing our future national security.
______
Question Submitted by Senator John Thune
CIVILIAN USE OF MILITARY SATELLITES
2. Senator Thune. Secretary Young, last year, following the tsunami
that devastated Indonesia, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency
(NGA) provided detailed satellite imagery of the affected areas. The
images provided by NGA were instrumental to those engaged in recovery
and rebuilding operations. If confirmed, will you explore further
civilian use of military satellites, like space base radar, for
domestic uses?
Mr. Young. I will promote the development of operating concepts and
technology to increase the effectiveness of future military satellite
systems. The use of such assets for specific purposes such as support
for disaster relief and recovery efforts shall be at the discretion of
the President and Secretary of Defense consistent with all governing
national laws and policies. In many cases, military relief efforts
relied on commercially available satellite imagery, and the Department
should also constantly look at opportunities to use commercially
available imagery sources.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
HIGH PRIORITY TECHNOLOGY THRUST AREAS
3. Senator Levin. Secretary Young, your predecessor established
three major research thrust areas for the Department during his tenure:
1. the National Aerospace Initiative; 2. Surveillance and Knowledge
Systems; and 3. Energy and Power Technologies. However, he had some
difficulty in convincing the Services or Defense Agencies to increase
funding in these areas. If confirmed, what areas of research or
technology would you make high budget priorities?
Mr. Young. The National Aerospace Initiative, Surveillance and
Knowledge Systems, and Energy and Power Technologies are currently
major areas of emphasis for our research and engineering (R&E) program.
These technologies have the capability to provide the Department with
significant technological advantages. However, as the Department
progresses through the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), I intend to
review the entire span of our R&E program to ensure we are best aligned
with the QDR goals and those set by the President and the Secretary of
Defense.
4. Senator Levin. Secretary Young, how would you ensure that those
priorities are funded by the Services and Defense Agencies in their
budgets?
Mr. Young. Secretary Rumsfeld has made transformation a priority
for the Department, and our technology vectors are key to achieving
that transformation, I will work with the Component Science and
Technology Executives, through the Defense Science and Technology
Advisory Group (DSTAG), to identify the important technology vectors
and ensure they receive adequate funding, and if necessary, directly
with the Service Secretaries and heads of Defense Agencies to ensure
our research and engineering investment is coordinated, in balance with
our overall investment strategy, and appropriately prioritized and
funded to deliver the future technological warfighting advantage
necessary for the men and women who serve this nation.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
5. Senator Levin. Secretary Young, in your written responses to our
pre-hearing questions you cited ``the lack of funding flexibility and
the extended timelines of our requirement and budget processes'' as a
principal challenge to successfully moving technologies from research
programs into real battlefield systems. Can you expand on these
concerns?
Mr. Young. During the Cold War Era very deliberate, methodical
acquisition and budgeting processes were established in order to obtain
a well structured, effective system to arm our Nation against a well-
known enemy who we expected to fight in a traditional war. We became
very proficient at this deliberative budgeting system known as the
Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process. This 2-
year cycle meant that most resource decision processes were made in a
carefully constructed framework that had well defined programs of
record established and resourced years before they were actually
pursued. However, the threat and acceleration of technology in today's
information age has resulted in a deliberate process that is struggling
to keep pace with today's rapidly changing world. What was once
methodical and responsive now seems inflexible and rigid, especially in
certain advanced technology oriented mission areas.
Specifically, in the current process, the military services begin
the process of building an integrated budget in January and submit the
budget to OSD in the August timeframe. Congress will authorize and
appropriate this budget in October the next year, roughly a year and
one-half later. If a new technology or investment idea emerges, it will
be at least a year and one-half before funds can be spent on this new
start. If the idea misses the current year budget process, it is more
likely to be 2-4 years until funds are appropriated to start the
project. If the project must have a validated requirement as it is
often demanded by the DOD budget process and Congress then add at least
2 more years to the process. The nation can not fight agile enemies
with a process than can require as many as 4 years to establish a
funded development program.
With emphasis shifting towards nontraditional, asymmetrical warfare
against emerging non-state terrorist adversaries, the demand for fast
responding, and even anticipatory technologies, makes a pressing case
for additional, more adaptive and agile processes to complement the
current PPBE structure. While our deliberate processes for mainstream
military capabilities are still necessary, I believe the time has come
to integrate an adaptive, agile process for a portion of our portfolio
that allows for the quick insertion of ``ready'' or ``almost ready''
advanced technologies. The resources to fund these technologies need to
have the flexibility to react inside the standard 2-year PPBE process.
6. Senator Levin. Secretary Young, do you have specific examples?
Mr. Young. As a minimum, the Department needs to make changes in
its requirements development process to allow accelerated development
of requirements. Further, requirements need to be developed through
collaboration between the combatant forces, the requirements and
resource sponsor, and acquisition community. This collaboration will
allow requirements to be informed by the technology maturity, cost, and
alternate solutions including joint systems. The Navy and Marine Corps
were very successful in using such a collaborative process, in many
cases with the acquisition team working directly with the Chief of
Naval Operations (CNO) and Commandant of the Marine Corps in Multi-
Mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA), Amphibious Assault Ship Replacement
LHA(R), Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) [MPF(F)], and other
programs.
The Department needs to work with Congress to seek support for
enhanced programs which provide the ability to start new projects and
mature new technologies during the execution year. The Department can
fully inform Congress on the use of these funds and the specific
projects. Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF) provide examples of this challenge. The Department struggled
within the execution year using reprogramming authorities to identify
and apply funds to urgent needs such as vehicle armor, counter
Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) systems, aircraft survivability
equipment, soldier protection equipment and base security systems. The
need exists to constantly leverage technology for our warfighters, even
when we are not operating under the urgency of combat operations.
As a more specific example, I would highlight the Navy T-45
program. The Navy has for some time had a firm requirement for no less
than 243 T-45 trainer aircraft. The efficient production rate is 12-15
aircraft per year. When I was asked to sign a justification and
authorization (J&A) for the fiscal year 2004 purchase of only six
aircraft, I recognized we were paying roughly $6 million extra per
aircraft because of the low procurement rate. The Research,
Development, and Acquisition (RDA) team completed an analysis which
concluded that we could have saved the U.S. taxpayer over $450 million
by annually purchasing aircraft at efficient rates. The current
requirements and budget process do not always succeed in setting
priorities and buying those priorities efficiently, and the result is
greater cost to the taxpayer for the same capability.
On a longer-term basis, we need flexibility within the funding for
major platforms. Shipbuilding provides the best example. Current
policies require the Navy to identify and fully fund the computers and
communications systems to be purchased and installed in a ship as much
as 7 or more years prior to delivery. Technology changes--the
Department needs some funding and programmatic flexibility to allow the
program manager to deliver current technology to the fleet.
Congress has been very helpful in this area through support of a
number of programs such as the Quick Reactions Special Projects (QRSP),
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs), Defense Acquisition
Challenge (DAC), Technology Transition Initiative (included under the
QRSP program element), Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT) and Service
specific Rapid Equipping/Fielding funds. Flexibility in using these
innovative programs is critical for the DOD to continue addressing the
emerging asymmetrical threats facing our forces today. Technologies
that are benefiting from these agile processes include: Biometric
devices, increased intelligence gathering and data sharing
capabilities, sophisticated persistent surveillance capabilities,
space-based capabilities, solutions to overcome the threat from IEDs,
unmanned vehicles and sensors of all sorts, epidemic outbreak
technology, logistics initiatives, and quick response precision
targeting. Many of these mission areas have technologies that can be
applied today if we maintain and further develop these adaptive and
agile programs.
7. Senator Levin. Secretary Young, what would you recommend
Congress or the Pentagon do to address these concerns?
Mr. Young. The Department needs to enhance the requirements
development process to enable greater collaboration. The Department
needs Congress' support for variations which recognize that all
requirements do not need to go through a single process that can take
years. It would be helpful to have authorized and appropriated programs
which allow new starts during the execution year. Further, there is a
need for programs to be allowed greater flexibility in the use of funds
so that the most current technology can be installed in platforms
instead of specifying a year to years in advance the technology to be
installed and risking obsolescence. Finally, continued congressional
support of our quick reaction agile programs is very helpful.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
ANALYSIS OF PERSONNEL AUTHORITIES
8. Senator Lieberman. Secretary Young, the office of the DDR&E is
currently preparing a ``Gap Analysis'' which is a comparison of the
personnel flexibilities of the laboratory demonstration programs and
the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). I understand that the
objective of the study is to show if there is any performance gap
between the flexibilities available to the laboratories between these
two systems. If confirmed, would you provide Congress with a copy of
that study so as to inform the committees of jurisdiction as to the
benefits to the labs of each of these approaches, as well as to better
inform any further actions on these personnel systems?
Mr. Young. The section 1107 report, due to Congress in December
2005, will describe the plan for conducting a comparative evaluation of
personnel management flexibilities between NSPS and the laboratory
demonstration authority systems. A viable comparative evaluation cannot
be conducted, however, until the NSPS design is complete and spiral
implementation has reached a sufficient level of maturity to conduct a
preliminary evaluation and make initial adjustments. This event-driven
review, analysis and comparative evaluation process will support the
Secretary's determination of the human resources system that provides
the greatest positive impact in promoting mission responsiveness,
efficiency and effectiveness in the defense laboratories. Once the
Secretary's determination is made, Congress will be provided a copy of
the results of the evaluation.
9. Senator Lieberman. Secretary Young, will you ensure that this
analysis is considered by the Secretary as he makes the decision on
whether or not to include the laboratories into NSPS, as is required by
section 9902(c) of the original authorizing statute?
Mr. Young. Yes.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
LAB PERSONNEL ISSUES
10. Senator Reed. Secretary Young, I and many others in Congress
are concerned about DOD's handling of its laboratory personnel,
especially in efforts to curtail their ability to continue to use their
congressionally authorized personnel demonstration program authorities.
Of particular concern is an effort to shift the labs out of these
demonstration programs and into the NSPS--without adequate
justification or analysis. In an April 26, 2004 letter to Congress,
Acting Deputy Secretary Gordon England addressed the question of the
utilization of the laboratory personnel demonstration authority. In
this letter, he assured Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis that the
laboratories would be free to extend and evolve their laboratory
demonstration programs. Do you intend, as DDR&E, to support the
laboratories in their requests to broaden and fully utilize the
demonstration authorities as promised by Acting Deputy Secretary
England?
Mr. Young. Yes. Prior to any potential determination by the
Secretary of Defense (as stipulated in subsection 9902(c) of title 5,
U.S.C.) that the NSPS offers greater flexibilities than the laboratory
demonstration authorities, the laboratories will continue with their
demo projects and will be allowed to seek innovative enhancements and
refinements through the normal Department review and approval process.
11. Senator Reed. Secretary Young, would you please make a
comparison of lab personnel demonstration authorities with NSPS?
Mr. Young. A comparative evaluation of personnel management
flexibilities provided under the NSPS versus the laboratory personnel
demonstration project authorities will be conducted when the NSPS
design is complete and spiral implementation has reached a sufficient
level of maturity to conduct a preliminary system evaluation and make
initial adjustments. Until such time as when we have settled on final
parameters, a comparison would not be valid.
12. Senator Reed. Secretary Young, when your predecessor appeared
before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities earlier
this year, I specifically asked him for a comparison of the personnel
flexibilities offered by the laboratory demonstration program as
compared to the NSPS. I believe that this kind of comparison is
necessary for the Department to determine whether it is advantageous
for the labs to be included in NSPS--or to have some other personnel
system. I have yet to see any such comparison. If confirmed, would you
initiate such a comparative study before allowing the labs to be
included into NSPS?
Mr. Young. A comparative evaluation will be conducted when the NSPS
design is complete and spiral implementation has reached a sufficient
level of maturity to achieve a valid comparison. This evaluation will
be considered in the Secretary's ultimate determination of the best
human resource system for the labs currently excluded from NSPS.
13. Senator Reed. Secretary Young, would you please provide to
Congress a comparison of these two systems and their impact on the
ability of the laboratories to discharge their mission before any such
actions are undertaken?
Mr. Young. A comparative evaluation of personnel management
flexibilities provided under the NSPS versus the laboratory personnel
demonstration project authorities will be conducted when the NSPS
design is complete and spiral implementation has reached a sufficient
level of maturity to conduct a preliminary system evaluation and make
initial adjustments. Until such time as when we have settled on final
parameters, a comparison would not be valid.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING LEVELS
14. Senator Reed. Secretary Young, I note that the Department's
2006 budget request for science and technology (S&T) is below the 2005
appropriated levels for these accounts and falls short of the QDR goal
of investing 3 percent of DOD's budgets in S&T. In fact the 2006
request for S&T is even below the 2005 request for S&T. Does it make
sense to you to reduce our investments in science and technology as we
try to transform the military and transition new technologies to our
operators in the field?
Mr. Young. Determining the level of investment in S&T is a
strategic corporate decision. Each year the Department makes an effort
to fund the S&T program at a level appropriate to maintain the
technological superiority we have enjoyed to date. With the fiscal year
2006 request, this administration has increased the S&T investment 28
percent higher than fiscal year 2001 request (23 percent higher than
the fiscal year 2001 request adjusted for inflation). The Department
continues to place a high priority on ensuring adequate funding levels,
and I expect to work to maintain our S&T investment levels.
15. Senator Reed. Secretary Young, how will you work to reverse
these decreases in funding?
Mr. Young. The fiscal year 2006 President's budget was developed by
balancing priorities across all functional areas, and our request for
S&T represents a stable program, within the priorities of the
Department in a fiscally constrained environment. I will work with
Secretary Rumsfeld and the Service Secretaries to ensure the research
and engineering program best represents the Department's priorities
based on available funds, technology needs and opportunities that can
enhance the effectiveness of our warfighters.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
CORROSION COSTS TO THIS NATION
16. Senator Akaka. Secretary Young, a recent Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report put the cost of corrosion to the
Department of Defense as at least $20 billion per year. This was later
confirmed by a Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Corrosion, who
pointed out that in addition to cost factors, there are major
repercussions to defense readiness and the safety of our personnel.
DOD's own Office of Corrosion indicates on its website that many
corrosion prevention technologies have a 10 to 1 return on investment
in only 1 year. Yet DOD has only budgeted $20 million per year, though
the situation in Iraq is making the corrosion costs to this Nation even
higher than the GAO and DSB originally estimated. Considering the
return on investment is so large and immediate, do you believe DOD
should increase the budget for corrosion treatment and prevention?
Mr. Young. The Department recognizes the impact of corrosion on our
weapon systems and facilities and appreciates the interest and focus
you and other Members of Congress have shown. The congressional mandate
manifested in the recent law requiring the corrosion prevention and
mitigation program has drawn the attention of a much wider audience
throughout DOD. The DOD Corrosion Prevention and Control Strategic
Plan, our long term strategy, depicts an integrated approach in
preventing and mitigating corrosion of DOD's weapons systems and
infrastructures. This approach entails R&D; training; outreach and
communications; specifications, standards and qualification processes;
policy and requirements; facilities; and cost-of-corrosion and other
metrics. Funding specific projects with high and measurable return on
investment is just one of the several approaches identified in our
Strategic Plan to combat corrosion. The current level of investment is
adequate as we continue to validate the projected return on the $27
million investment from our fiscal year 2005 DOD Corrosion Program. It
is critical to our continued success to show quantitatively and
objectively that the projected cost avoidance associated with our
corrosion projects is real and demonstrable. I also plan to continue
supporting science and technology investment, such as the work
currently underway at DARPA, in corrosion understanding and prevention
technologies.
17. Senator Akaka. Secretary Young, there is currently very little
incentive for the acquisition community to consider life cycle
maintenance cost reduction as a high priority in their weapon system
and equipment design and purchases. Will you look into ways you could
create effective incentives for people to address the long-term cost of
corrosion to the Department?
Mr. Young. The early stages of acquisition present the best time to
identify materials and processes that will reduce downstream
maintenance and logistics costs. The Department emphasizes the need for
and value of upfront investment for this purpose during Defense
Acquisition Board (DAB) and other milestone-related reviews. Program
Managers are now required to brief their corrosion prevention and
control planning (CPCP) to the Acquisition Executive during the DAB
review cycle. DOD also recognizes that effective incentives must
include positive benefits to those organizations willing to make
investments that result in ultimate cost avoidance or savings. I plan
to investigate additional incentives that will assist in improving our
overall approach to affordable life-cycle planning in which life cycle
maintenance costs will play an important role.
18. Senator Akaka. Secretary Young, many current military
specifications and standards do not reflect the benefits to be gained
from using higher performance corrosion-resistant technologies that
could have a significant impact on total life-cycle cost in maintaining
weapon systems and equipment. What steps can you take, for example in
establishing DOD standards, to help modernize the corrosion resistant
materials being used to protect DOD weapon systems and equipment?
Mr. Young. The DOD Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated
Product Team established a Specifications and Standards Working
Integrated Product Team (WIPT) specifically to address the status of
and requirements for corrosion-related military specifications and
standards. This WIPT has performed a thorough analysis of existing
corrosion-related specifications and standards, identified those that
are not applicable or are out-of-date, and specified which
specifications and standards should apply to our modern materials and
corrosion prevention and mitigation processes. Results of the analysis
are now available at the DOD Corrosion Web site (http://
www.dodcotrosionexchange.org). This information is a part of our
communications and outreach to DOD suppliers. The WIPT is also
reviewing industrial and commercial specifications and standards to
determine their applicability to current corrosion prevention and
mitigation requirements. One of the goals of this effort, which is
currently underway, is to improve applicable specifications and
standards or create new specifications and standards if required. The
Specifications and Standards WIPT is also in the process of
implementing a standardized, streamlined, and significantly improved
method of qualifying components and systems. When completely
implemented, it should assure that only the highest quality materials
are accepted and that the acceptance process does not impose a cost or
time burden on either the material suppliers or the military
departments. I believe we need to continue the efforts of the
specifications and standards WIPT and work jointly to implement their
processes and recommendations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
PUBLICATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
19. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Young and Dr. Etter, university
associations have documented recent cases where universities have
refused to perform research contracts for DOD because of provisions
restricting their ability to publish research findings. These
provisions are inconsistent with both existing DOD and overall
government policy providing that unless classified, information
generated through contracted fundamental research at universities
should not be subject to controls. What is your view of the
appropriateness of DOD seeking to restrict the ability of universities
to publish their research in this way?
Mr. Young. As you correctly state, National Security Decision
Directive 189 establishes national policy for controlling the flow of
science, technology, and engineering information produced in federally-
funded fundamental research at colleges, universities, and
laboratories. It is therefore not appropriate for DOD contracts to
include provisions that restrict the ability to publish the results of
fundamental research. I believe that there are some contracting
officers that are either unaware of NSDD-189 or unfamiliar with what
constitutes `Fundamental Research' and may be including contract
clauses that require a government review prior to publication. We will
be taking steps to inform them that, for contracted fundamental
research, such provisions are contrary to DOD policy.
20. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Young and Dr. Etter, do you feel
that scientific progress depends on broad sharing of research results
among scientists, in national defense as well as other areas?
Mr. Young. Yes. Openness during research plays a crucial role in
innovation, advances in technology, and economic competitiveness in our
economy. We should not overly prescribe barriers to such scientific
exchange, but we must also be mindful of those scientific thrusts which
arc potential threats or enhancements to our National security which
would require us to compartmentalize that research. However, action to
compartmentalize such research should be carefully reviewed and be the
exception rather than the rule.
PROPOSED RULES ON EXPORT CONTROLS IMPACT ON UNIVERSITY RESEARCH
21. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Young and Dr. Etter, in response
to a report issued by the DOD Inspector General in March 2004, DOD
recently proposed a new export control compliance clause for DOD
contracts. I understand DOD received over 130 comments in response to
this proposal, most of which were opposed to the proposed rule. I
understand that one of the proposal's requirements is for segregated
facilities and badging of all foreign nationals involved in DOD
research, even fundamental research conducted at universities. Since
other agencies have regulatory authority for export controls--namely
the Department of Commerce and the Department of State--do you feel
that it is appropriate for the DOD to establish its own separate
policies in this area?
Mr. Young. Where regulatory authority resides in other agencies, it
is inappropriate to establish separate policies for DOD contracts. It
is appropriate for DOD to facilitate contractor awareness of the
regulatory authority in other agencies. The DOD is coordinating with
the Departments of State and Commerce to ensure any proposed rule is
consistent with the National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific,
Technical, and Engineering Information (NSDD-189), and existing laws
and regulations governing export-controlled information and technology.
22. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Young and Dr. Etter, if
confirmed, will you engage with the university research community to
try to address their concerns in this area?
Mr. Young. Yes. My Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Laboratories and Basic Sciences has been engaged with the research
community in this area through the National Academies of Science and
the American Association of Universities, and I intend to support and
expand these efforts where needed and appropriate.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Dayton
HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING
23. Senator Dayton. Secretary Young, if confirmed, you will have
oversight over the Department's high performance computing research and
operational high performance computing centers. What role do you feel
these activities play in supporting DOD missions?
Mr. Young. DOD high performance computing centers are a key element
of DOD's strategy to keep our armed forces equipped with the most
teclinologically advanced capable weapons and support systems possible.
High performance computing assets support numerous DOD missions. In
support of OIF and OEF, our warfighters used DOD-developcd
supercomputer codes to predict theater weather and sea states with
great success. This prediction capability is now available to our
commanders as a routine service and is continually improving.
Additionally, the Joint Strike Fighter program and other air vehicle
programs routinely use DOD-developed models on high performance
computing platforms to predict performance of aircraft undergoing
configuration changes. These models augment or replace costly flight
wind tunnel testing. This also saves acquisition dollars by eliminating
expensive prototype changes. Lastly, the Army's ground combat vehicles
rely extensively on high performance computing assets for lethality and
force protection models for armor and anti-armor applications.
Today's DOD missions and technical problems are more complex than
ever before. Tomorrow's sophisticated weapons systems must meet new
operational requirements with increased offensive and defensive
capability, be within affordable acquisition, operational, and
maintenance costs; and must operate in adverse chemical, biological,
and electronic environments. High performance computing is an essential
part of the acquisition process that allows science-based modeling and
simulation that can drastically reduce development and test lime while
exploring design trade-offs that previously could not be performed at
affordable costs or within developmental time constraints.
24. Senator Dayton. Secretary Young, what steps should we take to
ensure that the United States remains the world leader in high
performance computing both in the development and introduction of
innovative technologies and the retention of a robust industrial base?
Mr. Young. I consider this an extremely important topic, not only
from the standpoint of augmenting our DOD acquisition processes and
assisting the warfigliter directly, but also from the standpoint of
maintaining leadership in this critical technology. For the U.S. to
remain a world leader in high perfomiance computing, it is important
that the domestic high performance computing industry view the Federal
Government to be a reliable customer for high-end computing systems. In
addition, it is vital to foster new generations of young people to
become scientists and engineers interested in working and advancing
this industry. The recommendations from the multi-agency High-End
Computing Revitalization Task Force establish a sound blueprint for
Federal high performance computing investments that will guide future
DOD efforts in this area.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
INFORMATION ASSURANCE AND CYBER SECURITY
25. Senator Clinton. Secretary Young, the February 2005 report of
the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC)
titled ``Cyber Security: a Crisis of Prioritization'' recommends that
``the Nation's cyber security research community is too small to
adequately support the cyber security research and education programs
necessary to protect the United States.'' As we discussed in the
hearing, the Air Force Research Laboratory information assurance
efforts centered at Rome, New York are a key part of those research
efforts--specifically working on information security threats that
affect our military operations and deployed forces. What steps do you
think we should take to grow the size and capabilities of DOD's
internal cyber security research community so that it can support DOD
missions?
Mr. Young. The Air Force Research Laboratory (APRL), the Army
Research Laboratory, the Army Communications-Electronics Research,
Development and Engineering Center, the Naval Research Laboratory and
the National Security Agency are the core of DOD's internal cyber
security research community. Over the past 18 months, the Office of the
Director for Defense Research and Engineering has worked to improve
coordination and integration of the research programs across DOD. In
the recent DDR&E S&T Comprehensive Review, the need for additional
unclassified research to enable network robustness was identified and
we are working on an appropriate network-oriented research strategy to
increase efforts in [his research area. DOD is also working on the
education and training of the next generation of DOD cyber security
professionals. One example is the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
educational program at Syracuse University called the Advanced Course
in Engineering in Cyber Security. In the long term, we must educate and
train scientists and engineers who can support DOD efforts using the
SMART program implemented through the NDEP.
26. Senator Clinton. Secretary Young, what steps do you think DOD
should take to grow the national cyber security research community in
industry and academia?
Mr. Young. DOD is a member of the Cyber Security and Information
Assurance (CSIA) Interagency Working Group (IWG) under the National
Science and Technology Council, which, as recommended by the
President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) report,
is a focal point for Federal research programs. Through the CSIA IWG,
DOD is contributing to the Federal Plan for Cyber Security and
Information Assurance Research and Development.
DOD is currently reviewing our basic research, Small Business
Innovation Research, and Small Business Technology Transfer programs to
maximize their impact in cyber security academic research, to
transition DOD-funded research into cyber security products, and to
promote innovation. DOD, led by my office, has had a strong academic
research program in cyber security under the Critical Infrastructure
Protection and High Confidence Software University Research Initiative.
The AFRL-funded Information Assurance Institute at Cornell University
is an example of a collaborative interaction between Cornell and AFRL
in information assurance research. In addition, we have several efforts
to increase interactions between innovative commercial cyber security
technology companies and potential DOD customers with cyber security
needs. Finally, in the long-term, we must educate and train scientists
and engineers who can support DOD efforts using the SMART program
implemented through the NDEP.
We must continue to effectively use these types of programs to
strengthen the national cyber security research community.
DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD REVIEW OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
27. Senator Clinton. Secretary Young, as we discussed in the
hearing, the fact that the fiscal year 2006 President's budget request
for science and technology is lower than the fiscal year 2005 budget
request has triggered legislation requiring a Defense Science Board
report assessing the impact of the reduced funding on defense
technology and the national defense. If confirmed, will you ensure that
this report is produced by the DSB and that its findings are shared
with Congress?
Mr. Young. A strong and stable science and technology program is
important to maintain our technological edge. Each year the Department
makes an effort to fund the S&T program at a level appropriate to
maintain the technological superiority we have enjoyed to date. Since
fiscal year 2000, removing year-to-year fluctuations, the Department
has exceeded the 2 percent real growth over time. The fiscal year 2006
request is 23 percent higher than fiscal year 2000, nearly double what
it would have been with a strict goal of 2 percent per year growth. I
expect to work to maintain our S&T investment level.
28. Senator Clinton. Secretary Young, what are your personal
observations on the impact of reducing S&T investments on our ability
to produce and deploy innovative new defense capabilities?
Mr. Young. S&T plays a key role in enabling the force of the
future. S&T supports transformation by providing the ability to strike
with greater speed, agility, lethality, and precision while maintaining
increased global knowledge, in addition, S&T has been a valuable
resource for reducing costs and increasing mobility by streamlining
logistics processes and reducing manpower requirements. S&T is crucial
in enabling the ``better, faster, cheaper'' requirements of the 21st
century transformational force. Given the competing demands across the
Department, I will work to ensure a balance among near- and long-term
priorities. Further, there is a growing need for S&T investment in
nontraditional areas relevant to the global war on terrorism as well as
new demands in areas that support future capabilities for the Nation's
warfighters.
DARPA FUNDAMENTAL COMPUTER RESEARCH INVESTMENTS
29. Senator Clinton. Secretary Young, I am concerned that DARPA has
reduced its funding of fundamental research in computer science at a
time when that would be detrimental to our ability to face future
national security threats. As you are well aware, previous DARPA
investments in this and related fields have spawned the growth of a
range of technologies--including the Internet itself--that shape our
daily lives and the way our military operates. In the future, what role
should DARPA play in the support of fundamental research in computer
science and cyber security?
Mr. Young. During my first week as DDR&E, I began the process of
getting briefed on the DARPA programs and budget. Once I complete this
review, I will have a better sense of the balance and priorities within
the DARPA investment program.
DARPA continues to make a significant investment in computer
science research. One new area of DARPA investment is ``cognitive
computing.'' Put simply, it is an attempt to get computers that can
adapt to people, rather than forcing people to adapt to computers as we
do now.
Now and in the future, DARPA needs to continue focusing on the
special cyber security challenges unique to the DOD. DOD's future is
network centric warfare, but that means that the networks themselves
will become a valuable target. DOD's networks are going to be different
from the commercial worlds'. For example, DOD networks will need to be
highly mobile and assemble on-the-fly. No one in the commercial world
has any reason to solve those problems for their own purposes, so DOD
organizations like DARPA must solve those problems for DOD.
30. Senator Clinton. Mr. Young, if confirmed, what steps will you
take to ensure that DOD adequately supports fundamental research in
computer science?
Mr. Young. Sustained DOD support of fundamental research in
computer science is crucial to the maturation of computer science as a
scientific discipline, and as a key enabler of the transformational
Network-Centric warfighting paradigm. DOD investment in fundamental
computer science research is robust, as evidenced by substantial
computer science investment in DOD's Multi-disciplinary University
Research Initiative (MURI), High Productivity Computing Systems (HPCS)
program, Cognitive Systems program. Software Engineering Institute
(SEI), Collaborative Technology Alliances (CTA) program, and Software
Producibility Initiative, to name a few examples. I intend to ensure
that DOD continues to support fundamental computer science research
adequately through programs of this nature.
______
[The nomination reference of John J. Young, Jr., follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 28, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
John J. Young, Jr., of Virginia, to be Director of Defense Research
and Engineering, vice Ronald M. Sega.
______
[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.
As the Navy's Senior Acquisition Executive, Mr. Young has
implemented a wide range of innovative organizational and business
practices to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of Navy and
Marine Corps procurement and research programs. He has sought to
stabilize programs and control cost through emphasis on milestone-based
incentive fees, control of change orders and requirements, multi-year
procurement contracts, and creation of competitive and joint programs.
In support of President Bush's efforts on missile defense, Mr.
Young worked with Admiral Clark and General Kadish to accomplish the
transfer of the U.S.S. Lake Erie to the Missile Defense Agency. This
transfer led to accelerated procurement of the SM-3 missile and
modification of DDG-51 destroyers in order to provide initial sea-based
ballistic missile defense capability for the Nation. Our Nation's sea-
based air defense capability will be significantly enhanced through his
leadership in creating the SM-6 missile, placing the highly capable
AMRAAM seeker on the Navy's Standard Missile.
Working to improve the Navy's shipbuilding program, he negotiated
the unprecedented swap agreement that shifted DDG-51 and LPD-17 ships
between two shipyards. Further, Mr. Young led the exceptional effort to
renegotiate the U.S.S. Eisenhower carrier refueling contract,
successfully shifting to event-based incentives to control growing
cost. Finally, working with Congress, the Navy gained approval on the
first Virginia-class submarine multi-year contract--a contract that
includes specific incentives to reduce cost and meet schedule.
Under his leadership, the Navy acquisition team has successfully
changed our acquisition approaches through programs like Operation
Respond and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). In response to the urgent
needs of the U.S. Marine Corps, he led the department's urgent
acquisition efforts under Operation Respond--a team established to
rapidly meet the technological and material requirements generated from
deployed warfighters serving in Iraq. Operation Respond efforts ensured
that the Marine Corps had needed items ranging from vehicle armor to
helicopter survivability equipment to ballistic goggles. LCS was
defined through collaborative work with the CNO and naval fleet
leadership, leading to a keel laying in roughly 3 years after program
initiation. During his tenure, the Department has also successfully
made major contract awards on the DD(X) destroyer, the Multi-Mission
Maritime Aircraft, the T-AKE auxiliary ship, the VXX Presidential
helicopter, and LCS. Mr. Young has also pursued greater jointness on
many efforts, including his successful merger of the Air Force and Navy
Joint Tactical Radio System clusters and the Distributed Common Ground
Station .
During his tenure with the committee, he served as the staff
analyst for Department of Defense (DOD) procurement, research,
development, test, and evaluation programs. Prior to leaving the
committee, he was responsible for reviewing all DOD aircraft
procurement programs as well as the activities of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
He also evaluated the science and technology program budgets for the
Navy, Air Force, and OSD.
Participating in the cooperative engineering education program at
Georgia Tech, Mr. Young worked with what is now Lockheed Martin
Tactical Aircraft Systems in Fort Worth, Texas. Under this program, he
worked in eight different engineering groups primarily supporting the
F-16 program and advanced fighter technology efforts. Mr. Young next
worked at the BDM Corporation in Huntsville, Alabama, providing
engineering support of Army missile defense interceptor programs.
After receiving a Master's degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics
from Stanford University, he joined the technical staff at Rockwell
Missile Systems Division in Duluth, Georgia. He became a member of the
Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories in 1988 where he worked
on hypersonic weapon designs and maneuvering reentry vehicle
aerodynamics as well as standoff bomb concepts. While at Sandia, he was
selected as an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(AIAA) Congressional Fellow. He served his AIAA fellowship with the
Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and then joined the
committee's professional staff.
______
[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:
Director of Defense Research and Engineering.
3. Date of nomination:
July 28, 2005.
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, 14; William Joseph Young, 11; and Kathryn
Elizabeth Young, 8.
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.
Department of Navy; Washington, DC, Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Research, Development, and Acquisition), Department of the Navy,
Washington, DC; 7/01-Present.
United States Senate, Committee on Appropriations; Washington, DC,
Professional Staff Member, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
Washington, DC; 12/93-7/01.
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--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.
2005--Awarded Distinguished Public Service Award by the Secretary
of the Navy for invaluable contributions to DoN by leading the
Operation Respond team and creating innovative approaches to multi-year
contracts that provided efficient warfare systems to the taxpayer.
2003--Awarded Distinguished Public Service Award by the Secretary
of the Navy for implementing innovative business practices, stabilizing
the Navy's most important programs, and encouraging partnership with
industry.
Awarded certificate of service from the Secretary of the Navy for
10 years of service in the United States Government.
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 1993-1994 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.
1985-1987 Stanford University College of Engineering Fellowship.
1986-1987 General Electric Foundation Fellowship.
1986 Outstanding Young Men of America.
1983-1984 Sam Nunn U.S. Senate Intern Program.
1984-1985 AIAA/General Dynamics Scholarship.
1980-1985 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.
1984-1985 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.
``Proper Objectives for the Strategic Defense Initiative'';
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Student Journal;
fall 1985.
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 attached for your review two copies of recent speeches that
I have delivered in the past 5 years.
[The nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee 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.
John J. Young, Jr.
This 3rd day of August, 2005.
[The nomination of John J. Young, Jr., was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on October 27, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on October 28, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to J. Dorrance Smith by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD)
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the Military Departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. No. I agree with the emphasis in the Goldwater-Nichols Act
on jointness and the establishment of unified and specified combatant
commanders. The effectiveness of joint operations has been clearly
demonstrated in OIF and OEF, and I witnessed it myself while working
with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. I strongly support
continued and increased efforts to improve the jointness of our
military forces.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. N/A.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be
with:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. I anticipate having daily interaction with the Secretary in
order to remain abreast of his insights, priorities, and decisions. I
will offer him my counsel on the full range of issues facing the
department from a communication perspective. I will assist the
Secretary in fulfilling the department's communications
responsibilities to Congress, the general public, and--as importantly--
within the department to civilian and military personnel.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate my relationship with the Deputy
Secretary will be much the same as my relationship with the Secretary
of Defense.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. My role--and the role of the entire DOD Public Affairs
team--would be to provide communications counsel to all levels in the
department. Clearly, the Under Secretaries play a critical role as they
are developing many of the policies that need to be shared with a
variety of audiences, to include Congress.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs.
Answer. I know this department takes its obligation to keep
Congress fully informed very seriously. If confirmed, I'll work very
closely with Assistant Secretary Stanley on our communication
obligations and efforts. It is critical we assist Secretary Rumsfeld in
keeping Congress informed of important national security and defense-
related matters.
Question. The DOD General Counsel.
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate regular interaction to ensure
that our communication activities are consistent with regulation and
statute. Also, the global war on terror imposes a responsibility upon
us to communicate to Congress and the broader public the many unique
legal aspects of this conflict.
Question. The Service Secretaries.
Answer. The service secretaries have a most important role in the
department's internal communications responsibilities. They also
interact regularly with Members of Congress and their staffs. If
confirmed, I would work closely with them, and in close consultation
with public affairs chiefs, to help them discharge this responsibility
and to help ensure consistency and proper frequency of message.
Question. The Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. As with the service secretaries, if confirmed, I would
expect to work with the chiefs to help communicate with our forces. In
addition, I would look forward to working with the chiefs to assist
them in communicating the department's message to Congress and the
public, as appropriate.
Question. Senior Uniformed Officers Responsible for Public Affairs,
including the Army's Chief of Public Affairs, Navy's Chief of
Information; Marine Corps' Director of Public Affairs; and Air Force's
Director of Public Affairs.
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate frequent interaction with the
senior Public Affairs professionals from the Services. Together, we
will work to find the best ways to gather facts and communicate
information about the wide variety of programs and issues affecting the
department and Services.
Question. Pentagon Press Corps.
Answer. I understand the importance of establishing a strong
working relationship with the Pentagon Press corps. If confirmed I will
work hard to ensure this relationship is based on mututal trust,
fairness and respect.
DUTIES
Question. DOD Directive 5122.5 describes the responsibilities and
functions of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs
(ASD(PA)).
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
ASD(PA)?
Answer. I understand the responsibilities of the position as
outlined in the directive. In this position, if confirmed, I would
serve as the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary of Defense for DOD news media relations, public
information, internal information, community relations, public affairs
and visual information training, and audiovisual matters.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what changes, if any, in the
duties and functions of ASD(PA) do you expect that the Secretary of
Defense would prescribe for you?
Answer. I do not anticipate changes in the duties and functions of
the position as described in the directive.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. My 22 years as a television network news producer and
working journalist provides me with a comprehensive understanding of
just how important it is to communicate fairly, accurately, and
regularly with the American people, the DOD, and the Armed Forces.
As a communications professional, I've developed a keen sensitivity
to the importance of interaction and engagement with the media--
understanding the importance of being transparent, accurate, and
credible.
Finally, my service as the Senior Media Adviser with the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq has given me a breadth and depth of
exposure to the men and women in uniform that should help in my
responsibilities to communicate the department's priorities both here
in the United States and abroad.
MAJOR CHALLENGES
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next ASD(PA)?
Answer. We must continue to communicate on a global and around-the-
clock basis, internally, to Congress, and to the public, the
President's priorities in the global war on terror and the lessons of
September 11. We must meet the challenge of communicating the U.S.
goals, objectives, and activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, as those
newly liberated countries continue their transition to sovereignty and
self-rule.
The significant U.S. military presence in both countries rightly
focuses attention on U.S. and coalition activities, and the department
has the responsibility, together with other departments and agencies of
government, to properly communicate those activities.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to build upon the work being done to
communicate across the range of issues described above. The department
conducts an aggressive program of communications and public outreach,
and that must continue and evolve to match our changing circumstances.
To better understand this I would travel to the region to analyze first
hand the current communications challenges in the same manner as I did
in 2003.
I also intend, if confirmed, to place particular emphasis upon
internal communications. I view our forces, their families, and the
career civil servants who support them as crucial to the success of the
department.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Question. DOD Directive 5122.5 provides that the ASD(PA) shall
``ensure a free flow of news and information to the news media, the
general public, the internal audiences of the Department of Defense,
and the other applicable for a, limited only by national security
constraints . . . and valid statutory mandates or exemptions.''
What guidelines would you use, if confirmed, to determine what
information can and cannot be released to the news media and the
public?
Answer. The Department publishes Principles of Information, which
are included as an enclosure to DOD Directive 5122.5. If confirmed, I
would work to ensure that judgments we make regarding the dissemination
of information are based upon the principles outlined.
Question. If confirmed, how would you attempt to ensure that media
representatives are given maximum access to ongoing military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to be able to provide fair and
accurate reporting?
Answer. I would encourage news media to take full advantage of the
embedding opportunities that exist. There is no substitute for that
type of reporting--from the areas of operations where America's sons
and daughters are serving freedom's cause . . . and also where our
friends and allies are working to support security and stability in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I would develop a comprehensive communications
strategy designed to facilitate the coverage and maximize access for
the media who face sever coverage obstacles in a war zone.
Question. Aside from restrictions related to classified and
sensitive-source materials, if confirmed, what restrictions, if any,
would you apply in approving material prepared for release by DOD
officials?
Answer. As a general matter, the first principle of information is
that it is ``DOD policy to make available timely and accurate
information so that the public, Congress, and the news media may assess
and understand the facts about national security and defense
strategy.''
There will be times when judgment is applied to a particular piece
or class of information that warrants additional consideration on the
basis of source, sensitivity of ongoing operations, the need to verify
facts, and other factors. Judgments of this nature must be applied all
the time, but the principle remains the same: accurate and fast.
PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY INTERESTS
Question. Under the Principles of Information included in DOD
Directive 5122.5, it is stated that ``information shall be withheld
when disclosure would adversely affect national, security, threaten the
safety or privacy of U.S. Government personnel or their families,
violate the privacy of the citizens of the United States, or be
contrary to law.'' The Privacy Act is one of the laws that controls
access to information in government systems of records, however, it is
unclear about what standards the Department applies in determining what
information would violate citizens' privacy and should be withheld.
What other standards, legal or otherwise, should be applied by the
Department in determining what information relating to individuals who
are involved in newsworthy incidents shall be made available to the
public?
Answer. These types of assessments and decisions often require the
involvement of the department's Office of General Counsel. There's not
a simple answer, because facts and circumstances dictate the response.
A legal assessment is likely required. However, I know the department
leadership believes in maximum disclosure, minimum delay consistent
with privacy and security considerations.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe the
Privacy Act would justify withholding from public disclosure
information regarding actions taken by senior DOD officials in their
official capacity?
Answer. The DOD is interested in protecting the privacy of
individuals consistent with U.S. law, to include DOD civilians,
military members, and contractors. However, the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) offers a vehicle by which information can be requested
relating to official actions of DOD personnel. The department tries to
strike the right balance between an individual's right to privacy and
the public's right to know. Again, this often requires a legal
assessment.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe the
Privacy Act would justify withholding information from Congress?
Answer. If confirmed, my focus would be on being responsive to
Congress and the public. In those instances were I felt Federal statute
or government directives are limiting my ability to do so, I would
consult with department legal authorities for an assessment and
guidance.
CURRENT NEWS EARLY BIRD
Question. The ASD(PA) has responsibility for overseeing the
operation of the online news clipping service known as the Early Bird.
DOD officials have reportedly ordered that news magazine stories not be
reprinted, that certain unclassified reports citing lessons learned
from combat operations in Iraq be excluded, and have acknowledged that
the Early Bird has an ``agenda-setting capacity.''
What guidance or instructions, if any, do you believe should be
implemented about which new articles should and should not be included
in the Early Bird?
Answer. Items should be timely and relevant to the overall policies
and activities of the DOD. The Early Bird should not attempt to be a
full compilation of all defense-related newspaper reporting, but rather
to present a representative sampling.
Question. Do you think that the Early Bird should purposefully be
used to focus attention on certain issues and divert attention from
others?
Answer. No. It should provide defense leadership with an impartial
monitor of the day's defense-related newspaper news and opinion.
Question. What policy would you follow, if confirmed, in providing
news analysis and in determining which news media reports should be
included in the Early Bird?
Answer. These Services are first and foremost management tools to
assist the senior leadership of the department discharge their
responsibilities. If confirmed, I expect to emphasize the importance
that these tools focus on timely, fact-based information. I would also
look to ensure that such information that is not otherwise widely or
readily available be included.
There are broad guidelines established to ensure that these
products include timely, accurate information, but judgment is applied
at various levels within the OASD(PA) to ensure the products are useful
to senior decisionmakers in the department.
STARS AND STRIPES
Question. Stars and Stripes is an independent news organization,
but it is also authorized and funded in part by DOD. In the past,
representatives of the Society of Professional Journalists have
asserted that OSD and the American Forces Information Service (AFIS)
have attempted to improperly use command influence in shaping the
editorial content of the Stars and Stripes newspapers and Web site.
In your opinion, what is the appropriate journalistic role of the
Stars and Stripes newspapers and internet-based outlets within the DOD?
Answer. The Stars and Stripes is an important vehicle to help
provide broad-based news and information to our forces. I believe the
paper has a particular responsibility to focus on forward-deployed
forces that do not have good access to other sources of news and
information. While I was serving in Iraq I aided Stars and Stripes to
help increase their distribution in Iraq.
I am unaware of any attempts in the OSD to shape the editorial
content of the Stars and Stripes nor would I support any attempts to do
so.
Question. What is your understanding of the role and
responsibilities of the ASD(PA) and the Director of AFIS with regard to
the operation of and reporting in the Stars and Stripes newspapers?
Answer. The Director of AFIS has certain management oversight
responsibility for Stars and Stripes, and the ASD(PA) exercises
authority, direction, and control over the Director of AFIS. If
confirmed, I would help ensure that the paper operates within its
budget and provides quality news and information to our forces, with
principal focus on those forces forward deployed who do not have access
to a wide variety of other news and information sources.
Question. What is your understanding of the most significant
changes in the operations of the Stars and Stripes brought about by the
findings and recommendations of the Transformation Working Group in
2003?
Answer. The shift in Germany from running its own printing
operation to contracting it out. Greater mobility to match the more
mobile military, including increased use of technology such as digital
printers, printing press that can be moved to different locations, and
shifting resources and assets quickly. Consolidating resources to
reduce redundancies. Closer attention to efficiencies, such as cutting
newsprint waste and measuring returns more closely. Primary emphasis on
serving deployed troops, especially in the Middle East.
Question. The governing directive for Stars and Stripes newspapers
and business operations is DOD Directive 5122.11.
What aspects of DOD Directive 5122.11, if any, require change?
Answer. If confirmed, I will undertake to review the directive to
determine if any changes are required. It is my understanding that the
operations of the Stars and Stripes as envisioned in the directive, to
be managed as two papers under the European and the Pacific Command
Commanders, have been combined into a single paper under the Office of
the ASD(PA). That reorganization is not reflected in the current DOD
Directive, which pre-dates the reorganization.
There may be other areas requiring review and possible updating of
the DOD Directive. For example, we may seek methods to allow Stars and
Stripes to deliver content worldwide. The current directive limits the
focus to personnel overseas. Stars and Stripes often contains important
military information and it is worth considering whether there is a way
to expand the service to forces stationed within the United States.
I am mindful of the potential sensitivities of this notion, but
those sensitivities should be balanced against the objective of
communicating tour forces and their families as broadly and effectively
as possible, and also the prospects for increased efficiencies and
reduced operating costs for the paper. With more and more Stateside
units deployed overseas, families, friends and those left behind have a
greater desire than ever for the information Stars and Stripes provides
about the troops stationed abroad.
We might also consider how the paper is funded, especially in
contingency locations. The directive puts the responsibility of
supplying the paper on the combatant commands. This may or may not be
the optimal solution but it bears some review to ensure that we have
chosen the best approach to ensure the broadest distribution of the
paper to forward deployed forces.
STARS AND STRIPES OMBUDSMAN
Question. The Stars and Stripes Ombudsman serves as an independent
advocate for the First Amendment rights of the paper's reporters and
staff, as well as an intermediary between the staff, the Defense
Department, the military commands and the readers.
Do you support the assignment of an independent Ombudsman for Stars
and Stripes?
Answer. I do.
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 work with the Stars and Stripes
Ombudsman. I would expect to depend upon him to provide advice and
counsel on the proper functioning of the paper as we seek to ensure it
fulfills its role as a provider of news and information to our forces,
particularly those forward deployed with less access to other sources
of news and information.
STARS AND STRIPES FUNDING
Question. Rising costs of producing a newspaper, competition with
the internet and commercial news sources, and budgetary pressures to
cut costs have raised questions about the level of support that the
Department and military commanders throughout the chain of command
should give to Stars and Stripes.
In your opinion, what efficiencies, if any, regarding business
operations, operating expenses, sources of income, and DOD guidance
regarding command sponsorship of need to be implemented to achieve more
effective and efficient operations.
Answer. I have not made a detailed study of the matter. The
transformation working group made several recommendations in these
areas that may be helpful. There are a number of areas in which
efficiencies can be explored, including the use of technology to reduce
production and distribution costs, potential distribution partnerships
with other distributors, increased advertising opportunities, reduced
operating expenses by ceasing unnecessary or marginal operations,
revenue generation through printing and production services, and other
possible and appropriate business opportunities.
In my view, the management of the paper should aggressively seek
every possible efficiency and revenue source prior to contemplating an
increase in appropriated funds.
PRESS COVERAGE OF COMBAT OPERATIONS
Question. During Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom,
representatives of the press were embedded in operational units in
order to provide front line coverage.
What is your assessment of the practice of embedding reporters in
Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Answer. My impression is embedding is a very successful program. It
has provided the public an opportunity to receive much better insight
into the skill, courage, and professionalism of our Armed Forces than
may otherwise have been possible had the embedding program not existed.
It also gave a large number of journalists a much better understanding
of the same thing, and that can only help to ensure more accurate
defense-related journalism in the future.
It was also win-win for the media and military--it increased levels
of understanding between both of these professions and ensured accurate
and timely information about military operations to the public.
SAFETY OF JOURNALISTS IN IRAQ
Question. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) asserted in
September 2005 that U.S. forces in Iraq have routinely detained
reporters and photojournalists in Iraq for prolonged periods without
justification. The CPJ has also expressed concern about dangers to
journalists in Iraq as a result of checkpoint procedures currently in
use. In response to a request by the Chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, Secretary Rumsfeld and General George Casey, USA,
the Commander of the Multinational Force-Iraq, stated they would take
the concerns of the CPJ under consideration.
What is your understanding of the status of the review by Secretary
Rumsfeld and General Casey?
Answer. I'm told this review is ongoing . . . it has yet to be
completed. I do know the concerns of the Committee to Protect
Journalists have been taken seriously. I believe everyone understands
the danger posed in an environment where insurgents and terrorists have
been a persistent threat. If confirmed, I will continue the work being
done to address this issue.
Question. If confirmed, what role, if any, would you expect to play
in addressing the concerns of the CPJ and other media sources about
policies affecting journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I am very aware and sensitive to the challenges the media face in a
war zone. I will travel to the area and analyze what current steps can
be taken to facilitate their ability to cover the story. I did a
similar analysis in 2003 which led to credentialing both U.S. and
International media and the creation of the International Filing
Center. The current situation on the ground has changed and I am
committed to finding solutions to their current problems.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Question. If confirmed, what would your role and responsibilities
be with regard to the FOIA?
Answer. If confirmed, I would do my part to ensure that information
sought under the act be released--as appropriate based upon
classification or other factions contemplated in the act--as
expeditiously and completely as possible.
Question. If confirmed, what responsibilities would you have under
the Privacy Act and how would you fulfill those responsibilities?
Answer. Public officials across government have an obligation to
respect and protect the privacy of individuals. The need to provide
information to the public quickly and accurately in accordance with the
principles of information must always take into account with the
importance we must attach to not invading the privacy of individuals as
a result of disclosing that information.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the department's
communications and public affairs personnel understand their
obligations and that training is available to ensure that.
AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TELEVISION SERVICE
Question. DOD Regulation 5120.20-R includes in the mission of the
American Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS) a responsibility
``(t)o provide U.S. military members, DOD civilians, and their families
stationed outside the Continental United States (CONUS) and at sea with
the same type and quality of American radio and television news,
information, sports, and entertainment that would be available to them
if they were in the CONUS.'' In describing policy for political
programming, this regulation states ``All AFRTS political programming
shall be characterized by its fairness and balance.''
What is your understanding of the term ``political programming'' as
used in DOD Regulation 5120.20-R?
Answer. ``Political Programming'' is programming on radio and
television that primarily provides a discourse of the political issues
of the day. I understand that the AFRTS policy is to provide a balance
and diversity of political programming (e.g. provide all nationally
broadcast political debates).
Question. What is your understanding of the process and procedures
used to select political programming broadcast on the AFRTS network?
Answer. AFRTS is responsible to select programming, political as
well as all others, which represents a cross-section of popular
American radio and television, tailored toward the AFRTS worldwide
audience. Schedules on AFRTS emulate stateside programming practices,
and programs are aired in accordance with network broadcast standards
and national acceptance (e.g. ratings and nationwide carriage).
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that the requirement
for fairness and balance in political programming is fulfilled?
Answer. I would review the current program schedule to ensure that
it complies with DOD regulations for ``fairness and balance'' in
political programming. I have extensive experience in political
programming and I have always been committed to providing audiences
with a broad range of divergent and credible opinion and discourse.
AMERICAN FORCES INFORMATION SERVICE
Question. American Forces Information Service (AFIS) produces news,
feature articles, and TV reports on all aspects of military life. These
products focus on what senior defense leaders are saying on all aspects
of military life. News and feature articles are uploaded throughout the
day, 7 days a week. TV news reports are available daily on the Web and
are broadcast on the Pentagon Channel.
What long term goals should the Department support for AFIS?
Answer. As noted earlier in my responses, internal communications
is crucial to the department's success.
If confirmed, the Secretary of Defense, under the authority in
title 10, will task me to oversee and manage the AFIS. With this
organization, I will be better able to support and manage my
department-wide responsibilities.
With ever-tightening budgets and increasing missions, this Defense
Field Activity is authorized by Congress to provide the department with
economies of scale. This will be accomplished by providing, as a common
service, support to not only the immediate requirements of the
Secretary of Defense but also those of the entire department.
The AFIS has proven in the past to be instrumental in initiating
new methods, practices and technologies, and as the world grows
smaller, I will continue to rely on this organization to remain out
front so that we may be better prepared to serve the needs of the
department.
Question. If confirmed, would you support expanding or increasing
AFIS services under the fiscal year 2005 future years defense plan?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine the capabilities we have to
provide news and information to our military at home and overseas and,
balancing that against other priorities within my area of
responsibility, do what I can to ensure we are doing the best we can in
this important area of internal communications.
Information is fragile and it must be a priority to ensure we work
to deliver it accurately and on time to our personnel. I believe there
is much we can do to expand services to meet this challenge.
As I have said, my desire is to build upon the present and, if
confirmed, I will use the AFIS as the architect and engineer to design
and build the future. If you confirm me, our strategy will be to
actively incorporate the consolidations and relocations that have been
started by the BRAC 2005 process. These improvements and this growth
will take several years of constant nurturing to reach fruition. Until
we reach that end, I don't foresee further expansion of the DOD Field
Activity.
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 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.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator John Warner
ARAB SATELLITE NEWS
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Smith, on April 26, 2005, you wrote an
article for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) titled ``The Enemy on our
Airways.'' In the article you stated that ``. . .Al--Jazeera continues
to aid and abet the enemy. . .'' Have you ever stated or written that
U.S. broadcast networks have aided or abetted terrorists by airing
video that first appeared on the Arab satellite news channel? Do you
believe this to be the case?
Mr. Smith. I have never written or stated that the United States
networks aid and abet terrorists by airing video that first appeared on
the satellite news channel Al Jazeera. I did write an Op Ed piece in
April 2005 for the WSJ which raised a number of questions following the
airing of hostage video by Al Jazeera and all six U.S. news networks.
In that piece I wrote, ``the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds is being
fought over satellite TV. It is a battle we are losing badly. I wrote,
``As long as Al Jazeera continues to aid and abet the enemy, as long as
we are fighting a war on the ground and in the airwaves, why are we not
fighting back against Al Jazeera. . .''
My past experiences running the Iraq Media Network in Baghdad gave
me insight into the communications strategy of our enemy. Raising the
tactics of the enemy in a newspaper piece was an effort lo spur public
discourse. I believe the public, the networks and policymakers should
examine the tactics of the enemy including providing video to the Arab
satellite network with the knowledge that it will be broadcast in the
United States as well. Understanding the communications strategy of the
enemy is a prerequisite to developing a communications strategy that is
effective. In the WSJ, I was not writing as a policymaker or government
official, nor was I a candidate for the Public Affairs job at the
Pentagon.
Newspaper accounts that I believe the U.S. networks aid and abet
terrorists are incorrect. When asked at the confirmation hearing ``But
you think it's a fair characterization now to say that the networks in
the United States aid and abet terrorists by showing that.'' I said,
``No, I do not.'' That is and always has been my belief.
I worked in network television for over 22 years and I maintain a
professional working relationship with the today. During my 9 months
with the CPA in Iraq, I worked very closely with U.S. networks to meet
their coverage needs. Most recently I was a media consultant to the
United Stales Senate for the Joint Congressional Committee for
Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC). For 4 months I represented that
institution to the U.S. network pool with the aim of producing the best
event for event for both parties. After the inauguration Tom Shales
wrote in the Washington Post, ``ABC's Peter Jennings noted that for the
relatively few viewers able to see them in high-definition TV, the
images were often ``fabulous.'' Indeed they were.''
As a network executive I appreciate the difficult decisions facing
journalists during wartime especially potential conflicts between
journalistic integrity and national security. If confirmed, I look
forward to conducting my relationship with U.S. networks in a
professional and respectful manner as I did when working in Iraq for 9
months and for JCCIC. I also look forward to working closely with this
committee on these important issues.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
MEDIA BIAS
2. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Smith, during my recent trips to Iraq I have
met many soldiers and marines who believe the media coverage is
unbalanced. They want to know why the media is not telling the many
success stories that are occurring over there. One soldier, Army LTC
Tim Ryan, said it very well in an article printed in WorldTribune.com:
``The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the
daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of
international support for the United States' efforts there, and a
strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while
weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced
reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are
aiding and abetting the enemy.'' Our enemy knows this and is
concentrating on it. It is essential to their strategy that they
continue to intimidate millions while their capabilities are actually
very small. The tool they use is the media. Let me quote from a letter
that we intercepted from Bin Laden's deputy, Zawahiri, which was sent
to the leader of the insurgency in Iraq, Zarqawi: ``I say to you: that
we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking
place in the battlefield of the media.'' Al Qaeda realizes the
importance of the media in shaping opinion and winning the people. So
why are we letting them?
Mr. Smith. Senator, I believe that al Qaeda has a very
sophisticated media strategy which, when effective, threatens our
national security. I believe we must engage the enemy on the airwaves,
in print and over the internet. We are truly in a flat world from a
communications standpoint and we need a strategy that recognizes that
reality. When communicating in the Arab world we must be sensitive to
their cultures and traditions. One thing I learned during my 9 months
in Iraq is that the Iraq audience is different from other Arab
countries. We must communicate in terms that the indigenous audience
understands. Our best messengers are the men and women of the armed
forces and the job they are doing. If confirmed I would take on the
challenge of creating a comprehensive media strategy to tell their
story in an open and honest way--combating the distortions perpetrated
by the enemy.
3. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Smith, the fact is that we are having many
successes over there. Positive stories are all over the place. When I
was there I saw children waiving American flags as we passed over head
in a helicopter. One hardened anti-American Iraqi battalion commander
trained along side U.S. Marines and was so enamored that he changed the
name of his unit to the ``Fallujah Marines.'' But we don't hear about
this sort of thing. Instead, the media continues to speculate about the
legalities of Saddam's trial or makes groundless allegations that U.S.
troops staged an interview with President Bush. I hate to admit it, but
this negative preoccupation is affecting the American people and
ultimately our warfighter. Soldiers have also told me that they get a
sense that even here in Congress there is a lack of support; from my
perspective I know that the cut-and-run caucus is alive and well. A few
of them said to me that ``it's nice to see we have someone on our side
up on the Hill,'' and I take that as a very deep compliment. They tell
me how they are taking the fight to the enemy and making progress every
day. If it comes to believing what I read in the paper or see on
television, versus listening to what someone on ground is actually
seeing, I think it's our young men and women there in Iraq who have it
right. We need to get the media to start telling the truth about what's
going on over there. How can the military get the real story out there?
Mr. Smith. Senator, ``to get the real story out'' we must get the
journalist to the story or the story to the journalist. The security
challenges of doing this in a war zone arc great, but it can be done.
If confirmed I would recommend reinvigorating the embed program which
worked so well in 2003. We need to ensure we have the technical
capability to broadcast briefings and transmit video on a 24/7 real
time basis from the theatre. We need to address the logistical issues
that journalists have including access in and out of the green zone. I
would also recommend that DOD public affairs have a full lime presence
in the region who's sole responsibility would be to manage these issues
working closely with our embassy and MNF-I. We should also be more
aggressive in highlighting our successes. Whether on TV, radio, print,
or the internet we need to tell the success stories as they happen. I
believe we need to organize more delegations to tour the region. The
more they see first hand the more credible the story.
4. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Smith, what can we do to change the negative
bias of the media, and if you are confirmed, how will you work towards
that?
Mr. Smith. Senator, the best antidote to media bias is honesty and
transparency. I believe that ``in the end the truth will out.'' If
confirmed I commit to using all the resources here and in theatre to
this end. After traveling to the region [ would develop a comprehensive
communications strategy in coordination with our people in the region
and my counterparts in the United States government. Highlighting the
metrics of success in an open and honest way is a public affairs
function. The issues raised in your previous questions would be the
one's we'd begin with. I look forward to working with this committee on
these goals.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
MEDIA RELEASE ON ENEMY DEATH TOLLS IN IRAQ
5. Senator Akaka. Mr. Smith, as the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Public Affairs, part of your responsibility would be to advise the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense for DOD news media relations,
community relations, and public information. As such, I am curious
about a question asked by the media regarding the enemy death tallies
in Iraq in 2003, when Secretary Rumsfeld said that ``We don't do body
counts on other people,'' but yet we are now hearing that the
Department is releasing certain enemy death tolls from as recently as
October 22, 2005. While I understand that you were not involved with
the Secretary's response in 2003, I am concerned that the Department is
releasing this information for the wrong reasons because it may benefit
the Department's effort to show that progress is being made in Iraq.
Why did the Department change its policy, internal or not, to release
enemy death tolls in certain U.S. military operations in Iraq?
Mr. Smith. Senator, it is my understanding that no policy change
has taken place with respect to releasing enemy death lolls. I've been
informed that on rare occasions DOD has reported estimated enemy
casualties to give context and understanding to a specific operation.
If confirmed, I would travel to the region and would pursue this issue
and would be happy to report back what I find.
______
[The nomination reference of Dorrance Smith follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 22, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dorrance Smith, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Victoria Clarke.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dorrance Smith, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dorrance Smith
Dorrance Smith is a four-time Emmy award winning television
producer, political consultant, and media strategist who has worked
over 30 years in television and politics.
Mr. Smith spent 9 months in Iraq in 2003-2004 where he served as
Senior Media Adviser to Ambassador Paul Bremer. He was responsible for
developing a state-of-the-art communications facility in Baghdad for
the Coalition Provisional Authority and a public diplomacy strategy for
the United States Government. In addition, Mr. Smith was asked to
overhaul the fledgling Iraqi Media Network. By April 2004, this effort
was deemed so successful that the terrestrial channel--Al Iraqiya--was
launched on satellite. For his efforts he was awarded the Secretary of
Defense Medal for Exceptional Public Service.
More recently he has been a consultant to the Joint Congressional
Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and the 2004 Republican National
Convention.
A four-time Emmy Award winning ABC News and Sports producer, he has
held a number of positions at the network, including serving as the
first executive producer of ``This Week with David Brinkley.''
From 1989 until 1991, Smith was the executive producer of ABC News
``Nightline.'' During his tenure he was responsible for the weeklong
``Nightline'' series originating from South Africa, which covered the
release of Nelson Mandela. The broadcasts won an Emmy award. In
addition he served as executive producer of the prime time special
``Tragedy at Tiananmen--The Untold Story,'' which was honored with the
duPont Columbia University Award, the Overseas Press Club Award, and an
Emmy. ``Nightline'' also won an Emmy in 1991 for outstanding news
coverage of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Prior to his work on ``Nightline,'' Smith was the executive
producer of the number one rated Sunday public affairs program, ``This
Week with David Brinkley,'' a post he held from the program's inception
in 1981 until 1989. During his tenure the broadcast received the first
Joan Barone Award, the George Foster Peabody Award, and was named the
Best National TV Interview Discussion Program by the readers of the
Washington Journalism Review.
In 1991, Smith left ABC News to become assistant to the President
for Media Affairs at the White House. In this capacity Smith handled
all television and radio events involving President Bush, members of
the White House staff and Cabinet. In addition his office handled all
regional media; coordinated media strategy for administration officials
seeking confirmation; and organized the debate preparation during the
1992 political campaign.
In 2001, Smith was designated by FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh to
handle all media following the events of September 11. In this capacity
Smith was responsible for FEMA's media strategy for print, radio and
television. Smith organized and distributed the now famous FEMA video
feeds from Ground Zero. He reorganized the Public Affairs Office to
meet the post September 11 media demands.
At ABC News, Smith became executive producer of all weekend news
programming in 1980. He was responsible for the production and
programming of ``World News Saturday,'' ``World News Sunday,'' ``The
Weekend Report,'' and ``The Health Show.''
Prior to his weekend assignment, Smith was Washington producer of
ABC News' ``The Iran Crises: America Held Hostage.'' He also served as
ABC News Senior Producer at the 1980 Winter Olympics, the 1984 Winter
and Summer Games, and the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary.
From 1978-1979, Smith served as ABC News' White House producer.
Smith joined ABC News as a Washington producer in 1977. Previously he
was staff assistant to President Gerald Ford.
He began his broadcasting career at ABC Sports in 1973 as an
assistant to the producer. In 1974 he was made Manager of Program
Planning for ABC's Wide World of Sports.
Smith is a member of the Advisory Council for the George Bush
Library in College Station, Texas.
He graduated from Claremont Men's College in 1973 with a Bachelor
of Arts degree. He lives in McLean, 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 Dorrance Smith
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 Dorrance Smith.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
September 22, 2005.
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 25, 1951; Houston, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Divorced.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
St. John's School (1956-1969) Houston, Texas, High School Degree,
1969.
Claremont Men's College (1969-1973) Claremont, CA, B.A. 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.
[The nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
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.
1991-1993--Assistant to the President for Media Affairs--The White
House.
1975-1977--Staff Assistant to the President--The White House.
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--Office of Secretary of Defense.
Advisory Counsel--George H.W. Bush Library.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member--Washington Golf & Country 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.
2004 Consultant--Republican National Committee.
2000 Consultant--Bush-Cheney 2000 Florida Recount.
(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.
[The nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
The Enemy on Our Airwaves--Wall Street Journal, April 25, 2005.
A Two-Fer Running Mate--Washington Post, July 4, 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.
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.
J. Dorrance Smith.
This 5th day of October, 2005.
[The nomination of Dorrance Smith was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on December 19, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on April 7, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Delores M. Etter by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD)
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities
and the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These reforms have also
vastly improved cooperation between the services and the combatant
commanders in the strategic planning process, in the development of
requirements, in joint training and education, and in the execution of
military operations.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions based on your experience in the DOD?
Answer. I do not. The civilian and military roles defined in the
Goldwater-Nichols Act produce a healthy tension that balances
warfighting needs with taxpayer interests. There is, however, always a
benefit to periodic reviews. This is especially true given the dynamic
nature of world events.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. I do not believe that modifications are necessary. I would
however, recommend that any periodic review examine processes within
the acquisition system to consider any forms of modification within
that system.
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition (ASN(RDA))?
Answer. It is my understanding that, at the present time, the
ASN(RDA) 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 possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. The systems and platforms in the acquisition process today
contain new technologies that will give our warfighters a critical edge
in accomplishing their missions. I have a strong technical background
that includes digital signal processing, communications, and software
engineering; this background will support technical judgments that I
will need to make, if confirmed. In addition, I was a member of the
Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) for 7 years, and chaired the
committee for two of those years. During that time, I had opportunities
see most of the Navy's platforms first-hand, and to talk to the men and
women responsible for the weapon systems. I have visited SYSCOMS,
Warfare Centers, shipyards, and research centers; I have visited
foreign Navy programs to understand the differences between their
acquisition processes and our process. I participated in a number of
NRAC studies that looked at various acquisition components. For
example, I was a member of a study that made recommendations on how to
reduce manning on ships, and I chaired a study that evaluated ways in
which modeling and simulation could help the acquisition process. My
previous experience as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for S&T
and my work for Dr. Gansler, the Under Secretary of Defense for ATL,
gave me further insight into the acquisition process. I have also been
on the Defense Science Board for the past 4 years, and have stayed
current with the broad range of issues challenging Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Services.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the ASN(RDA)?
Answer. I am professionally and technically prepared to assume the
duties of the ASN(RDA). If confirmed, I expect to have a close working
relationship with the Secretary of the Navy 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.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy
would prescribe for you?
Answer. At this time, I am not aware of any other additional duties
and responsibilities other than those noted in existing DOD and
Department of the Navy instructions.
RELATIONSHIPS
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
following:
The Secretary of the Navy.
The Under Secretary of the Navy.
The Chief of Naval Operations.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics.
The Assistant Secretaries of the Army and Air Force for
Acquisition.
The General Counsel of the Navy.
Answer. If confirmed as the ASN(RDA), I plan to establish and
maintain close relationships with each of those identified above to
execute the best possible acquisition program for the Department.
Question. The Secretary of the Navy/Under Secretary of the Navy.
Answer. 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
ASN(RDA) responsible to establish policy, procedures as well as manage
all research, development, and acquisition with the Navy. Additionally,
ASN(RDA) serves as the Navy's Service Acquisition Executive and Senior
Procurement Executive. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
Secretary and Under Secretary in furtherance of these assignments and
duties.
Question. The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)/Commandant of the
Marine Corps.
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to establish close working
relationships with the operational side of the Navy and Marine Corps
Team, the CNO and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to provide
sailors and marines with the required systems and platforms that are
effective, reliable, and affordable.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Answer. If confirmed as the ASN(RDA), 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
ASN(RDA), as the Service Acquisition Executive, provides
recommendations on all Navy ACAT ID programs to the Under Secretary of
Defense.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Army and Air Force for
Acquisition.
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to establish close working
relationships with my counterparts in the Army and the Air Force to
ensure coordination on key acquisition issues.
Question. The General Counsel of the Navy.
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to seek advice and counsel from the
Navy's Chief Legal Officer on all relevant matters.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that you
would confront, if confirmed as ASN(RDA)?
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 the global war on terror, the diverse and evolving
threats, and today's fiscal realities. If confirmed as the ASN(RDA), my
challenge will be to integrate the research, development, and
acquisition functions in the context of this complex equation. These
critical challenges include maintaining our technical advantage over
all adversaries, developing affordable systems and platforms, and
maintaining a viable technological and industrial base.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be an active participant in the
acquisition reform and streamlining initiatives being undertaken by the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy. Only through
comprehensive actions 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. Additionally, if
confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Navy and Marine Corps Team
establish an appropriate 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 the value
delivered for each investment and procurement dollar.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the ASN(RDA)?
Answer. At this time, I am unaware of any serious problems in the
performance of the functions of the ASN(RDA).
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If problems were to arise, I would do my best to resolve
problems as expeditiously as possible to maintain the integrity of the
acquisition process.
PRIORITIES
Question. What broad priorities would you establish, if confirmed,
in terms of issues, which must be addressed by the ASN(RDA)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work hard to address the priorities
determined by the Secretary of the Navy.
ACQUISITION ISSUES
Question. In recent months, a number of DOD officials have
acknowledged that the Department may have gone too far in reducing its
acquisition work force with the result of undermining its ability to
provide needed oversight in the acquisition process.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Answer. I understand that the Department of the Navy acquisition
workforce has been reduced by over half since 1989. I am personally
very concerned about both the size and the composition of the
workforce. If confirmed, I plan to review the size and skill mix of
those required to effectively manage programs, and work to improve the
Department's acquisition workforce.
Question. If so, what steps do you believe the Department of the
Navy should take to address this problem?
Answer. I believe the Navy must continue efforts to improve the
process we use to identify acquisition position requirements, and to
ensure incumbents are fully prepared and qualified to deliver
warfighting capability effectively and efficiently. If confirmed, a top
priority will be to assure that the Department acquisition workforce is
properly oriented to efficiently and effectively execute acquisition
programs.
Question. Major defense acquisition programs in the Department of
the Navy and the other military departments continue to be subject to
funding and requirements instability.
Do you believe that instability in funding and requirements drives
up program costs and leads to delays in the fielding of major weapon
systems?
Answer. Yes, funding and requirement changes are a primary cause of
most program cost increases and schedule delays.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department of the
Navy should take to address funding and requirements instability?
Answer. I believe the Department of the Navy needs to plan out-year
requirements to realistic budget limits and make the hard decisions
upfront. For example, it is my understanding that the CNO has
reinstated the Naval Characteristics Board. I believe that this, along
with effective utilization of the change control processes, is an
excellent first step toward establishing requirement stability. If
confirmed, I intend to work closely with the CNO and the Commandant of
the Marine Corps to insure a high degree of synergy among the
requirements, acquisition, and programming communities.
Question. The Comptroller General testified earlier this year that
DOD programs often move forward with unrealistic program cost and
schedule estimates, lack clearly defined and stable requirements,
include immature technologies that unnecessarily raise program costs
and delay development and production, and fail to solidify design and
manufacturing processes at appropriate junctures in the development
process.
Do you agree with the Comptroller General's assessment?
Answer. Based on my limited contacted with recent program
performance, this unfortunately appears to be the case.
Question. If so, what steps do you believe the Navy should take to
address these problems?
Answer. I believe that before committing large expenditures, the
Department must ensure that requirements have matured, design
alternatives have been fully examined, and realistic cost schedule and
risk assessments have been prepared. As such, collaboration between the
requirements, budgeting, and acquisition communities needs to be
stressed early in the program formulation stage to ensure there is a
realistic balance. Furthermore, development programs must incorporate
risk reduction efforts commensurate with the technology maturity levels
in evidence. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with the CNO and
the Commandant of the Marine Corps to insure a high degree of synergy
among these communities.
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Question. By some estimates, the DOD now spends more money every
year for the acquisition of services than it does for the acquisition
of products, including major weapon systems. Yet, the Department places
far less emphasis on staffing, training, and managing the acquisition
of services than it does on the acquisition of products.
What steps, if any, do you believe the Navy and Marine Corps should
take to improve the staffing, training, and management of its
acquisition of services?
Answer. I understand the Department of the Navy has already taken
significant steps to improve the management of services. If confirmed,
I intend to better understand these activities and to continue to
ensure that service acquisition receives the appropriate level of
management attention.
Question. Do you agree that the Navy and Marine Corps should
develop processes and systems to provide managers with access to
information needed to conduct comprehensive spending analyses of
services contracts on an ongoing basis?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The last decade has seen a proliferation of new types of
government-wide contracts and multi-agency contracts. The DOD is by far
the largest ordering agency under these contracts, accounting for 85
percent of the dollars awarded under one of the largest programs. The
DOD Inspector General and others have identified a long series of
problems with interagency contracts, including lack of acquisition
planning, inadequate competition, excessive use of time and materials
contracts, improper use of expired funds, inappropriate expenditures,
and failure to monitor contractor performance.
What steps, if any, do you believe the Department of the Navy
should take to ensure that its use of interagency contracts complies
with applicable DOD requirements and is in the best interests of the
Department?
Answer. Based on recent events, I understand the Department of the
Navy has issued specific procedures to ensure that the use of
interagency contracts is in the best interests of the Department. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Department's use of
interagency contracts complies with applicable DOD requirements and is
in the best interest of the Department of the Navy
DOD INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Question. As a former member of the Defense Science Board and
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology (S&T), you
have been a strong proponent for the goal of investing 3 percent of the
annual DOD budget in S&T. You have noted that falling below three
percent means not as many new technologies will be available 5, 10, or
15 years in the future and that investing more than 3 percent in better
economic times will not pick up the slack because advancements require
time.
What are your current views regarding the importance and viability
of annual 3 percent DOD spending for S&T?
Answer. I believe that a balanced and robust S&T program within the
DOD remains critical. The funding of a S&T program as measured as a
percentage of spending is only one of many factors necessary from which
to evaluate the efficacy of a Science and Technology program. If
confirmed, I will endeavor to accomplish the Secretary of the Navy's
priorities as they relate to the Navy and Marine Corps S&T program, and
will coordinate closely with the DDR&E on Navy's role in overall DOD
spending for S&T efforts.
NAVY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Question. For fiscal year 2006, the Department of the Navy plans to
dedicate approximately $1.8 billion to S&T programs, which amounts to
1.4 percent of the Department's total budget, and $448 million to basic
defense research, 0.36 percent of the total Department of the Navy
budget.
Do you believe that the current balance between short- and long-
term research is appropriate to meet current and future Navy and Marine
Corps needs?
Answer. At present, it appears the Department of the Navy has
adequately balanced its short- and long-term research. However, I
believe this balance needs to be re-assessed periodically.
Question. If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding
the importance of innovative defense science in meeting Navy and Marine
Corps missions?
Answer. Innovative research is a critical element of the
Department's S&T program. If confirmed, I will work closely with my
fellow members of the Department's Science and Technology Corporate
Board (VCNO, ACMC, and ASN(RD&A)) to ensure we challenge our S&T
enterprise to provide for the best possible solution for our
warfighters.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in ensuring
research priorities that would meet the needs of the Department in
2020?
Answer. If confirmed, I will take an active role in ensuring the
Department has a balanced and responsive program in basic research,
applied research, and advanced development that addresses the needs of
today's Navy, tomorrow's Navy, and the Navy after next. I will work
with the Science and Technology Corporate Board to provide appropriate
guidance to direct and shape its balance.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work to ensure that
appropriate S&T plans are utilized by the Navy and Marine Corps during
the budget, planning, and programming process?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Science and Technology
Corporate Board to ensure that approved S&T plans are considered during
the planning, programming and budgeting process while concurrently
ensuring that S&T plans adapt to Department priorities.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the
last few years. Challenges remain in institutionalizing the transition
of new technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons
systems and platforms.
What challenges to transition do you see within the Department of
the Navy?
Answer. Clearly, successful transition requires an appropriately
mature technology that addresses a warfighter need, a user demand, an
insertion window in the program of record and budgeted resources for
implementation. This alignment is hard to achieve and maintain. The
Department of the Navy uses the Future Naval Capabilities (FNC)
program, ACTDs, Rapid Technology Transition, SBIR, and various OSD
technology transition programs to bridge the gap between S&T and
acquisition. I believe the Department of the Navy has used those tools
effectively in recent years.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that technologies
rapidly transition from the laboratory into the hands of the
warfighter?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure the S&T portfolio includes
transition-oriented investments and processes that bring the key
stakeholders into alignment with a transition agreement. I believe the
Navy's FNC program is designed to do this.
Question. What steps would you take to enhance the effectiveness of
technology transition efforts?
Answer. Technology transition depends on many variables, including
warfighter need that can be met by a technology solution, an
acquisition program of record that can inject the appropriate
technology solution into its program and resources to fund the
technology insertion. The Department's technology transition programs
appear to take these variables into account. If confirmed, I will
examine the Department's transition programs and technology transition
metrics with the goal of continued process improvement.
TECHNICAL WORKFORCE
Question. What is your current assessment of the quality and
sustainability of the DOD S&T workforce and the management of DOD's
laboratory infrastructure?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to assess the current state
of the quality and sustainability of the DOD Science and Technology
workforce and the management of DOD's laboratory infrastructure.
However, if confirmed, I will review this critical aspect of the
Department's future warfighting capabilities.
Question. If confirmed, what plans would you pursue to ensure an
adequate supply of Navy and Marine Corps experts in critical
disciplines in the Department's research and development commands?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine alternatives for attracting
and retaining an adequate supply science, technology, engineering, and
management professionals necessary to the Department of the Navy.
NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING RESEARCH PROGRAM--ADVANCED SHIPBUILDING
ENTERPRISE
Question. The Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise of the National
Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP-ASE) is a collaborative effort
between the Navy and shipbuilding industry to improve processes with
the objective of reducing the costs to build ships. Modest funding from
both partners is projected to more than pay for itself. With the
current criticism of increasing costs for Navy ships, it does not seem
prudent for the Navy to cease supporting this program, but funding for
the program was not requested in the fiscal year 2006 budget request.
If confirmed, what steps would you propose in working with the
shipyards to reduce the costs of Navy shipbuilding?
Answer. If confirmed, I would investigate methodologies where
industry and Navy could collaborate on understanding the issues that
are driving cost growth on our Navy shipbuilding programs.
Question. Do you believe that a collaborative, co-funded effort
such as the NSRP-ASE between the Navy and the industrial base is of
intrinsic value in lowering the spiraling costs of Navy ships?
Answer. I understand the major goal of the NSRP-ASE is to reduce
the cost of shipbuilding and repair. However, I have not received
briefings on this effort. If confirmed, I intend to review this as one
of the alternatives to lowering the spiraling costs of Navy ships.
SHIPBUILDING
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget request included a funding
request for only four ships, two funded by the Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy account, and two funded by the National Defense
Sealift Fund. In testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee in support
of the budget request, Navy and industry leadership testified that
stability in the shipbuilding program is essential if costs are to be
controlled. The Navy, however, has changed the acquisition profiles and
strategies for shipbuilding programs numerous times in recent years.
Do you agree that stability of acquisition profiles and strategies
are essential to shipbuilding cost control?
Answer. Yes, stability in requirements is a key step to a viable
shipbuilding industrial base.
Question. If confirmed, how would you attempt to ensure this
stability?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the CNO, the OSD,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress to maintain a
long-range shipbuilding plan that industry could use to plan for
infrastructure investment. Also, I would challenge industry to maintain
the efficiency required to compete in the commercial sector by
transitioning as many shipbuilding contracts as possible away from
cost-reimbursable type contracts to fixed price type contracts.
ALTERNATIVE FUNDING FOR SHIPBUILDING
Question. On numerous occasions, Navy leaders have testified that
identifying an acceptable alternative to the full funding policy for
shipbuilding is necessary to avoid increases in the Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy account brought about by the purchase of large ships.
Methods such as split funding and incremental funding have been used on
certain ships. Another method that has been discussed is advance
appropriations.
In your opinion, what is the best way to fund Navy ships?
Answer. Procuring Navy ships is very different from other DOD
acquisition programs in terms of the scope of the design and
construction effort, the extended timeframe required to design and
build ships, and the low production rate that ships are generally
procured. The fundamental process of integrating a 4- to 8-year design
and build cycle for Navy ships with an annual budget process that must
respond to significant short term situations, creates many
opportunities to affect change and cause instability across the Navy
shipbuilding accounts. If confirmed, I will investigate available
shipbuilding financing alternatives.
Question. If confirmed, what alternative methods, if any, for
shipbuilding funding, that would still allow congressional oversight,
would you recommend?
Answer. I will work with OSD, OMB, and Congress to implement the
statutory authority necessary to provide the Navy with the ability to
most efficiently and affordably fund complex shipbuilding programs,
while at the same time ensuring appropriate oversight to monitor ship
acquisition costs.
Question. What is your view of the long-term impact of split
funding or incremental funding on the availability of funds for Navy
shipbuilding accounts?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to assess the long-term
impact of split funding or incremental funding on the availability of
funds for Navy shipbuilding accounts. However, if confirmed, I will
review this issue.
SURFACE COMBATANT CONSTRUCTION
Question. During your previous service as the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for S&T you testified before the Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats and Capabilities about the Navy's DD-21 program. You
stated that significant program reform initiatives ``have included an
acquisition approach that leverages industry competition and
innovation. Breaking up the so-called `dream team' of Bath Iron Works,
Ingalls, and Lockheed Martin and, instead, requiring competition in the
initial concept phase of the program, between teams of shipbuilders and
system integrators, assures us the best of weapon system ideas at the
lowest future production and support costs--the award criteria.''
The Navy has recently proposed different acquisition strategies for
the new class of surface combatants, the DD(X). One proposal put
forward included a ``winner take all'' strategy that could very well
reduce the surface combatant industrial base to just one shipyard.
What is your opinion on having only one shipyard capable of
building surface combatants?
Answer. At a Cold War build rate of 4-5 major surface combatants a
year, a single shipyard could not provide all the required ships.
Multiple shipyards capable of building large surface combatants also
have allowed for some competitive pressure on costs. However, as long
as the requirement for major surface combatants is at a rate of two or
fewer ships per year, maintaining excess industrial capacity for
surface combatants may not be cost effective. Despite this fact, having
more than one shipyard available, properly protects the Navy from
potential man-made or natural disasters. If confirmed, I intend to
review available options in light of the best interest of our Nation's
security.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure a
viable surface combatant industrial base?
Answer. Stability in requirements is a key first step to ensure a
viable shipbuilding industrial base. If confirmed, I would work closely
with the CNO, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of
Management and Budget, and Congress to maintain a long-range
shipbuilding plan that industry could use to plan for infrastructure
investment. I would challenge industry to maintain the efficiency
required to compete in the commercial sector by transitioning as many
shipbuilding contracts as possible away from cost-reimbursable type
contracts to fixed price type contracts.
TACTICAL AVIATION PROGRAMS
Question. As Navy and the Marine Corps F/A-18 and Marine Corps AV-
8B aircraft continue to age, the need for a timely Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) replacement becomes more and more pressing.
What are your views regarding the current risk to the JSF program
schedule during its System Development and Demonstration phase?
Answer. I have not been in a position to review this particular
program. However, if confirmed, I will review the program in depth.
Question. If the JSF program were to slip again, what course of
action would you recommend to maintain sufficient strike assets within
our Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs)?
Answer. I have not been in a position to review this particular
program. However, if confirmed, I will review the program and identify
appropriate recommendations.
Question. Naval aviation's EA-6B is a key enabler for traditional
naval strike missions and performs a critical role in today's global
war on terror. Efforts are ongoing to improve its Airborne Electronic
Attack (AEA) capabilities through the Improved Capabilities (ICAP) III
upgrade. Many of the ICAP III technologies developed for the EA-6B will
also be incorporated into the follow-on AEA platform, the EA-18G.
What is your assessment of EA-18G program performance during its
System Development and Demonstration phase?
Answer. I have not been in a position to review this particular
program. However, if confirmed, I will review the program and determine
the appropriate course of action.
Question. The E-2 Hawkeye provides CSGs with an over-the-horizon
airborne radar and tactical data platform capability. The E-2 Advanced
Hawkeye will replace all earlier E-2 configurations, and incorporate an
advanced radar and sensor suite to support Theater Air and Missile
Defense as well as enhance CSG operations and survivability in the
littorals.
If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you recommend making to
the Advanced Hawkeye program?
Answer. I have not been in a position to review this particular
program. If confirmed, I will review the program and determine the
appropriate course of action.
Question. For many years, Navy and Marine Corps tactical aircraft
have been limited to single point refueling from KC-135 and KC-10
aerial refueling aircraft. Only recently have a limited number of these
aerial refueling aircraft been converted to provide a multi-point air
refueling capability.
As part of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development
System for recapitalization of the KC-135 tanker fleet, what
requirements, if any, has the Department inserted into the Capability
Development Document process to accommodate Navy and Marine Corps
needs?
Answer. I have not been in a position to review this particular
program. If confirmed, I will review the program and determine the
appropriate course of action.
Question. United States tactical air forces currently fly with
several different Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) targeting systems.
Price and performance varies greatly between the systems.
What are your views regarding tactical FLIR systems and which
system(s) is/are best suited for the Navy and the Marine Corps?
Answer. I have not been in a position to review this particular
program. If confirmed, I will review the program and determine the
appropriate course of action.
HEAVY LIFT ROTORCRAFT
Question. The Army and the Marine Corps both have a need for a
future heavy lift transport helicopter to replace existing heavy lift
rotorcraft. The Marine Corps has embarked on a Heavy Lift Replacement
(HLR) to acquire a new helicopter to replace the aging CH-53
helicopter. At the same time, the Army is exploring a Joint Heavy Lift
(JHL) rotorcraft program, however, the ``joint'' aspects of this
program have not been demonstrated.
Please describe the Marine Corps' HLR program and explain why this
program should or should not be merged with the Army's JHL program?
Answer. I have not been in a position to review these particular
programs. However, if confirmed, I will review the pros and cons of
such an action.
army and marine corps capabilities and acquisition programs
Question. Although the Army and Marine Corps have different
missions and capabilities, their equipment, should have some degree of
commonality. Throughout Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom,
the Army and Marine Corps have worked together on acquiring equipment
for Army and Marine Corps forces. However, for equipment such as
helicopters and heavy wheeled vehicles, the Army and the Marine Corps
have divergent acquisition paths.
What are your views regarding the joint development and acquisition
of Army and Marine Corps equipment?
Answer. I am supportive of the concept of joint development and
procurement of systems. However, before reaching any conclusions about
joint development in this case, it would be important to analyze the
individual needs and requirements of the Services, as well as discuss
the programs with senior leaders of both the Marine Corps and the Army.
Question. What role should the ASN(RDA) and the Secretary of the
Navy play in synchronizing Army and Marine Corps requirements and
synchronizing service programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy to
ensure that the CNO, Commandant and Navy's acquisition community work
closely with the Army, Air Force, the Coast Guard and the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to set joint requirements wherever feasible.
Question. Should the Marine Corps heavy lift replacement program be
delayed until the Army and Marine Corps can agree on a single joint
requirement for heavy lift rotorcraft?
If not, why not?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to be fully briefed, nor
have I been in a position to review these particular programs. As such,
I am not in a position to comment on any changes to this program.
ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYSTEM (ASDS)
Question. The Department of the Navy has provided program
management of this complex acquisition program on behalf of the U.S.
Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The program has been plagued by
technical challenges, cost growth, and schedule slippage.
What is your understanding of the current status of this program?
Answer. I understand the ASDS Program is approaching a Milestone C
decision planned for December 2005.
Question. What is the appropriate role of the ASN(RDA) in oversight
of this SOCOM program?
Answer. I understand the role of ASN(RDA) is to provide guidance to
the Navy Program Manager who executes all duties and responsibilities
for the Program such as contracting, cost/schedule/performance
monitoring, technical issue resolution, configuration control and
logistics support.
JOINT PROGRAMS
Question. In the last few years, the Navy and the Air Force have
both withdrawn from joint weapons programs. The Air Force has withdrawn
from the Joint Standoff Weapon system, and the Navy has withdrawn from
the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile system.
In your opinion, what are the key reasons that joint programs are
initiated, but one or more of the partners withdraws?
Answer. I believe joint programs are important to enhancing
warfighting capability and reducing overall program cost. Jointness
provides the opportunity for enhanced warfighter capabilities via
developing systems with common requirements, interoperability, and a
shared logistics base. Jointness also make sense from a business case
perspective, as budgetary benefits may include: lower non-recurring
costs via cost sharing, lower unit costs from economies of scale, and
lower program life-cycle costs. Withdrawal from a joint program by a
participant often is the result of competing fiscal priorities coupled
with the sustainment of a particular capability with legacy systems.
The opportunity cost of continuing to meet operational commitments with
existing platforms and weapons is often the withdrawal from pursuing an
improved capability.
Question. If confirmed, how would you recommend changing the system
so that the Navy and Marine Corps would participate in only those
programs in which it would follow through?
Answer. Jointness works most effectively when the Services, the
OSD, and the Joint Staff share the same perspective about warfighting
requirements and the technical and cost benefits/risks. I believe that
Service Leadership coordination must begin early in the process and be
maintained to ensure success. If confirmed, I will examine other
methods to improve joint program participation.
UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY PROFESSORS
Question. As a member of the U.S. Naval Academy electrical
engineering faculty you have had a unique opportunity to evaluate the
Academy's ability to perform its academic mission. Last year, the Naval
Academy's Academic Dean, William C. Miller, said that a shortage of
qualified professors, both military and civilian, threatens the
Academy's ability to provide a first-rate military education.
Additionally, he indicated that the desired 50-50 ratio of civilian to
military instructors has lessened with civilian instructors
outnumbering military officers 292 to 226.
Answer. I understand the Dean's concerns, having witnessed a number
of vacant officer-instructors in my home department of electrical
engineering. The Naval Academy has actually been quite close to a 50-50
ratio (plus/minus 5 percent) over the past 40 years. Only recently, in
the past 10-12 years, has the growing number of vacant military billets
become a challenge, threatening this historical balance and forcing the
hiring of adjunct civilian faculty in lieu of officer-instructors or
career civilian educators. As you may know, the Navy and the Naval
Academy, working together, have developed, a number of initiatives
including the Permanent Military Professor (PMP) program, the Graduate
Education plus Teaching program, and the recall of reservists with
advanced, postgraduate education in the subjects taught at USNA. I am
confident that those remedies will be increasingly effective in
reversing the unfortunate trend of vacant officer-instructor billets.
Question. What is your current assessment of the Naval Academy's
supply of qualified civilian and military professors?
Answer. I have been impressed with the quality of both the officer
and civilian faculty at the Academy. Departments carefully scrutinize
the officers nominated to teach in their respective departments, and
the Naval Academy conducts successful national searches for all of its
career civilian faculty positions. The resulting faculty is first rate,
and provides an outstanding undergraduate education to our future Navy
and Marine officers.
Question. What is your view of the PMP Program initiative and the
pace of implementation and manning, and what recommendations, if any,
for this program do you have?
Answer. There are three PMPs in my home department of Electrical
Engineering. All have extensive operational Navy experience in addition
to an earned doctorate in electrical engineering. One of these
officers, a Navy captain, is our department chair. Another I have had
the opportunity to collaborate with in my research. I understand plans
are underway to expand the PMP Program to a total of 50. I heartily
endorse both the program and the expansion.
Question. If confirmed as ASN(RDA), what role, if any, would you
expect to play with respect to oversight of the U.S. Naval Academy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will supervise the research of the Naval
Academy and the Office of Naval Research. Both organizations have a
longstanding relationship dating back through multiple USNA
superintendents, academic deans, and ONR commanders. I expect that that
relationship will continue, to the mutual benefit of both institutions.
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 ASN(RDA)?
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 James M. Inhofe
R&D AND ACQUISITIONS BUDGETING
1. Senator Inhofe. Secretary Young and Dr. Etter, I am concerned
about the state of our research and development and procurement and
acquisitions programs across our United Stated military. After our
country's victory in the Cold War, the Clinton administration reduced
our military appropriations excessively in search of a so-called
``peace dividend'', accounting for cuts of $430 billion from fiscal
year 1994-fiscal year 2001. In fact, after concentrating to keep the
former Soviet Union in check in the preceding 45-odd years, we should
have been steadfast in advancing our weapons systems to combat future
threats. Instead, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 we had projected reductions of 25 percent of the acquisitions
personnel force over a 5-year period. This has put us behind in
acquiring new weapon systems which has narrowed the advantage our
military has maintained against that of other nations' armed forces.
This has resulted in systems that require far more maintenance than is
prudent in a war-time environment, decreasing the envelope of safety
for our warfighter.
Earlier this year witnesses such as General John Jumper and
Secretary Michael Wynne testified before this committee that one of the
reasons we are seeing delays and problems in bringing new weapons
systems online is because we have cut too deeply in the research and
development and acquisitions career fields. This cut excessively
reduced personnel whose profession is to shepherd these systems through
R&D to the acquisitions process, and ensure the systems meet the
military's specifications, budget requirements, and have a schedule of
bringing a system on-line while its technology still meets the threat
it was designed to combat. I'd like both of you to comment on the
adequacy of the R&D budget, personnel numbers for DOD, and in your
case, Dr. Etter, the U.S. Navy, and what Congress may be able to do to
assist you in your very timely role of recapitalizing our military,
should you be confirmed.
Dr. Etter. The Department of the Navy's Research and Development
budget appears to be adequately balanced between competing near-term
and long-term needs. I do plan to look closely at this balance, if
confirmed.
The Department of the Navy's acquisition, logistics, and technology
workforce has been reduced by over half since 1989. I am personally
very concerned about both the size and the composition of the
workforce. I plan to review the size and skill mix of those required to
effectively shepherd complex systems through the research, development
and procurement phases of the acquisition process. I will also examine
ways to improve the Department's workforce. I believe the Navy must
continue efforts to improve the process we use to identify acquisition
position requirements, and to ensure incumbents are fully prepared and
qualified to efficiently deliver warfighting capability. One of my top
priorities is to assure that the Department's acquisition workforce is
properly oriented to effectively execute acquisition programs. Support
from Congress for current and future personnel management flexibilities
necessary to address acquisition personnel challenges facing the
research and engineering workforce will be critical.
With regard to force recapitalization, much effort has been
expended within the Department of the Navy examining different methods
in which major capital expenses, such as aircraft carriers, surface
ships, and submarines, can be financed. There appear to be a number of
innovative approaches. For example, allowing the Secretary of Defense
the flexibility to transfer funds from different appropriation accounts
to the original SCN account financing a major capital expense is one
approach. However, financing a particular submarine Engineered
Refueling Overhaul, submarine conversion project, or aircraft carrier
Refueling Complex Overhaul project in this manner requires approval of
legislative proposals submitted by the Department of Defense (DOD).
Given the legislative authority and other acquisition tools, the
Department and industry can do the job of recapitalizing the equipment
needed by our warfighters.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
DD(X) ACQUISITION STRATEGY
2. Senator Collins. Dr. Etter, the new Chief of Naval Operations,
Admiral Mullen, has set an important challenge of bringing stability
back to Navy shipbuilding budget and the Naval shipbuilding industry.
He has made clear his goal of reducing the costs of warships. If
confirmed, you will be an important partner to Admiral Mullen in that
critical undertaking. I am confident that restoring stability to Navy
shipbuilding will help reduce the costs of required warships.
An important focus needs to be on fostering a more conducive
partnership with the Navy's shipbuilding industry partners in order to
achieve these goals. The DD(X) program should be a prime candidate for
restoring stability and looking for ways to work with the shipbuilders
more constructively to achieve the common objectives we all share.
Resolving the issue of the DD(X) acquisition strategy, and doing so in
constructive dialogue with industry and Congress, remains vitally
important but unfinished business. When Navy Secretary nominee Dr.
Winter appeared before our committee several weeks ago, he
characterized the Navy's shipbuilding program as ``the ultimate and
most important issue confronting the Navy at this time.''
Months before Navy shipbuilding facilities on the Gulf Coast
suffered major damage from Hurricane Katrina, Congress ultimately felt
it had no recourse but to statutorily prohibit the Navy's proposed
``winner-take-all'' one shipyard DD(X) acquisition strategy. The fiscal
year 2006 Defense Authorization bill--reported from this committee and
pending further floor action--contains a continued statutory
prohibition on the ill-advised one shipyard approach. During his
confirmation hearing, Dr. Winter acknowledged that if we do not
maintain our skilled defense--in this case surface combatant
shipbuilding--workforce, ``we are likely to have problems in the
future,'' in terms of product quality and in the Nation's ability to
meet emergent threats and surge requirements.
If confirmed will you actively engage the DD(X) shipbuilders to
develop and implement a cost-effective and long-term way ahead for the
DD(X) program that leverages the strengths and skilled workers of both
proven surface combatant shipbuilders?
Dr. Etter. If confirmed, I will work with Congress, the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, and our industry partners on all the Navy's
shipbuilding programs. I am committed to providing our warfighters with
systems that are operationally superior at a price the taxpayers can
afford.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
PERSONNEL ISSUES
3. Senator Reed. Dr. Etter, I understand that in a recent speech
you pointed out some of the elements which are essential if the United
States is to have world-class defense laboratories. The ability to hire
and retain world-class scientists and engineers is an essential
prerequisite for maintaining and creating world-class research
institutions. I am sure you are aware that a number of Navy
organizations, such as the Naval Research Lab and the Naval Undersea
Warfare Center in Newport, Rhode Island, have been successfully
utilizing congressionally-mandated personnel authorities to recruit and
retain high quality scientists and engineers. You may also be aware
that there are efforts being made to limit and even terminate these
authorities, as a result of the implementation of the National Security
Personnel System (NSPS). If confirmed, do you intend to assist the
laboratories in retaining their personnel demonstration authority,
which has been so successful to date in hiring and retaining such
talent?
Dr. Etter. I believe we must continue our efforts to hire and
retain the very best scientists and engineers in our in-house RDT&E
Laboratory and Centers, and I believe the congressionally-authorized
personnel demonstration projects are an important part of this effort.
The NSPS legislation exempts the laboratories and centers in question
from coverage until fiscal year 2008. Many of the practices and
procedures that are planned for the National Security Personnel System
originated as ``experiments'' in one or more of the Laboratory
personnel demonstrations. By fiscal year 2008, NSPS will be up and
running throughout most of the DOD. We will be able to assess whether
NSPS provides the tools and flexibility we need to hire and retain
scientific and engineering talent with as much or more success than we
have today under the demonstration authority. All indications are that
NSPS will provide comparable tools and flexibility. The Navy's RDT&E
Laboratory and Centers face significant personnel challenges as they
attempt to attract, retain, and adequately reward world-class
scientists and engineers from a shrinking talent pool of qualified U.S.
citizens. Addressing this challenge will be an important goal for me,
if confirmed.
4. Senator Reed. Dr. Etter, will you look into the issue of which
personnel system best supports the Navy lab and technical centers'
efforts to perform their designated missions?
Dr. Etter. It is my understanding that the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering (DDR&E) is preparing a gap analysis that will
compare the personnel flexibilities available to the DOD RDT&E
activities with those that are expected under the National Security
Personnel System. I expect that this analysis will be based to a
significant degree on the experience gained by the Navy's Laboratory
and Centers with their personnel demos. NSPS should provide the tools
and flexibility necessary for our labs and technical centers to
acquire, develop, and reward the workforce needed to perform their
designed missions. The design of NSPS is based on the best practices
from the various personnel demonstration projects, including the Naval
Research Laboratory project, the Acquisition project, and the
longstanding Alternative Personnel System in place at the NAVAIR
Weapons Division and SPAWAR on the west coast. NSPS provides the pay
banding, pay for performance, market sensitive pay, and staffing
flexibilities found in the existing demonstration projects. At the same
time, NSPS should provide efficiencies associated with supporting far
fewer personnel systems from an IT infrastructure, and training
perspective. I will examine the results of the DDR&E gap analysis as
part of my effort to ensure we pursue the best practices available to
recruiting and maintaining world class caliber talent in our Naval lab
and technology community workforce. It is clearly critical that our
laboratory directors be able to shape their workforces to meet the
challenges in performing their missions.
5. Senator Reed. Dr. Etter, do you see some merit in developing a
separate personnel system for DOD scientists and engineers?
Dr. Etter. The personnel problems confronting the Department of the
Navy RDT&E activities are in some ways unique and much more challenging
than those facing the Navy as a whole. While I believe it would be
premature to conclude that a totally separate personnel system is
required for the DOD labs and centers, I do see considerable merit in
granting these organizations an array of specialized authorities and
tools that can be used to make them competitive for world-class talent
in this difficult environment. The NSPS Compensation Architecture is
designed around career groups of similar occupations. NSPS has already
established a separate career group for scientists and engineers. This
provides the opportunity to focus on compensation issues unique to the
scientific and engineering community and set pay and manage
compensation appropriately. With this tailoring, there does not appear
to be a need for a separate personnel system for DOD scientists and
engineers. However, I do intend to stay closely involved with this
issue, if confirmed.
NAVY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
6. Senator Reed. Dr. Etter, if confirmed as the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy, you will have oversight over the Navy's science and
technology programs. This is an area where you are one of the world's
experts--given your own academic background and your experience as the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology in the
previous administration. Are you satisfied with the current funding
levels for Navy science and technology?
Dr. Etter. The Department's portfolio invests in discovery and
invention as well as exploitation and deployment of advanced
technologies for the Nation's Naval Forces. A balanced and robust S&T
program within the Department of the Navy remains critical. If
confirmed, reviewing the funding levels for Navy science and technology
will be an important task for me.
7. Senator Reed. Dr. Etter, how will you set priorities between
large acquisition programs and small research efforts within the
constrained Navy budgets?
Dr. Etter. In fiscal year 2005, based on the recommendations of the
Science and Technology Corporate Board, Navy initiated the Innovative
Naval Prototypes (INPs) program. INPs bring critical funding levels for
revolutionary ``game changers'' for future naval warfare. These
initiatives include an eletromagnetic railgun prototype; new concepts
for persistent, netted, littoral anti-submarine warfare; technologies
to enable Seabasing; and the Naval tactical utilization of space. I
look forward to reviewing the balance between short-term research, and
long-term research programs as described above, if confirmed.
8. Senator Reed. Dr. Etter, are there any technology areas that you
think deserve special emphasis within Navy research?
Dr. Etter. Under the leadership of the Secretary of the Navy,
significant focus has been placed on countering Improved Explosive
Devices (IEDs) in a small scale ``Manhattan Project''. A key S&T goal
in resolving the IED threat is to understand the basic phenomenologies
involved in the ability to detect, defeat, and destroy IEDs at range
and speed. Long term basic and applied research muse be conducted to
address the foundations of current and future IED problems. We must
exploit our chemistry, physics, materials, and electronic warfare
expertise by taking a systems approach to attacking each step in the
engagement sequence. When we are successful, this ability could
effectively deter this line of attack against our forces. In addition,
the move to all-electric ships allows us to consider a number of new
weapon systems.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
PUBLICATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
9. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Young and Dr. Etter, university
associations have documented recent cases where universities have
refused to perform research contracts for DOD because of provisions
restricting their ability to publish research findings. These
provisions are inconsistent with both existing DOD and overall
government policy providing that unless classified, information
generated through contracted fundamental research at universities
should not be subject to controls. What is your view of the
appropriateness of DOD seeking to restrict the ability of universities
to publish their research in this way?
Dr. Etter. National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD-189)
establishes national policy for controlling the flow of science,
technology, and engineering information produced in federally-funded
fundamental research at colleges, universities, and laboratories. It
appears that there are some contracting officers that are either
unaware of NSDD-189 or unfamiliar with what constitutes `fundamental
research' and may be including contract clauses that require a
government review prior to publication. I will work to ensure that
steps are taken to inform them that, for contracted fundamental
research, such restrictive provisions are against policy.
10. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Young and Dr. Etter, do you feel
that scientific progress depends on broad sharing of research results
among scientists, in national defense as well as other areas?
Dr. Etter. Yes, sharing research information, particularly for
basic research far in advance of military application is important in
expanding the knowledge base and furthering capabilities. However, the
need to protect our National security must also be considered when
evaluating effective and appropriate ways of sharing scientific
progress and research knowledge.
proposed rules on export controls impact on university research
11. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Young and Dr. Etter, in response
to a report issued by the DOD Inspector General in March 2004, DOD
recently proposed a new export control compliance clause for DOD
contracts. I understand DOD received over 130 comments in response to
this proposal, most of which were opposed to the proposed rule. I
understand that one of the proposal's requirements is for segregated
facilities and badging of all foreign nationals involved in DOD
research, even fundamental research conducted at universities.
Since other agencies have regulatory authority for export
controls--namely the Department of Commerce and the Department of
State--do you feel that it is appropriate for the DOD to establish its
own separate policies in this area?
Dr. Etter. I believe the DOD has a role in determining the
potential military application of technology and the development of
processes and procedures for limiting the exportation of those
technologies. I feel that it is inappropriate to establish separate
policies for DOD contracts where regulatory authority resides in other
agencies, however, it is appropriate for DOD to facilitate contractor
awareness of existing regulatory authority that resides in other
agencies. I understand that DOD is coordinating with the Departments of
State and Commerce to ensure that any proposed rule is consistent with
the National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and
Engineering Information (NSDD-189), and existing laws and regulations
governing export-controlled information and technology.
12. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Young and Dr. Etter, if
confirmed, will you engage with the university research community to
try to address their concerns in this area?
Dr. Etter. Yes, I will engage with the university research
community to address their concerns in this area. I have been advised
that the acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Laboratories and
Basic Sciences is currently engaged with the research community in this
area through the National Academies of Science and the American
Association of Universities.
______
[The nomination reference of Delores M. Etter follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 6, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Delores M. Etter, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, vice John J. Young.
______
[The biographical sketch of Delores M. Etter, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Delores M. Etter
Dr. Etter joined the Electrical Engineering faculty at the United
States Naval Academy on August 1, 2001, as the first recipient of the
Office of Naval Research Distinguished Chair in Science and Technology.
Her academic interests are in digital signal processing and
communications. Her research interests include biometric signal
processing, with an emphasis on identification using iris recognition.
She is also the author of a number of textbooks on computer languages
and software engineering.
From June 1998 through July 2001, Dr. Etter served as the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology. In that
position, she was responsible for Defense Science and Technology
strategic planning, budget allocation, and program execution and
evaluation for the $9 billion per year DOD Science and Technology
Program. Dr. Etter was the Principal U.S. representative to the NATO
Research and Technology Board. She was also responsible for the Defense
Modeling and Simulation Organization, the High Performance Computing
Modernization Office, and for technical oversight of the Software
Engineering Institute. Dr. Etter was also the senior civilian in charge
of the DOD high-energy laser research program.
From 1990-1998, Dr. Etter was a Professor of Electrical and
Computer Engineering at the University of Colorado, Boulder. During
1979-1989, Dr. Etter was a faculty member in Electrical and Computer
Engineering at the University of New Mexico. She served as Associate
Vice President for Academic Affairs in 1989. During the 1983-1984
academic year she was a National Science Foundation Visiting Professor
in the Information Systems Laboratory in the Electrical Engineering
Department at Stanford University.
Dr. Etter is a member of the National Science Board, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Defense Science Board. She is a Fellow
of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). She served as
President of the IEEE Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Society
from 1988-1989, and was Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on
Signal Processing from 1993-1995.
Dr. Etter was a member of the Naval Research Advisory Committee
from 1991-1997, and chaired the committee from 1995-1997. She has
received the Department of the Navy Distinguished Public Service Award,
the Secretary of Defense Outstanding Public Service Medal, and the
Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal.
______
[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 Delores M.
Etter 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.)
Delores Maria Etter.
Delores Maria Van Camp (maiden name).
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and
Acquisition).
3. Date of nomination:
September 6, 2005.
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 25, 1947; Denver, CO.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Jerry Richard Etter.
7. Names and ages of children:
Amy Marie Gerrish, age 34.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of New Mexico, June 1975-Dec. 1979, Ph.D., Dec. 1979.
Wright State University, Jan. 1969-May 1972; BS, May 1970; MS, May
1972.
Oklahoma State University, Sep. 1965-Jan. 1968.
Shidler High School, Sep. 1961-May 1965; HS Diploma, May 1965.
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.
Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, United States Naval
Academy, Aug. 2001-present.
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology,
Office of the Secretary of Defense, June 1998-Aug. 2001.
Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Jan. 1990-June 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.
Defense Science Board, 1995-1998, 2002-present.
National Science Board, 2002-present.
National Defense University Board of Trustees, 2002-2005.
Naval Research Advisory Board, 1991-1997.
Ballistic Missile Defense Advisory Committee, 1996-1998.
Federal Aviation Association Research, Development, and Engineering
Advisory Committee, 1994-1997.
Nonproliferation, Arms Control, and International Security Advisory
Committee, Lawrence Livermore Lab, 2001-2005.
Remote Sensing Strategy Panel, OSD, 2001.
MIT Lincoln Lab Advisory Board.
Distinguished Review Board, Center for Directed Energy, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base.
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.
Charles Draper Laboratory, Board of Directors.
Argon ST, Board of Directors.
North American Electric Reliability Council, Board of Trustees.
Prime Photonics, LC, Technical Advisory Board.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
National Academy of Engineering.
Southern Methodist University, School of Engineering Executive
Board.
Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineering (IEEE).
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE).
Sigma XI.
Tau Beta Pi.
Eta Kappa Nu.
Phi Kappa Phi.
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.
2000
Bush/Cheney Campaign - $1,000.
Heather Wilson Campaign - $2,000.
George Allen Campaign - $1,000.
John Warner Campaign - $1,000.
Frank Wolf Campaign - $1,000.
Republican National Committee - $1,000.
2001
Heather Wilson Campaign - $1,000.
John Warner Campaign - $1,000.
Jerry Kilgore Campaign - $250.
Republican National Committee - $2,000.
2002
Heather Wilson Campaign - $1,500.
Robert Ehrlich Campaign - $500.
Republican National Committee - $1,000.
2003
Heather Wilson Campaign - $1,500.
Republican National Committee - $1,000.
2004
Bush/Cheney Campaign - $2,000.
Heather Wilson Campaign - $2,000.
Republican National Committee -$2,000.
2005
Heather Wilson Campaign - $2,100.
Republican National 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.
IEEE Education Society Achievement Award, 2003.
Outstanding Alumnus Award from the College of Math and Science,
Wright State University, 2002.
Distinguished Alumnus Award from the College of Engineering,
University of New Mexico, 2001.
Aviation Week Laureate for ``initiation of a joint Defense
Department/NASA/industry National Hypersonic Plan,'' 2001.
Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service for
exceptionally distinguished public service as the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology, 2001.
National Academy of Engineering, ``For the authorship of textbooks
on computer applications in engineering, contributions to digital
signal processing, and service to the profession,'' 2000.
Secretary of Defense Outstanding Public Service Medal for
exceptional leadership in the pursuit of the Science and Technology
program, 2000.
IEEE Millennium Medal, 2000.
Federal Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) Lifetime
Achievement Award, 2000.
IEEE Harriett B. Rigas Award, 1998.
Department of the Navy Distinguished Public Service Award for
leadership of the Naval Research Advisory Committee, 1998.
Federal Aviation Association (FAA), Civil Aviation Security
Associate Administrator's Award, ``In recognition of dedicated and
insightful leadership of the Aviation Security Research and Development
Advisory Panel,'' 1997.
Charles Hutchinson Memorial Teaching Award in recognition of
teaching excellence, College of Engineering, University of Colorado,
1997.
Fellow of ASEE, ``For contributions to engineering education,''
1996.
Distinguished Lecturer, IEEE Signal Processing Society, 1996.
Leonhard Distinguished Lecturer, San Diego State University, 1996.
Fellow of AAAS, ``For leadership in digital signal processing and
for important contributions to engineering education through innovative
undergraduate textbooks,'' 1994.
Fellow of the IEEE, ``For contributions to education through
textbooks for engineering computing and for technical leadership in the
area of digital signal processing,'' 1992.
IEEE Signal Processing Society Meritorious Service Award, ``For
exemplary and broad leadership of the Signal Processing Society and its
publication and conference activities,'' 1990.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[The nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive 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.
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.
Delores M. Etter.
This 16th day of September, 2005.
[The nomination of Delores M. Etter was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on October 27, 2005, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on October 28, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to GEN Burwell B. Bell III,
USA, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities
and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These
reforms have also vastly improved cooperation between the services and
the combatant commanders, among other things, In joint training and
education and in the execution of military operations.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to address in
these modifications?
Answer. Goldwater-Nichols has provided sufficient guidance to allow
us to conduct our operations within a joint framework. If confirmed, I
will continue to evaluate our conduct of joint operations and will
offer commentary if I believe new proposals are required, but I do not
have any suggestions at this time.
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/United
States Forces Korea?
Answer. The Commander, United Nations Command (COM UNC), is
responsible for maintaining the Armistice Agreement, as well as
executing missions and functions in Korea as directed by the Secretary
of Defense. Additionally, COM UNC is required to maintain the coalition
embodied by the United Nations Command, enable acceptance of UNC member
nation forces during contingencies, and enable access to the seven UNC
bases in Japan.
The Commander, Combined Forces Command (COM CFC), has two essential
missions related to the U.S. presence in Korea: deterring hostile acts
of external aggression against the Republic of Korea, and, should
deterrence fail, defeating an external armed attack. In this position,
he is responsible for receiving strategic direction and missions from
the ROK-U.S. military committee; exercising OPCON over all forces
provided, both ROK and U.S.; conducting combined exercises; equipping
and planning for the employment of those forces; providing
intelligence; recommending requirements; researching, analyzing, and
developing strategic and tactical concepts; complying with the
armistice affairs directives of COM UNC; and supporting COM UNC in
response to armistice violations by North Korea.
The Commander, United States Forces Korea (COM USFK), as a sub-
unified commander of the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), is responsible
for ail duties and functions associated with title 10, United States
Code, and the Unified Command Plan. It Is in this capacity that the
U.S. supports the ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty and that the commander
represents USPACOM, This role provides the U.S. with the means to
provide forces to COM UNC/CFC, and to support those forces with the
required logistics, administration, and policy Initiatives necessary to
maintain readiness.
Question. What background and experience, including Joint duty
assignments, do you possess that you believe qualifies you to perform
these duties?
Answer. I have significant experience In both the joint and
combined environments. Within the Korean AOR, my duties as a tank
battalion operations officer/who trained and exercised with several
Republic of Korea and U.S. units, gave me significant leadership
perspectives that have provided me with insights into the challenges
associated with combined and Joint operations on the Korean peninsula,
My experiences at the National Training Center while commanding at the
battalion and brigade levels have provided me the opportunity to
exercise Joint and combined tactical warfighting doctrine. As Executive
Officer to the Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command, including
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, I was able to see and
experience joint and combined coalition warfare planning and execution
at senior operational and strategic levels. Command of the Army's III
Corps provided me the opportunity to develop and extensively exercise
operational plans in support of the Korean AOR which employed joint and
combined warfighting operations and tactics on terrain unique to the
Korean theater. In training and exercising those tactics, I was able to
work side-by-side with senior Republic of Korea counterparts who
imparted to me their unique and invaluable perspectives on warfighting
in defense of their homeland. As Commanding General, United States Army
Europe and Seventh Army, and Commander, NATO Allied Land Component
Command, Heidelberg, I have gained further insights into the
requirements placed upon a commander responsible for service component
command responsibilities, as well as commanding a combined
international headquarters, with senior leader representation from 21
different countries. The experiences I have listed here have also
required me to master joint and combined reconnaissance, intelligence,
infrastructure, and logistical concepts as well.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform the duties of the Commander,
United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/United States Forces
Korea?
Answer. If confirmed, I Intend to conduct in-depth discussions and
assessments with key personnel and analysts from relevant ROK and U.S.
Government agencies and nongovernment specialists. Throughout my time
in command, I will continue this dialogue with ROK and U.S. leaders to
improve my understanding of all aspects of the current situation within
the Korean theater. This will enable me to stay abreast of the dynamic
political-military environment of the Korean peninsula.
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 commanders of 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
Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/United States
Forces Korea with the following officials:
The Secretary of Defense,
The Deputy Secretary of Defense,
The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,
The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence,
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
The Secretaries of the Military Departments,
The Chiefs of Staff of the Services, and
The other combatant commanders, especially the Commander,
USPACOM.
Answer. The relationship with all of the officials listed above Is
critical to accomplishing our national and binational goals and
objectives, We must be able to work closely with all levels of
leadership, civilian and military, in both joint and combined
leadership environments to ensure that a teamwork approach accomplishes
the strategic goals and objectives of our National leadership. COM UNC
reports directly to the U.S. Secretary of Defense and through him to
the President, while at the same time keeping COM PACOM informed of any
communications with U.S. national authorities. A binationally validated
ROK-U.S. document provides further guidance on COM CFC's unique
relationship with the ROK National Command Authority and the U.S.
Secretary of Defense. COM USFK reports directly to COM PACOM on matters
directly pertaining to USFK areas of responsibility.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces
Command/United States Forces Korea?
Answer. The major challenges include readiness, maintaining
deterrence and stability, transformation, and supporting the Global War
on Terrorism. Readiness of U.S. and allied forces will be my primary
near-term focus if confirmed for this position. The ROK-U.S. alliance
must be ``ready to fight tonight'' due to the proximity and lethality
of the threat. A highly-trained and ready force provides stability and
mitigates risk. Sustaining readiness requires tough, realistic
training; appropriate levels of manning and modern equipment; training
infrastructure; and a quality of life which supports and sustains our
people. I am personally committed to ensuring that readiness is at the
highest level possible.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges and problems?
Answer. As COM UNC/CFC/USFK, I will ensure that our forces remain
vigilant and well-prepared. Training and readiness will be our
watchwords, If confirmed I will immediately review these elements to
ensure that we are as strong and as ready as we can possibly be. I will
devote myself to strengthening the alliance between the United States
and the Republic of Korea. A strong healthy alliance can meet the
challenges I discussed above. Should deterrence fail, alliance forces
must be, and will be, ready to defeat North Korean aggression.
NORTH KOREA
Question. North Korea represents one of the greatest near-term
threats to U.S. national security interests in Asia.
What is your assessment of the current security situation on the
Korean peninsula and the diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to
verifiably dismantle Its nuclear weapons program?
Answer. North Korea poses a variety of threats to regional and
global stability, particularly its nuclear weapons programs. It is in
the vital interests of the United States and its allies to resolve the
Issue of a verifiable dismantling of North Korea's nuclear weapons
program. The fact that six parties are in serious negotiations on this
issue is an indication of positive intent. Because it is a complicated
issue, the solution will be equally complicated requiring time and
serious effort to complete.
Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed to the United
States and its allies by North Korea's ballistic missile and weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) capabilities and the export of those
capabilities?
Answer. North Korean ballistic missile development remains a
significant threat to U.S. forces and their allies on the peninsula.
Their ballistic missile inventory includes over 500 SCUD missiles of
various types that can threaten the entire peninsula, and they continue
to produce and deploy No Dong missiles capable of striking Japan and
our American bases there. Pyongyang is also developing multistage
missiles capable of striking the continental United States. North
Korea's declaration earlier this year that it would no longer abide by
its self-imposed moratorium on flight testing missiles, when coupled
with the actual test of a missile in May, clearly demonstrates that the
North does not Intend to unilaterally halt Its research and development
programs. Its continued proliferation of missiles and development of
WMD capabilities allows North Korea to act as a destabilizing and
potentially disruptive force in the region and beyond.
Question. What is your assessment of North Korea's conventional
capabilities and readiness?
Answer. The North Korean military remains a credible threat to the
security of the ROK and the stability of the region because of its size
and forward deployment. North Korea maintains the world's fourth
largest army and the world's largest special operations force. With
almost three-quarters of that army arrayed south of Pyongyang, and
significant numbers of artillery systems that can currently range
Seoul, it seems clear that North Korea's capabilities pose an immediate
and credible threat.
Question. What, if anything, should be done to strengthen
deterrence on the Korean peninsula?
Answer. If confirmed, I would encourage both the U.S. and ROK
governments to sustain their transformation initiatives and their on-
going combined capabilities enhancement programs. Although both nations
have invested significant resources toward these initiatives and
programs already, there is still room to improve qualitative
capabilities, as these are the key to strengthening deterrence on the
peninsula.
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH KOREA (ROK)
Question. Since the end of World War II, the U.S.-ROK alliance has
been a key pillar of security in the Asia Pacific region. This
relationship has gone through periods of inevitable change.
What Is your understanding of the current U.S. security
relationship with the ROK?
Answer. It is my understanding that the current U.S. security
relationship with the ROK is governed by the Mutual Defense Treaty as
entered into force from November 1954. In particular, the treaty's
requirement that both the U.S. and the ROK maintain and develop
appropriate means to deter and, if should deterrence fail, to defeat an
armed external attack continues to serve as the linchpin of this
relationship. It is also my understanding that both the U.S. and the
ROK remain fully committed to the treaty's provisions and the mutual
defense of both nations, as demonstrated by the continued execution of
combined planning, training, and exercises designed to deter and, if
should deterrence fail, to defeat any external aggression against the
ROK.
Question. If confirmed, what measures, if any, would you take to
improve the U.S.-ROK security relationship?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that I maintain the already
strong U.S.-ROK security relationship that has continued to prove
itself over the past 50 years through mutual respect and open dialogue
with our ROK allies.
Question. What Is your assessment of the current climate in
military to military professional relationships and interoperability at
all levels between U.S. and ROK forces?
Answer. It is my understanding that the military professional
relationships are ones of mutual respect and regard. I witnessed this
firsthand as the III Corps commander, and I have no reason to believe
that this is not still the case. I would also suspect that
interoperability between American and ROK forces has improved over the
past several years, but there are still issues that need to be
resolved, as is the case with all our other allies. If confirmed, I
will assess our interoperability with our Korean allies and seek to
reduce, if not eliminate, any interoperability issues.
Question. What is your assessment of ROK warfighting capability
trends with regard to the modernization and capability improvements in
ROK equipment and training of their personnel?
Answer. I have combined my answers to this question and to the
question below it.
Question. What is your assessment of ROK current and projected
military capabilities and the ability of ROK forces to assume a greater
role in the defense of their homeland?
Answer. It is my understanding that the current ROK modernization
program for its armed forces has significantly increased Korean
warfighting capabilities, as it will continue to do so in the future.
The Future of the Alliance initiative, with its successor the Security
Policy initiative, set the conditions for ROK forces to assume a
greater rote in the defense of South Korea. The fact that the entire
DMZ is guarded by ROK forces, as well as the assumption of several
other CFC missions from U.S. responsibility, is a testament to that
greater role. The current ROK training program, when coupled with the
numerous combined and joint training exercises currently conducted by
the ROK and U.S. forces, ensures the readiness and capabilities of the
ROK military personnel.
DOMESTIC POLITICS IN ROK
Question. In recent years, domestic opinion in the Republic of
Korea with regard to the American presence and relations with the DPRK
has increasingly split along generational lines, with younger Koreans
being more skeptical of relations with the United States while the
older generation is much more content with the status quo. The
Commander, USFK, plays a major political role in U.S.-Korean relations.
If confirmed, how would you see your role and duties in the light
of these changes in the ROK body politic?
Answer. I believe that, if confirmed, my role and duties as COM
UNC/CFC/USKF will remain as described by the governing U.N., ROK/U.S.,
and U.S. documents. My requirements to maintain the armistice; deter
or, should deterrence fail, defeat external aggression; and discharge
all title 10 and Unified Command Plan duties and responsibilities will
remain the same throughout my tenure, despite any changes to the ROK
body politic. I believe it will be important to continue any programs
that General LaPorte has established to enable the sustainment and
improvement of command-community relations.
GLOBAL POSTURE
Question. In your opinion, how should the U.S. position its forces
in Asia to best respond to threats in that area, support out-of-area
contingencies, and maintain readiness?
Answer. U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region should be stationed
to provide sufficient flexibility to deploy forces to meet global
contingency requirements. It is my understanding that COM PACOM
continually assesses and recommends force positioning within his area
of responsibility to the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I will
ensure that I fully understand the situation on the Korean peninsula
and of those regional actors that influence the peninsula so that I can
provide my input to COM PACOM's assessment and recommendations.
CONSOLIDATION OF U.S. FORCES
Question. The Land Partnership Plan (LPP) will consolidate the 2nd
Infantry in and around Camp Humphreys, Korea. New construction of
facilities and infrastructure required to support the consolidation
will be carried out using funds from both the Host Nation and the
United States military construction accounts. The Yongsan Relocation
Plan (YRP) proposes to move most of the U.S. forces currently stationed
at Yongsan compound in Seoul to Camp Humphreys, Korea. The relocation
is proposed to be funded by the Korean Government.
What is your assessment of the current status of the two
consolidation plans and the timeline for completion?
Answer. It is my understanding that both the LPP and the YRP are
being executed simultaneously and are progressing well, The LPP
envisions consolidating 2nd Infantry Division onto four existing camps
in the near-term while anticipating a relocation of the division to
Camp Humphreys in 2008. The ROK has procured the majority of land
required for the YRP and anticipates procuring the remainder by the end
of the year, The YRP's master plan was initiated in September of this
year and should be complete by April of next year. Both plans remain on
schedule.
Question. What do you anticipate to be the total costs to be
incurred by the U.S. Government to carry out the two consolidations?
Answer. I understand the total costs to the U.S. Government to be
$480 million, about 6 percent of the total relocation cost. Almost
three-quarters of the relocation costs are borne by the ROK, with the
remainder funded by private industry through financed build-to-lease
investments.
Question. If confirmed, what objectives would you establish to
manage the burdensharing of the costs related to the two
consolidations?
Answer. If confirmed, my objective would be to carry out the
consolidation plans without any additional costs to the United States
beyond what is already programmed.
HOST NATION BURDEN-SHARING PROGRAMS
Question. Two programs supported by the ROK, the Combined Defense
Improvement Program (CDIP) and the Korea Host Nation Funded
Construction Program (KHNCP), provide cash and in-kind projects to
satisfy U.S. military facility and infrastructure requirements.
If confirmed, what priorities would you establish for all U.S.
forces on the Peninsula to make the best use of these two vital
programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would maintain the current priorities of
supporting USFK transformation and quality of life initiatives as a
means to enhance readiness on the peninsula. As these two programs
present the majority of USFK's total military construction program, it
is imperative that they contribute to the overall readiness of USFK.
FAMILY HOUSING IN KOREA
Question. Recent Commanders of United States Forces in Korea have
proposed a goal to increase the number of U.S. military personnel on
accompanied tours, thereby increasing the number of families in Korea,
while at the same time decreasing the number of combat forces by a
third. This goal would require the construction of additional housing
and community support facilities at all U.S. installations in Korea.
What are your views on the plans and investment strategy to provide
additional family housing and community support facilities for military
personnel and their families in Korea?
Answer. As I understand it, the current plans to provide additional
family housing and community support facilities rely primarily upon
funding provided by the Republic of Korea, with some funds resulting
from the redirection to the enduring installations of already
programmed military construction projects from closing installations. I
am fully supportive of this approach and, if confirmed, will continue
to seek the highest quality of facilities for our servicemembers and
their families.
QUALITY OF LIFE
Question. Through recent investment in quality of life amenities,
to include housing, health care and recreation, the Department has
worked to achieve the goal of making Korea an ``assignment of choice''
for U.S. Forces.
What do you consider to be the most essential elements supporting
military life for soldiers and their families stationed in Korea and,
if confirmed, what would be your goals in this regard?
Answer. I believe the three most essential elements supporting
military life in any assignment are quality living and working
conditions and facilities, quality health care, and quality educational
opportunities for dependent family members. If confirmed, I would
strive to ensure the best possible conditions for all three, thus
clearly making Korea an assignment of choice for U.S. forces.
KOREA ASSIGNMENT INCENTIVE PAY
Question. Assignment incentive pay was approved in 2003 for
soldiers who agreed to extend their tours of duty in Korea. Since that
time, payment of an overseas cost of living allowance was also
approved.
In your opinion, is eligibility for assignment incentive pay for
duty in Korea necessary and cost-effective? Please explain.
Answer. As both General Schwartz, the previous commander, and
General LaPorte, the current commander, have stated several times,
making Korea an assignment of choice must be a command priority. Both
commanders have done much to change the perceptions of those who were
previously reluctant to serve a tour in Korea. One contributor in this
process was the authorization of cost-of-living allowance (COLA)
entitlements; another was assignment incentive pay. Given the current
incentives for servicemembers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is
only fitting that those stationed in Korea are also eligible for many
similar benefits. Further, the incentive pay a servicemember receives
for extending his or her tour is less than the costs borne by the
government to move two servicemembers (one to Korea; one from Korea), a
cost-effective result that also enables USFK to maintain trained,
experienced servicemembers on the peninsula longer. It is my
understanding that the U.S. Government has saved more than $40 million
as a result of this initiative.
SEXUAL ASSAULT
Question. In your role as Commander, U.S. Army Forces, Europe, you
have implemented changes in policies and procedures relating to the
prevention and response to sexual assaults and in the treatment of
victims of sexual assault.
What is your assessment of the progress that the Army has made in
the last 2 years in the promulgation of policy on sexual assault, and
what do you think will be your biggest challenge in achieving the
changes in programs, training and implementation if confirmed as
Commander of the USFK?
Answer. I believe the Army has made great strides in ensuring the
promulgation of policy on sexual assault, and it is my understanding
that General LaPorte has made it a priority to eliminate any occurrence
of this crime within USFK. If confirmed, I will maintain General
LaPorte's command focus upon awareness and prevention of sexual
assault.
JOINT MEDICAL COMMAND
Question. The relocation of U.S. forces and families on the Korean
peninsula presents challenges in the delivery of high quality health
care services. The committee has been concerned that as the relocation
of families occurs, services such as same day access to care for
Active-Duty members and family health services in remote areas must be
available. In view of these challenges, the committee directed the
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to conduct a study of the feasibility
of establishing a joint military medical command in support of USFK.
Congress has not received the report required in the Senate report
accompanying S. 2400, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005.
If confirmed, how would you assess the availability of quality
health care services to Active-Duty members and their families?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I would undertake a careful and thorough
review of the availability of quality health care for both
servicemembers and their families, surveys, both electronic and manual;
visits; and inputs from all stakeholders would enable me to make an
assessment of the health care services available.
Question. What lessons did you learn from a policy perspective
concerning health care delivery in the European theater which might be
applied to improve joint planning and coordination of health care
services in Korea, including access to high quality civilian services
when military resources are limited?
Answer. As the Commanding General of United States Army Europe and
Seventh Army, I have the responsibility to ensure quality health care
for both service members and their families. Although we currently
leverage high quality civilian services in Europe when military
resources are limited, the quality of care cannot be negotiated. In
some circumstances, the surrounding civilian infrastructure cannot
provide the level of care required by a military community, and it is
in those instances when additional military resources are required to
ensure that both our servicemembers and their families receive the
health services they deserve. I also learned that where families are
located, we have a responsibility to ensure the best possible infant
delivery and pre/post natal care.
Question. What role could a joint medical command play in planning
for health care across all the Services, both in peacetime and in
preparation for support of a military contingency?
Answer. In principle, I would be in favor of any medical command,
joint or otherwise, that could ensure quality health care for both
servicemembers and their families in peace and in war. If confirmed, I
would took forward to continuing a dialogue with this committee about
how a joint medical command might best support USFK.
PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Question. Following media reports connecting prostitution and human
trafficking in Korea to U.S. military forces, Commander, USFK, in 2004
instituted a zero tolerance policy regarding the illegal activities of
prostitution and human trafficking. Under this policy, all USFK
personnel, military and civilian, as well as contractors and their
employees, are expected to comply with prohibitions, including
observance of curfews and laws regarding off-limits areas and
establishments, aimed at curtailing these practices.
What effects on the incidence of prostitution and human trafficking
have changes in U.S. policy, as well as new criminal laws implemented
by the ROK, had on the incidence of prostitution and human trafficking
in Korea?
Answer. It is my understanding that the changes in U.S. policy,
when coupled with the new laws passed by the ROK, have decreased the
incidents of prostitution and human trafficking in Korea. Both have
enabled the authorities, both civilian and military, to target
activities and conditions that allow prostitution and human trafficking
to take place. The current USFK strategy of awareness, identification,
reduction, and continued interaction with the ROK has been a success
story, and, if confirmed, I would continue to pursue this approach.
Question. What further changes, if any, to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) and military regulations are needed in your
judgment to ensure maximum effectiveness of the zero tolerance policy?
Answer. At this time, I believe the UCMJ and extant military
regulations are sufficient to ensure the efficacy of the zero tolerance
policy, but I would be willing to offer any recommendations to this
committee should I see the need to do so.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to further enhance the
effectiveness of the zero tolerance policy?
Question. If confirmed, I will aggressively pursue the policies
established by General LaPorte in response to the Deputy Secretary of
Defense's 30 January 2004 memorandum regarding combating trafficking in
persons. The zero tolerance policy's effectiveness relies entirely upon
maintaining awareness and enforcing standards. It is through these
functions of command that I believe I could further enhance the
policy's effectiveness.
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 Commander, United Nations
Command/Combined Forces Command/United States Forces Korea?
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 James M. Inhofe
NORTH/SOUTH KOREA
1. Senator Inhofe. General Bell, I understand that DOD has proposed
troop level changes that will have an ongoing effect on the United
States' future impact and influence on the Korean Peninsula. The
Yongsan Garrison and 2nd Infantry Division have been relocated further
south, away from the DMZ and Seoul; recently it was announced that the
U.S. troop level in South Korea dipped below 30,000. Further, DOD has
determined that approximately 12,000 troops from Korea can be brought
back to the U.S. between now and 2009. The good side of this is that
the South Koreans are taking over their defense. A potential bad side
is that we will have fewer troops forward deployed and ready for
worldwide rapid response. What do you foresee as some of the possible
dangers of having a lower number of U.S. troops on the Korean Peninsula
and how do we best counter those risks?
General Bell. Senator Inhofe, it is my understanding that the
transformation of U.S. forces and their resulting enhanced capabilities
have made it possible to redeploy forces with no negative effect upon
the U.S. and ROK ability to deter and, should deterrence fail, to
defeat external aggression. I am currently unaware of any military
risks that may result from this redeployment.
2. Senator Inhofe. General Bell, Kim Jong Il's regime has announced
that it has operational nuclear weapons. Though experts debate the
accuracy of this statement, we have to be prepared for the worst case
scenario. At the very least, North Korea is on a path to develop
nuclear weapons, and probably biological and chemical weapons as well.
Over the last few months we have witnessed the Six-Party Talks go
through a frustrating cycle of progress and stalling out. We know that
in the past North Korea has used this as a negotiating tactic. Can we
hope for anything new to come about through the current negotiations?
General Bell. Senator Inhofe, the North Korean nuclear issue is
complicated and will require time and effort on all sides. Resolution
can best be achieved through the Six-Party Talks. The denuclearization
of the peninsula is necessary and will lead to greater security and
stability in the region. I cannot say whether North Korea will give up
its nuclear weapons program as a result of the talks, but I can say
that it is clearly in the best interests of all parties for North Korea
to do so peacefully.
3. Senator Inhofe. General Bell, what role can China play in
bringing real progress to the situation?
General Bell. Senator Inhofe, Pacific Command (PACOM) has the lead
in addressing security issues regarding China. Having said that, China
can exert major influence over North Korea as its sole remaining treaty
ally. As a result, it is apparent that China plays and will continue to
play an important role within the construct of the Six-Party Talks.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
MOBILITY REQUIREMENTS
4. & 5. Senator Levin. General Bell, last year DOD told us that
moving forces back from Europe would not harm our ability to surge our
forces to trouble spots. We have yet to see an analysis that would
confirm or deny that assertion, or the other assertions made about the
impacts of the so-called global posture review on our capabilities, our
troops, or on the budget. As commander of our Army forces in Europe,
you helped develop plans to implement the European aspect of this plan
to relocate tens of thousands of personnel back to the United States
over the next several years. In Korea, a smaller reduction of a brigade
back to Fort Carson has already begun. In both these cases, the
movement of forward-deployed forces back to the United States is
certain to impact our war plans and our mobility requirements. As a
commander in Europe, and as a prospective commander in Korea, do you
know how these troop relocations will affect your ability to carry out
the missions assigned to you in our plans?
Do you know if DOD currently has the lift that will be needed to
forward-deploy our forces to support our operational plans once those
forces are relocated back to the United States?
General Bell. Senator Levin, I would like to answer both questions
4 and 5 at the same time, as I believe the two are closely related.
Speaking as the Commanding General, United States Army Europe and 7th
Army, I can say that the relocation of troops out of Europe has not
impacted my ability to support the Commander, European Command. The
movement of our heavy armor forces back to the United States will, in
my view, have no negative impact on our mission response time for
likely contingency areas which may require armor/mechanized forces. It
is my understanding that United States Forces Korea's (USFK) ability to
accomplish its mission is similarly unaffected. While I am not in
possession of a full analysis of all worldwide war and contingency
plans for the U.S. military, I can say that it is my professional
assessment that forces postured in the United States can best respond
to the full range of contingencies east and west from a central
location in the United States. Our strategic air and sealift can best
generate sorties from the United States, then use forward bases to
onward move forces into contingency areas--again, east or west.
Selected agile, mobile and joint enabled contingency/expeditionary
forces should remain forward deployed to provide combatant commanders
with immediate response capability. If, in the future as Commander,
USFK, I find our forward force positioning does not meet our
contingency/warfighting requirements, I will report my assessments
through the appropriate command channels.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
TROOP RELOCATION IN EUROPE AND KOREA
6. Senator Akaka. General Bell, last year DOD told us that moving
forces back from Europe would not harm our ability to surge our forces
to trouble spots. We have yet to see an analysis that would confirm or
deny that assertion, or the other assertions made about the impacts of
the so-called global posture review or Integrated Global Presence and
Basing Strategy (IGPBS) on our capabilities, our troops, or on the
budget. As commander of our Army forces in Europe, you helped develop
plans to implement the European aspect of this plan to relocate tens of
thousands of personnel back to the United States over the next several
years. In Korea, a smaller reduction of a brigade back to Fort Carson
has already begun. In both these cases, the movement of forward-
deployed forces back to the United States is certain to impact our
warplans and our mobility requirements. As a commander in Europe, and
as a prospective commander in Korea, do you know how these troop
relocations will affect your ability to carry out the missions assigned
to you in our plans?
General Bell. Senator Akaka, speaking as the Commanding General,
United States Army Europe and 7th Army, I can say that the relocation
of troops out of Europe has not impacted my ability to support the
Commander, European Command. The movement of our heavy armor forces
back to the United States will, in my view, have no negative impact on
our mission response time for likely contingency areas which may
require armor/mechanized forces. In fact, our transformation plans will
significantly enhance my capability to execute security cooperation
activities in the 91 country European Command area of responsibility.
It is my understanding that USFK's ability to accomplish its mission is
similarly unaffected. While I am not in possession of a full analysis
of all worldwide war and contingency plans for the U.S. military, I can
say that it is my professional assessment that forces postured in the
United states can best respond to the full range of contingencies east
and west from a central location in the United States. Our strategic
air and sealift can best generate sorties from the United States, then
use forward bases to onward move forces into contingency areas--again,
east or west. Selected agile, mobile and joint enabled contingency/
expeditionary forces should remain forward deployed to provide
combatant commanders with immediate response capability. If, in the
future as Commander, USFK, I find our forward force positioning does
not meet our contingency/warfighting requirements, I will report my
assessments through the appropriate command channels.
7. Senator Akaka. General Bell, do you know if DOD currently has
the lift to get you the forces you need when you need them?
General Bell. Senator Akaka, I cannot say at this time whether DOD
has sufficient lift capability to support current operational plans. As
part of my ongoing assessment of U.S. capabilities to support
operations on the Korean Peninsula, I will ensure that I evaluate the
required lift capabilities with as much scrutiny as other operational
concerns.
______
[The nomination reference of GEN Burwell B. Bell III, USA,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
Senate of the United States,
September 6, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment in the United States
Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance
and responsibility under title 10, United States Code, section 601:
To be General
GEN Burwell B. Bell III, 0000.
______
[The resume of service career of GEN Burwell B. Bell III,
USA, which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Resume of Service Career of GEN Burwell B. Bell III, USA
Source of commissioned service: ROTC.
Military schools attended:
Armor Officer Basic and Advanced Courses.
United States Army Command and General Staff College.
National War College.
Educational degrees:
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga--BS--Business
Administration.
University of Southern California--MS--Systems Management.
Foreign languages: None recorded.
Promotions:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates of Appointment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2LT....................................... 4 June 1969
1LT....................................... 4 June 1970
CPT....................................... 4 June 1971
MAJ....................................... 3 May 1980
LTC....................................... 1 Aug. 1985
COL....................................... 1 June 1990
BG........................................ 1 July 1995
MG........................................ 1 Sep. 1998
LTG....................................... 14 Aug. 2001
GEN....................................... 3 Dec. 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major duty assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Assignment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 1969 Dec. 1970 Platoon Leader, later Executive Officer, M
Troop, 3d Reconnaissance Squadron, 14th
Cavalry Regiment. United States Army Europe
and Seventh Army, Germany.
Jan. 1971 Nov. 1971 Motor Officer, 3d Armored Squadron, 14th
Armored Cavalry Regiment, United States Army
Europe and Seventh Army, Germany
Nov. 1971 Mar. 1972 Commander, L Troop, 3d Reconnaissance
Squadron. 14th Armored Cavalry Regiment,
United States Army Europe and Seventh Army,
Germany
Mar. 1972 Jan. 1974 Assistant S-3 (Operations), 2d Advanced
Individual Training Brigade, and later
Assistant S-3, 1st Advanced Individual
Training Brigade, United States Army Armor
School, Fort Knox, Kentucky
Jan. 1974 May 1975 Commander, D Troop, 5th Cavalry Squadron, 1st
Advanced Individual Training Brigade, United
States Array Armor School, Fort Knox,
Kentucky
June 1975 Jan. 1976 Chief, Individual Training Department, United
States Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, Kentucky
Jan. 1976 July 1976 Student, Armor Officer Advanced Course, United
States Army Armor School, Fort Knox, Kentucky
July 1976 May 1979 Assistant Professor of Military Science, 3d
Reserve Officer Training Corps Region, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, Texas
June 1979 June 1980 S-3 (Operations), 1st Battalion, 72d Armor, 2d
Infantry Division, Eighth United States Army,
Korea
Aug. 1980 June 1981 Student, United States Army Command and
General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas
June 1981 June 1983 Staff Officer, Army Force Modernization
Coordination Office, Office of the Chief of
Staff, Army, Washington, DC
June 1983 Oct. 1984 Force Plans Analyst, Army Force Planning
Analysis Office, Office of the Deputy Chief
of Staff for Operations and Plans, United
States Army, Washington, DC
Oct. 1984 Feb. 1987 Commander, 2d Squadron, 9th Cavalry, 24th
Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart,
Georgia
Aug. 1987 June 1988 Student, National War College, Fort McNair,
Washington, DC
June 1988 Nov. 1988 Organizational Policy Planner, Policy
Division, J-5 (Plans), Office of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC
Nov. 1988 Aug. 1991 Executive Officer to the Commander in Chief,
United States Central Command, MacDill Air
Force Base, Florida and Operations Desert
Shield/Storm, Saudi Arabia
Aug. 1991 July 1993 Commander, 2d Brigade, 24th Infantry Division
(Mechanized), Fort Stewart, Georgia
July 1993 July 1994 Chief of Staff, 3d Infantry Division
(Mechanized), United States Army Europe and
Seventh Army, Germany
July 1994 June 1995 Senior Army Fellow, Council on Foreign
Relations, New York, New York
June 1995 Dec. 1995 Assistant Division Commander, 3d Infantry
Division (Mechanized), United States Army
Europe and Seventh Army, Germany
Dec. 1995 Mar. 1996 Chief of Staff, United States Army Europe and
Seventh Army (Forward), Operation Joint
Endeavor, Hungary
Feb. 1996 Aug. 1996 Assistant Division Commander, 1st Infantry
Division, United States Army Europe and
Seventh Army, Germany
Aug. 1996 July 1997 Chief of Staff, V Corps, United States Army
Europe and Seventh Army, Germany
July 1997 Aug. 1998 Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, United
States Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany
Aug. 1998 July 1999 Chief of Staff, United States Army Europe and
Seventh Army, Germany
July 1999 Aug. 2001 Commanding General, United States Army Armor
Center and Fort Knox,Fort Knox, Kentucky
Aug. 2001 Nov. 2002 Commanding General, III Corps and Fort Hood,
Fort Hood, Texas
Dec. 2002 Mar. 2004 Commanding General, United States Army Europe
and Seventh Army, Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of joint assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Policy Planner, June 1988-Nov. Lieutenant Colonel
Policy Division J-5 (Plans), 1988.
Office of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Washington, DC (No joint
credit).
Executive Officer to the Nov. 1988-Aug. Lieutenant Colonel/
Commander in Chief, United 1991. Colonel
States Central Command, MacDill
Air Force Base, Florida and
Operations Desert Shield/Storm,
Saudi Arabia.
Commanding General, United Mar. 2004-Present. General
Slates Army Europe and Seventh
Army/Commander, Allied Land
Component Command Heidelberg,
North Atlantic Treaty
Organization/Commanding
General, United States Army,
North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, Germany.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. decorations and badges:
Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal
Legion of Merit (with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Army Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Ranger Tab
Army Staff Identification Badge
______
[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 GEN Burwell B.
Bell III, USA, 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.)
Burwell B. Bell III.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/United
States Forces Korea.
3. Date of nomination:
September 6, 2005.
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, 1947; Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Kathleen Fields Bell.
7. Names and ages of children:
Burwell B. Bell IV; age 34.
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.
University of Tennessee--Chattanooga, Alumni Board of Directors--
Volunteer Member.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Association of the United States Army (AUSA)--Member.
Military Officers Association of America (MOAA)--Member.
Council on Foreign Relations--Senior Army Fellow.
VFW--Member.
American Legion--Member.
Armor Association--Member.
Kappa Sigma College Fraternity--Member.
Military Child Education Coalition--National Advisory Committee
Member.
11. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals 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 appear and testify before Senate committees: Do
you agree, if confirmed, 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 you 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.
B.B. Bell, General, United States Army.
This 6th day of September, 2005.
[The nomination of GEN Burwell B. Bell III, USA, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Warner on October 27, 2005,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on October 28, 2005.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith,
USAF, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
DEFENSE REFORMS
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD)
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
You have had an opportunity to observe the implementation and
impact of these reforms, particularly in your assignments as Deputy
Commander, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), and Deputy Commander, United
Nations Command/U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. Yes, I think that after 19 years, there are areas that
could be modified.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. I think there are three areas that could be improved.
First, we may need to increase the number of jobs that
are considered `joint.' I've had several jobs since Goldwater-
Nichols that involved extensive real-word joint operations, yet
they were not considered `joint' by the personnel system. Due
to the significant changes in the way our forces deploy and
operate, I believe we may need to take a comprehensive look at
which jobs deserve joint duty credit, and give credit where
due, unconstrained by quotas.
Second, we need to provide joint credit for those
individuals serving in joint combat positions for less than the
current 22 month minimum requirement.
Finally, in a larger sense, Congress should consider
including other U.S. Government (USG) agencies in the joint
training and deployment readiness process so that appropriate
representatives of USG agencies are trained to better integrate
Service, defense agency, and interagency capabilities to more
effectively implement an integrated national strategy.
DUTIES
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM)/Supreme Allied Commander
Transformation?
Answer. The Unified Command Plan focuses the command on two main
missions: 1) providing conventional forces trained to operate in a
joint, interagency, and multinational environment, and 2) transforming
the U.S. military's forces to meet the security challenges of the 21st
century. The Commander, JFCOM serves as the chief advocate for
jointness and interoperability to champion the joint warfighting
requirements of the other combatant commanders. As such, he is
responsible for five major areas:
First, he is functionally responsible for leading
joint concept development and experimentation (CDE) and
coordinating the CDE efforts of the Services, combatant
commands, and defense agencies to support joint
interoperability and future joint warfighting capabilities. The
Commander of JFCOM is also tasked with leading the development,
exploration, and integration of new joint warfighting concepts
and serving as the DOD Executive Agent for joint warfighting
experimentation.
Second, he serves as the lead Joint Force Integrator,
responsible for recommending changes in doctrine, organization,
training, material, leadership and education, personnel, and
facilities to integrate Service, defense agency, interagency,
and multinational capabilities.
Third, he serves as the lead agent for Joint Force
Training. This effort is focused at the operational level with
an emphasis on Joint Task Force Commanders and their staffs and
the ability of U.S. forces to operate as part of a joint and
multinational force. Additionally, JFCOM is responsible for
leading the development of a distributed joint training
architecture and developing joint training standards.
Fourth, he leads the collaborative development of
joint readiness standards for Joint Task Force Headquarters
staffs, functional component headquarters staffs, and
headquarters designated as potential joint headquarters or
portion thereof, for recommendation to the Chairman.
Fifth, he serves as the Primary Joint Force Provider.
In this role, JFCOM has combatant command over a large portion
of the conventional forces of the U.S. Armed Forces and
provides them as trained and ready joint-capable forces to the
other combatant commanders when directed by the Secretary of
Defense.
In addition to these UCP assigned missions, JFCOM has been assigned
as the executive agent within the DOD for the following mission areas:
Joint Urban Operations
Personnel Recovery
Joint Deployment Process Owner
Training and Education to Support the Code of Conduct
Joint Experimentation
The Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT) is responsible
to the military committee for overall recommendations on
transformation. He leads transformation of NATO military structures,
capabilities and doctrines, including those for the defense against
terrorism in order to improve the military effectiveness and
interoperability of the Alliance. He cooperates with the Supreme Allied
Commander Europe (SACEUR) on integrating and synchronizing
transformation efforts with operational activities and elements. He
also promotes improvements to the capabilities of NATO forces made
available by nations, especially for Combined Joint Task Forces and
NATO Response Force Operations. Specifically, SACT:
Leads, at the Strategic Commander level, the NATO
Defense Planning Process, including the development of the
Defense requirements review.
Develops Strategic Commander Force proposals within
the Force Planning Process and conducts Strategic Commander
assessment of national contributions to the NATO force
structure in coordination with national military authorities.
Leads, at the Strategic Commander level, the
development of NATO Joint and Combined concepts, policy and
doctrine, as well as Partnership for Peace military concepts in
cooperation with SACEUR.
Leads, at the Strategic Commander level, the
development of future Communications Information Systems
strategy, concepts, capabilities, and architecture.
Leads, for military matters in NATO, partnership for
Peace and other non-NATO joint individual education and
training, and associated policy.
Assists SACEUR in the education and training of
functional commands and staff elements that plan for and
conduct operations with multinational and joint forces over the
full range of Alliance military missions.
If confirmed, I will devote my efforts to accomplishing these JFCOM
and ACT responsibilities.
BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have benefited from a broad range of assignments during
my nearly 36 years in uniform, from tactical to operational command.
From my first assignment flying close air support and search and rescue
missions in Vietnam, through assignments in NATO and Korea, to my
current position as Deputy Commander, CENTCOM, I have had considerable
experience in joint and coalition operations in actual combat or near
combat situations. I was also privileged to command two fighter wings
and a numbered Air Force, as well as the NATO School, Air War College,
and the Air Force Doctrine Center. Throughout all these experiences, I
was fortunate to work for, and with, incredible people at every level
and tried to learn everything I could in each assignment. I have also
had the opportunity to work with senior coalition leaders and coalition
forces in a variety of missions--all helping to prepare me for this
assignment.
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 commanders of 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
Commander, JFCOM/Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, to the
following:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Commander, JFCOM performs his duties under the
authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, and is
directly responsible to him to carry out its assigned missions.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. Title 10, U.S.C., and current DOD directives establish the
Under Secretaries of Defense as the principal staff assistants and
advisers to the Secretary regarding matters related to their functional
areas. Within their areas, Under Secretaries exercise policy and
oversight functions. They may issue instructions and directive type
memoranda that implement policy approved by the Secretary. These
instructions and directives are applicable to all DOD components. In
carrying out their responsibilities, and when directed by the President
and Secretary of Defense, communications from the Under Secretaries to
the commanders and the unified and specified commands 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 Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, Intelligence Oversight, and
for Networks amd Information Integration, all Assistant Secretaries of
Defense are subordinate to one of the Under Secretaries of Defense. In
carrying out their responsibilities, and when directed by the President
and Secretary of Defense, communications from the Under Secretaries to
commanders of the unified and specified commands are transmitted
through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If confirmed, I will
work closely with the Assistant Secretaries in a manner similar to that
described above for the Under Secretaries.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman is established by title 10 as the principal
military advisor to the President and Secretary of Defense. The
Chairman serves as an advisor and is not, according to law, in the
operational chain of command, which runs from the President through the
Secretary to each combatant commander. The President directs
communications between himself and the Secretary of Defense to the
combatant commanders via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
This keeps the Chairman fully involved and allows the Chairman to
execute his other legal responsibilities. A key responsibility of the
Chairman is to speak for the combatant commanders, especially on
operational requirements. If confirmed as Commander, JFCOM, I will keep
the Chairman and the Secretary of Defense promptly informed on matters
for which I am personally accountable.
Question. Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR)
Answer. SACEUR is one of two co-equal Strategic Commanders within
NATO's command structure. As NATO's other Strategic Commander, the
Supreme Allied Commander Transformation supports SACEUR in the
education and training of functional commands and staff elements that
plan for and conduct operations, with multinational and joint forces,
over the full range of Alliance military missions authorized by the
North Atlantic Council/Defense Planning Committee. Allied Command
Transformation (ACT) also conducts and evaluates training and exercises
of forces and headquarters, in coordination with and on behalf of
SACEUR. Lastly, ACT supports SACEUR in joint analysis, evaluations and
assessments of NATO-led operations and forces, including NATO Response
Force certification.
Question. North Atlantic Council/Defense Planning Committee/The
NATO Chiefs of Defense and Defense Ministers/The Military Committee of
NATO.
Answer. As one of two co-equal Strategic Commanders within NATO's
command structure, the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation provides
military advice to the Military Committee, North Atlantic Council and
Defense Planning Committee on matters pertaining to transformation, as
required. The Commander may make recommendations directly to the
Military Committee, the International Military Staff, national Chiefs
of Defense, Defense Ministers and Heads of State and Government on
transformational matters affecting the capability improvement,
interoperability, efficiency, and sustainability of forces designated
for NATO.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The Secretaries of the military departments are responsible
for the administration and support of the forces assigned to the
combatant commands. The Commander, JFCOM coordinates closely with the
secretaries to ensure the requirements to organize, train, and equip
forces assigned to JFCOM are met. Close coordination with each Service
Secretary is required to ensure that there is no infringement upon the
lawful responsibilities held by a Service Secretary.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services organize, train, and
equip their respective forces. No combatant commander can ensure
preparedness of his assigned forces without the full cooperation and
support of the Service Chiefs. As a member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the Service Chiefs have a lawful obligation to provide military
advice. The experience and judgment of the Service Chiefs provide an
invaluable resource for every combatant commander. If confirmed as
Commander, JFCOM, I will continue the close bond between the command,
the Service Chiefs and the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard in order
to fully utilize their service capabilities, and to effectively employ
those capabilities as required to execute the missions of JFCOM.
Question. The combatant commanders.
Answer. In general, JFCOM is a supporting command--its job is to
make the other combatant commands more successful. If confirmed, I will
continue the close relationships with other combatant commanders to
increase the effectiveness we've created, and continue to build mutual
support. The joint capabilities required by combatant commanders to
perform their missions--today and in the future--forms a large basis of
JFCOM's mission. Today's security environment dictates that JFCOM work
very closely with the other combatant commanders to execute our
national military strategy.
Question. The commanders of each of the Service's training and
doctrine commands.
Answer. Tasked by the UCP as the executive agent for joint
warfighting experimentation, a strong relationship exists between JFCOM
and the Services' training and doctrine commands. Admiral Giambastiani
established close working relationships with these organizations and
their commanders via a monthly component commanders meeting, and if
confirmed, I will continue these relationships.
MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges and problems
confronting the Commander, JFCOM/Supreme Allied Commander
Transformation?
Answer. I see three overarching challenges for the Commander,
JFCOM.
First, we must provide trained and ready joint forces
to the combatant commanders to fight not only the global war on
terrorism, but other possible contingencies as well, should and
when they arise. Also, we must be capable of generating forces
to respond to major disasters if directed to do so. Joint
Forces Command plays a major role in providing conventional
forces and capabilities to combatant commanders. JFCOM also
supports the joint training and readiness needs of those
forces. Providing sufficient numbers of mission-ready, joint-
trained and equipped forces for the missions assigned to the
geographic combatant commanders will continue to be a
challenge.
Second, we must continue transforming our joint force
for the future while prosecuting current campaigns. Although
challenging, it is important to balance the needs of the
combatant commanders for current operations with the need to
modernize and modularize Joint and Service forces to increase
their capability to meet the security challenges of the 21st
century.
Third, we need to ensure the requirements and
acquisition processes can rapidly provide solutions to meet
combatant commanders' short term joint needs. We need to
improve our ability to quickly implement solutions to joint
lessons learned and integrate promising concepts and
technologies without significantly disrupting existing programs
within the execution years.
If confirmed as Supreme Allied Commander, Transformation, I
anticipate that my main challenge will be delivering timely
transformational products to Allied Command Operations and the Allied
Nations which improve and transform our military forces while advancing
a clear understanding throughout the Alliance of military
transformation and ACT's role in the process.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing them?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Chairman, combatant
commanders, Service Chiefs, and defense agencies to ensure that we
continue to develop and implement joint sourcing solutions to allow the
combatant commanders to coherently prosecute their missions. I will
also continue to ensure we use concept development, experimentation and
Operational Analysis/Lessons Learned from experiments, exercises, and
ongoing operations to guide transformation and improve global sourcing
and the preparation of joint forces and capabilities for employment. I
will work in partnership with the Services, COCOMs, agencies, industry,
academia, and partner nations to leverage intellectual energy and
collective resources. I will make recommendations and plans regarding
the appropriate capabilities, policies and resources needed to continue
to transform the Armed Forces to meet current and future security
challenges. I will use congressionally-granted Limited Acquisition
Authority, if continued past fiscal year 2006, and work closely with
the Chairman and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to resource
timely solutions to the combatant commanders' emergent joint needs.
On the NATO side, if confirmed, I will work with the Military
Committee, the North Atlantic Council, the Supreme Allied Commander
Europe and the Allied Nations to continue the transformation of NATO's
military. Utilizing the considerable capabilities of Allied Command
Transformation's headquarters, Joint Warfare Center, Joint Force
Training Center, and Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Center, as well
as working with NATO's Agencies, educational establishments and the
Allied Nations' Centers of Excellence, I will strive to continue the
development of the capabilities, policies and resources needed to meet
NATO's current and future security challenges. Additionally, I will
carry forward, to both the political and military leaders of the
Alliance and its Nations, the NATO transformation message in an effort
to facilitate a clear understanding of the need for transformation, the
responsibilities of those leading the process and the methods by which
we intend to accomplish the task.
JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT
Question. Pursuant to section 531 of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, the Secretary of
Defense is required to develop a strategic plan for joint officer
management and joint professional military education that would link
future requirements for active and Reserve military personnel who are
trained and educated in joint matters to the resources required to
develop those officers in terms of manpower, formal education,
practical experience, and other requirements.
What do you consider to be the primary strengths and weaknesses of
the current requirements for joint professional military education with
respect to qualification as a joint specialty officer?
Answer. The strength of the current system is that it produces
officers with a solid level of education, training, and joint staff
experience to be certified as joint specialty experts. However, there
are three main areas that we need to improve: providing credit for all
relevant joint operational experience--especially in operational Joint
Task Force headquarters, developing a system to track this cumulative
experience across the officer corps, and finally I think we need to
ensure the officer corps produces the right kinds of officers who
achieve their Joint Specialty Officer certification early enough in
their career so that we have a large enough pool of joint service
officers to fill the requirements at all levels.
Question. In assessing the performance of officers in joint
command, what is your personal view of the operational value and
importance of officers achieving qualification as joint specialty
officers?
Answer. There is significant operational value and importance in
officers achieving qualification as joint specialty officers prior to
assuming joint command. The focus should be on producing leaders who
are fully qualified, inherently joint officers, critical thinkers, and
most importantly, skilled warfighters and operators. Achieving the
qualification of joint specialty officers is critical to supporting
current and anticipated joint mission requirements.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend in the
development, education, management, assignment, and qualifying
processes for officers in a transformed and fully joint U.S. military?
Answer. In my opinion, there are three components to developing a
Joint Specialty Officer: education, training, and experience. While the
education and training components are reasonably well developed, the
services do not always provide their best and brightest to serve on
operational Joint Task Force Headquarters, and even when we do, we
don't have a system to track officers with this joint operational
experience. This problem is further compounded since we currently do
not always provide joint credit for officers conducting joint combat
operations for less than 22 months in a combat zone. This real-world
joint operational experience--the most valuable kind of joint
experience in my view--reinforces education and training with practical
application of learned skills, thus more fully preparing officers to
lead and manage in the joint environment. The joint manpower exchange
program as currently being implemented has great potential for
advancing jointness across the force. We are making great headway in
this area but need to continue the effort.
Question. The previous Commander, JFCOM, has expressed the view
that a necessary next step in joint officer management is creating a
system to track operational joint experience and to more easily provide
joint duty credit for those officers who serve on an operational Joint
Task Force.
Do you agree with this view and, if so, how would you recommend
achieving it?
Answer. I wholeheartedly agree with Admiral Giambastiani's position
in regard to the value of joint operational experience and ensuring we
track and fold it into the joint officer management process. Real-world
joint operational experience is the most valuable kind of joint
experience as it reinforces education and training with practical
application of learned skills, thus more fully preparing officers to
command in the joint environment. Joint Specialty Officers with joint
education, training, and experience are critical to successful joint
operations today and in the future.
There are three parts to tracking joint operational credit in the
real world joint environment. First we need to establish criteria which
define joint operational credit. Second we need to apply these criteria
and identify key positions on the Joint Task Force Headquarters and
other appropriate joint operational assignments and not be
unnecessarily constrained by ceilings on the number of joint qualified
officers. Finally, the human resource systems need to document this
joint operational credit in a consistent manner across the officer
corps so it is readily available in the joint specialty officer
management process. I believe tracking both joint operational duty and
joint credit for the total force to be one of the key steps we need to
undertake in transforming the officer corps and producing leaders who
are fully qualified, inherently joint officers.
We also need to ensure our best officers go to these positions and
that they are promoted at a rate consistent with the importance of
their joint responsibilities.
TRAINING OF SENIOR LEADERS IN JOINT OPERATIONS
Question. JFCOM has taken several initiatives to train senior
leaders to operate in joint environments. Capstone and Pinnacle are
intensive courses that provide general and flag officers with an
understanding of their role as joint task force commanders. Keystone
provides senior enlisted leaders with an understanding of their role in
joint operations.
Based on your experience as Deputy Commander, CENTCOM, are senior
leaders receiving the training they need to succeed in the joint
warfighting environment?
Answer. Yes. Joint training today, as well as leader development
programs such as Pinnacle, Capstone, and Keystone, challenge and better
prepare our leaders to think, act, and operate effectively in today's
challenging security environment. These programs are continually
updated based on observed best practices and they link in actual JTF
commanders in the field for question and answer sessions. The joint
mission rehearsal program is also providing outstanding operational
level training for commanders and their staffs prior to deployment. We
have been very pleased with the training the senior leaders of
CENTCOM's Joint Task Forces have received.
Question. What recommendations for change in senior leader
training, if any, do you have?
Answer. Overall, I am quite pleased with the senior leader training
program. It achieves a good balance of academics, exercise, senior
mentors and in-country right seat rides prior to mission transfer.
While Interagency and multinational participation is included, it could
be expanded and the earlier we engage our officers and senior NCOs the
better.
Question. In your opinion, is Keystone as robust and professionally
developing as Capstone and Pinnacle? If not, what recommendations would
you make to improve the course?
Answer. Currently, the Keystone Joint Operations Module (JOM)
hosted by Joint Forces Command is as robust and professionally
developing as the JOM for Capstone and Pinnacle. Keystone provides
senior enlisted leaders with training to serve on the staffs of joint
commands. However, Keystone is just beginning to transition to a full
program under the direction of National Defense University (NDU) as
conducted for Capstone and Pinnacle. The Keystone program is valuable
and as we move forward, I anticipate it will continually be shaped to
meet the needs of commanders. In that respect, the graduates are being
used well--nearly every regional combatant command senior enlisted
leader has been through the course, the new JCS Command Sergeant Major
is a graduate, and many of the key warfighting commands such as MNF-I,
CFC-A, and MNC-I all have command senior enlisted leaders who are
graduates of Keystone. In fact, CFC-A has designated Keystone as a
prerequisite course for those selected for assignment as the Command
Senior Enlisted Leader. This speaks quite well for the program and its
graduates. Keystone has matured over its three iterations. A major
milestone is formalization of Enlisted Professional Military Education
Program, of which Keystone will serve as the graduate level course.
JOINT TACTICAL TRAINING
Question. While progress has been made in the ability of the
Services to plan and operate at the strategic level, there continue to
be shortfalls in joint training and in the conduct of joint operations
at the tactical level.
Based on your service in USFK and CENTCOM, what do you consider to
be the operational and tactical areas most in need of better joint
capability, training, and procedures?
Answer. Because of the different levels of engagement by the
Services in the global war on terrorism, we are utilizing Air Force and
naval personnel in many non-traditional areas such as truck drivers and
prison guards. We need to anticipate and train to these capabilities as
early as possible in the deployment process. Also, as we deal more and
more with stability and reconstruction organizations such as Provincial
Reconstruction Teams and Provincial Support Teams, we must ensure they
have the right training for their unique jobset as well as in processes
to protect themselves and to conduct combat operations should they come
under attack.
One way to increase our ability to conduct this sort of training is
through the Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) which achieved
Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in October of last year. JNTC for
the first time offers the department the ability to integrate live,
virtual, and constructive capabilities in a more realistic battle space
environment at reduced cost and greater effectiveness. JNTC offers
great opportunity to improve and advance joint intel, joint fires,
joint command and control, joint ISR, joint logistics, interagency, and
multinational operations. These areas and human intelligence (HUMINT)
are key areas to focus on.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to improve the
ability of tactical level units from each of the Services to train
together and to require the Services, in fulfilling their statutory
obligation to organize and train, to ensure joint tactical training
takes place?
Answer. The individual services understand that we must train
jointly and have been leaning forward not only in joint training but
also ensuring their training programs reflect the environment of real
world operations. The Joint National Training Capability (JNTC)
provides that real-world integrating environment that promotes
Jointness through integration vice deconfliction. If confirmed, I would
continue to use JNTC to incentivize the services by enabling them to
conduct joint training from home station, or in some cases while
deployed, and allowing them to focus at the tactical level as well as
the operational level. I would also encourage the Services to include
this type of joint training as early as possible in young officers and
noncommissioned officers (NCOs) careers.
JOINT TRAINING JFCOM
Question. Three years ago, this committee directed the DOD to
develop standards to rationalize the requirements for military
operations in urban terrain (MOUT) facilities within and across the
services, and to report on those requirements. This effort has
progressed very slowly, and the Department has informed us that such
standards will not be in place in time to apply them to any projects
requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget that will be presented to
Congress next year.
If confirmed, what steps would you plan to take, and what role do
you envision for JFCOM, to develop standards and priorities for joint
urban training across DOD, to include the requirements for and location
of facilities needed to support this training?
Answer. DOD has made great improvements in our joint urban training
over the past few years. If confirmed, I would ensure JFCOM continues
to work with the Joint Staff and the Services to develop standards and
priorities for joint urban training and facilities as quickly as
possible.
Question. Do you believe this program should be part of the Joint
National Training Capability (JNTC) effort, or that it should be
separate?
Answer. At the moment, I believe there is greater utility in
establishing a Service-based program that JFCOM certifies, monitors,
and supports, but this is an issue that I would like to examine more if
confirmed.
Question. Do you believe any changes in title 10 responsibilities
are necessary in order to provide the joint training capability needed
to deal with the complex challenges of current and future missions?
Answer. It is certainly possible that some changes to title 10
responsibilities may become necessary; however, through the ongoing
deployment of a joint national training capability, we have made
significant and steady progress in many areas. This progress is the
result of many thousands of conversations everyday within and between
the myriad of Service organizations, the COCOM staffs, OSD, the Joint
Staff and all of our various multinational, agency, industry and
academic partnerships. Eventually some title 10 adjustments may serve
to make our outcomes more efficient, but I don't believe it can make
them inherently effective unless the people in the process understand
and are committed in very personal ways. In essence, the cultural
change is as important as the policy change. That cultural change is
happening more and more every day.
CLOSE AIR SUPPORT JFCOM
Question. A GAO report of May 2003 entitled ``Military Readiness:
Lingering Training and Equipment Issues Hamper Air Support of Ground
Forces,'' found that the Services have had limited success in
overcoming the barriers that prevent troops from receiving the
realistic, standardized close air support (CAS) necessary to prepare
them for joint operations. GAO found that progress has been slow on
many of the CAS issues because the Services have been unable to agree
on joint solutions and that U.S. troops are forced to conduct last-
minute training or to create ad hoc procedures on the battlefield.
From the perspective of the combatant commander, what progress has
been made and what problems persist, in ensuring successful CAS mission
execution?
Answer. Fortunately we continue to make progress in this important
area. For example, the Services have recently agreed to standardized
training procedures for joint terminal air controllers and we created
the Joint Fires Interoperability and Integration Team out of two other
commands to focus on the integration of joint fires at tactical level.
We have also made progress in standardizing more and more equipment.
For example, one of the major CAS shortfalls identified during
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) was the lack of target location and
ranging devices for the terminal attack controllers on the ground.
Based on this shortfall and prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the
Services purchased and fielded many laser range finders and GPS systems
for the terminal attack controllers on the ground. This significantly
increased the target coordinate accuracy and allowed CAS platforms to
accurately deliver their ordnance where the ground commander needed it.
Additionally, the accessibility of Unmanned Air System information
to the terminal attack controller has also brought about significant
improvement to CAS employment. The ability to get a ``bird's eye'' view
of the target area similar to what the aircrew is seeing significantly
reduces the time required to pass the correct target to the aircrew.
These technological improvements in the hands of trained controllers
continue to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of CAS assets in
support of the ground commander.
While we have made significant progress, more needs to be done for
both U.S. forces and coalition partners in enhancing equipment
interoperability, improving the effectiveness of simulations for
terminal air controller qualification and currency training, and
alignment of qualified air controllers at the appropriate level in
tactical ground units
Question. What steps has the Department and JFCOM taken to respond
to the recommendations of the GAO with respect to CAS training?
Answer. JFCOM chairs the Joint CAS Executive Steering Committee
which has made huge strides toward standardizing the training and
certification of Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACS) and Forward
Air Controllers (Airborne) (FAC(A)), both within DOD and with our
allies. JFCOM created the Joint Fires Interoperability and Integration
Team out of two other commands to focus on the integration of joint
fires at tactical level.
JFCOM is also heavily involved in establishing interoperable
equipment requirements for Joint Fires. JFCOM is also collaborating
with the Services and SOCOM to develop a Joint equipment solution for
the terminal attack controllers--the Joint Effects Targeting System
(JETS)--a light-weight, manportable target location and designation
system integrated with a targeting effects coordination system
(estimate fiscal year 2010-2012 fielding).
In the near-term, JFCOM has provided CENTCOM with the ability to
pass airborne imagery to ground units (using Rapid Attack Information
Dissemination Execution Relay (RAIDER)) as well as to better plan and
target CAS using a Digital Precision Strike Suite (DPSS) of equipment.
This DPSS capability has been used by Special Operations Forces in both
Iraq and Afghanistan. During the last large engagement in Fallujah
(November/December 2004), DPSS was used to support the majority (90
percent) of all USMC/Naval Special Warfare CAS missions including both
JDAM and LGB drops.
With advances in technology, simulation now offers realistic and
affordable alternatives for Joint Close Air Support (JCAS) training.
While simulation will never fully replace live training events, it will
potentially relieve a portion of the cost associated with initial and
follow-on training requirements for our units and personnel and
ultimately allow us to train more efficiently across DOD.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to solve this
problem?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to push for JFCOM to be
designated the DOD lead for JCAS, which would increase JFCOM's ability
to influence joint solutions and capability improvements for the
warfighter. Additionally, working with our Coalition partners to gain
acceptance of our Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) and Forward
Air Controller--Airborne (FAC(A)) qualification and certification
standards will be one of my top priorities. My executive agent for most
of these initiatives would be the Joint Fires Interoperability and
Integration Team, which is already working with all the Services and
many of our multinational partners to raise the bar on JCAS capability
and performance.
JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL
Question. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has the
responsibility to assist the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in
identifying and assessing the priority of joint military requirements
to meet the National military strategy and alternatives to any
acquisition programs that have been identified.
How would you assess the effectiveness of the JROC in the
Department's acquisition process?
Answer. In my view, we must ``operationalize'' the JROC and
acquisition processes to respond with agility when immediate and
pressing needs are presented and validated. Currently, the Joint
Capability Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is designed to
impact mid- to far-term capabilities and funding (3 years and beyond).
The process has less flexibility to quickly respond to emerging
requirements within the PPBE process in the near-term budget years (1-2
years).
A variety of ad hoc measures have been used to address this
challenge. Congress has helped by providing new authorities such as
Limited Acquisition Authority (LAA). One near-term solution is to
dedicate appropriate resources--tied to Limited Acquisition Authority--
in order to have funds available to ensure combatant commanders are
able to quickly acquire joint warfighting capabilities. In the long-
term, the JCIDS process needs to change to fall more in line with the
demands and pace of today's operations. Additionally, the JROC issues
memoranda directing JFCOM and other combatant commands to undertake
actions on behalf of the joint force, but often provides limited
funding to initiate the action or sustain it beyond its first year or
two. As an example, I understand that JFCOM has nearly $100 million
worth of unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2006, all of which were
directed by external mandates, some of which came from the JROC. I am
aware that the Joint Staff is working on a way to link plans and
requirements to resources. If confirmed, I look forward to seeing how
that applies to a functional combatant command like JFCOM and to
helping to develop a systemic way to address these concerns in the
future.
JOINT REQUIREMENTS
Question. Commander, JFCOM, is responsible for advocating for the
interests of combatant commanders in the overall defense requirements
and acquisition process.
From your perspective as the Deputy Commander, CENTCOM, has JFCOM
effectively represented the requirements and needs of combatant
commanders to the JROC and the military services?
Answer. Yes, in my experience at CENTCOM, JFCOM was very effective
in representing CENTCOM's needs to the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council and the military services. For example; JFCOM collected and
analyzed lessons learned from Afghanistan and Iraq. These lessons were
compared to the Integrated Priority Lists and Joint Quarterly Readiness
Reports submitted by the combatant commanders. This comparison was then
used to develop recommended approaches for resolution which were
submitted to the Joint Staff and JROC. All of these recommendations
were endorsed by the JROC. A problem, however, in my opinion is that
many of these joint solutions are still not adequately funded. If
confirmed, I look forward to continue working with all those involved
to make the system even more responsive to combatant commander needs--
to include possible JFCOM representation on the JROC.
Question. In your view, are combatant commanders capable of
identifying critical joint warfighting requirements and quickly
acquiring needed capabilities?
Answer. Combatant commanders are very effective in identifying
joint warfighting requirements and capability gaps. However, their
ability to quickly acquire needed capabilities has proven less than
optimal. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council process is designed
to impact mid- to far-term capabilities and funding (3 years and
beyond). The process has less flexibility to respond to emerging
requirements within the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
(PPBE) process in the near-term budget years (1-2 years). Currently,
there are limited pools of funding available to address this systemic
problem. Therefore, combatant commanders still have difficulty rapidly
acquiring some capabilities. If confirmed, I look forward to exploring
ways to improve the ability to quickly acquire capabilities needed by
the combatant commanders.
Question. What suggestions, if any, do you have for improving the
requirements and acquisition process to ensure that combatant
commanders are able to quickly acquire needed joint warfighting
capabilities?
Answer. In my view, we must ``operationalize'' the JROC and
acquisition processes to respond with agility when immediate and
pressing needs are presented and validated. As I mentioned above, the
JCIDS is designed to impact mid- to far-term capabilities and funding
(3 years and beyond). The process has less flexibility to quickly
respond to emerging requirements within the PPBE process in the near-
term budget years (1-2 years).
A variety of ad hoc measures have been used to address this
challenge. Congress has helped by providing new authorities such as
Limited Acquisition Authority (LAA) which has proven to be of great
value. One near-term solution is to extend this authority and dedicate
appropriate resources in order to have funds available to quickly
acquire joint warfighting capabilities for the combatant commanders. In
the long-term, the JCIDS process needs to adapt to more effectively
meet the demands and pace of today's operations. If confirmed, I look
forward to helping to develop a systemic way to address these concerns.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you believe you should play in
the JROC deliberations?
Answer. I believe the combatant commanders need to have an
effective voice in the resource decisions of joint requirements. If
confirmed, I look forward to investigating the option of including
JFCOM representation as a voting member on the JROC.
TRANSFORMATION
Question. By serving as the Department's ``transformation
laboratory,'' JFCOM enhances the combatant commands' capabilities as
outlined in the Department's Unified Command Plan.
Do you believe JFCOM should play a larger role in transformation
and setting transformation policy? If so, how?
Answer. JFCOM's role and influence in transformation continues to
grow through constantly expanding interaction with the Services, Joint
Staff, and OSD in the joint experimentation, joint training, joint
integration, and joint force providing responsibilities as assigned by
the UCP. Our transformation role includes both interactions within the
existing DOD developmental processes and the ability to act as a
coordinator of Service, COCOM, and agency efforts. Transformation
policy clearly rests with the Department. However, JFCOM is afforded
substantial and sufficient opportunity to inform policymakers and to
shape the mechanisms that execute transformation policy.
Question. In your view, what effects-based capabilities that have
been fielded are truly transformational?
Answer. There are two core aspects of effects-based capabilities
currently in the field that are truly transformational. The first, and
more mature of the two, is the systemic analysis capability. Designed
to view the adversary and overall operational environment as
interrelated systems, this capability focuses information on them in
terms of nodal analysis and the impact that action(s) X, Y, or Z may
have on the adversary's critical nodes. In essence targets are not
viewed as such, but rather their importance to the adversary's
behavior. Thus military targets may be bypassed or neutralized (not
destroyed) if their presence has little to no importance while
political, social, or economic targets may be deemed more critical. The
systemic approach provides decision makers with a critical view of the
operational environment and an unprecedented capability to understand
how planned actions will impact the situation. The systemic analysis
process has been fielded to all U.S. regional combatant commands and is
also in use with coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and with the
Combined Forces Command in Korea.
The second truly transformational capability is the effects-based
assessment (EBA) methodology. EBA is the ``heart'' of the EBO concept,
and provides commanders with an effects-based understanding of
operational progress as well as effects-based recommendations for
future operational decision making. It transforms the traditional
nature of campaign assessment into one that enables all operational
echelons to understand the effects-based intent of their actions and to
report the outcomes of such actions in a way that links directly to the
command decisionmaking process. As with the systemic analysis
capability, the EBA methodology is currently being used by a wide range
of U.S. and multinational organizations around the world.
Question. What effects-based capabilities currently under
development do you consider to be truly transformational and deserving
of support within the Department and Congress?
Answer. While true that both the systemic analysis and EBA
methodology are widely fielded, both are still somewhat under
development. Continued support of these two critical effects-based
capabilities is directly linked to the future value of EBO.
Question. Few would argue that the introduction of unmanned aerial
systems was not an important transformational achievement. Each Service
is developing a wide range of unmanned aerial system capabilities, and
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is responsible for
ensuring these capabilities support the Department's overarching goals
of fielding transformational capabilities, establishing joint
standards, and controlling costs.
In your view, what role should JFCOM play in supporting the
Department, including the Services and Defense agencies, in achieving
successful systematic migration of mission capabilities to this new
class of military tools?
Answer. As lead in the Joint Battle Management Command and Control
Board of Directors and a partner in the UAV Center of Excellence,
JFCOM, I believe, is playing a role in ensuring joint interoperability
requirements are being integrated into the design of the UASs
themselves and the payloads they carry. This ensures they are fully
capable of being seamlessly integrated and fully joint capable in the
joint battlespace. JFCOM certainly has unique capabilities that could
be further applied to this issue if given appropriate authority.
Question. JFCOM has a responsibility to improve combatant commander
unmanned aerial system effectiveness through improved joint service
collaboration. Currently, the Air Force is fielding the Predator
unmanned aerial system, and Army has recently signed a contract for the
system development and demonstration of the Warrior unmanned aerial
system. Both systems have a hunter-killer mission, are produced by the
same contractor, and are very similar in design and capability.
What was JFCOM's role, if any, in effecting joint service
collaboration for these two systems or in determining whether there
could be overlap between the Army and Air Force requirements?
Answer. Based on my understanding at this juncture, I believe
JFCOM's authorities and responsibilities in the development and
approval of the joint requirements for both Warrior and Predator must
be expanded to ensure we do not duplicate capabilities due to the lack
of clearly understood combatant command requirements and insufficient
Joint Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for the employment of systems
we already have on hand. The creation of a Joint Unmanned Aircraft
System Center of Excellence located at Creech AFB in Nevada is one
example of how the joint force has taken steps to ensure unwarranted
duplication of effort does not occur.
Question. What joint warfighter capabilities, if any, does the
Warrior system provide?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with exact capabilities of the
Warrior system to answer that question. The important issue with any
new UAV system is to make sure that the acquisition process is properly
followed so that the system is `born joint.' In CENTCOM, when UAVs were
acquired outside the normal process, it sometimes led directly to
problems with spectrum management and incompatible systems. The new UAV
Joint Center of Excellence will hopefully help ensure these problems
are worked out before new systems come into theater.
COMBAT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS
Question. The committee is concerned that urgent joint warfighting
requirements, including combat identification systems, are not always
conceived, developed, and fielded in the most expeditious manner
possible. Longstanding operational requirements include a joint blue
force tracking capability; a joint interoperable air, sea, and ground
combat identification system; and a joint simulations and modeling
capability for evaluating joint warfighting concepts development.
What progress has been made, and what challenges exist, to fielding
effective friendly forces tracking capabilities?
Answer. Fielding effective capabilities in this area has been
centered on achieving service and coalition interoperability of these
various tracking capabilities. We've made significant progress in
getting all the Services to agree to a strategy for a single blue force
tracking (BFT) capability with key capabilities from each Service
merging in fiscal year 2008-2009. Of note, the Army and Marine Corps
will begin merging their systems this fiscal year. An Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstration (ACTD) showed it was possible to display data
from multiple BFT systems on a single common operational picture and a
further development is being fielded to CENTCOM which sends ground BFT
data to attack aircraft.
Of great significance, JFCOM, in partnership with Allied Command
Transformation (ACT), just completed the last of three demonstrations
that were part of a nine nation Coalition Combat Identification (CCID)
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD). This event evaluated
a number of ground-to-ground and air-to-ground technologies including
Radio Frequency Tags and interoperable NATO standard Battlefield Target
Identification Devices. The results will be available in March 2006 in
the form of a Joint Military Utility Assessment that will inform U.S.
and coalition acquisition and fielding decisions for Combat
Identification.
Challenges remain in ensuring all Services and agencies examine the
full range of both materiel and non-materiel solutions. Moving BFT
information across multi-security levels and back and forth to
coalition partners is also an important issue that requires constant
attention. Additionally, determining the correct doctrinal relationship
between Combat Identification and Situational Awareness is a high
priority. Finally, building effective JFCOM-led organizations that are
supported across the DOD will pay real dividends, as these CID and BFT
challenges are long term issues.
Question. What additional acquisition authority, if any, does JFCOM
require to rapidly address such joint warfighting challenges?
Answer. JFCOM requires that Limited Acquisition Authority be
extended when it expires at the end of fiscal year 2006. This authority
should be accompanied with adequate resources to accelerate fielding of
capabilities to the commanders in the field. Additionally, the law
should allow use of O&M funding to support and sustain the operation of
the LAA project for that period of time before the Services can revise
their POMs to incorporate the new, or additions to existing, programs.
JOINT FORCES COMMAND LIMITED ACQUISITION AUTHORITY
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004 provided Commander, JFCOM, with the authority to develop and
acquire equipment for battle management command, control,
communications, and intelligence and other equipment determined to be
necessary for facilitating the use of joint forces in military
operations and enhancing the interoperability of equipment used by the
various components of joint forces. This authority limits spending to
$10 million for research and development and $50 million for
procurement.
What is your assessment of the benefits of this limited acquisition
authority?
Answer. Limited Acquisition Authority (LAA), granted to the
Secretary of Defense, has proven to be an exceptionally useful and
flexible tool for JFCOM in support of other combatant commands,
however, no funds were allocated to JFCOM to support LAA. Based on
warfighting shortfalls validated by combatant commanders, LAA has
allowed JFCOM to field mature technologies or improved capability to
the warfighters in the regional combatant commands more rapidly than
the normal DOD process for responding to unanticipated urgent needs.
Since 2004 JFCOM's implementation of LAA in support of combatant
commands has been used to fund/provide several improvements to the
Joint Warfighter:
The Joint Precision Air Drop System 2000 pound
capability allows precision delivery of logistic support to
forces in remote operating areas or behind enemy lines.
Expected delivery--accelerated from a planned delivery of
fiscal year 2009 to November 2005.
The Change Detection Work Station (CDWS) is a
capability to map and detect Improvised Explosive Devices along
troop/convoy routes. CDWS deployed to CENTCOM in January 2005
and has already detected several IEDs before they were able to
cause damage or injury.
The Joint Task Force Commander Executive Command and
Control Capability (JTF CDR EC2) is an information technology
solution that provides connectivity to a commander while
remotely located from the headquarters element. Four of these
systems were delivered to CENTCOM/EUCOM Combined Joint Task
Forces (CJTF) in fiscal year 2004 and a fifth was delivered to
CJTF-76 late last year. It has also been deployed to support
Katrina and is currently deployed in support of the
humanitarian operation in Pakistan.
Joint Translator/Forwarder/Joint Blue Force
Situational Awareness/Rapid Attack Info Dissemination Execution
Relay combines several capabilities critical to the data link
integration, blue force tracking, and attack of time sensitive
targets.
Joint Translator Forward is a universal
translator/data forwarder for converting our existing
disparate data sources and links.
Joint Blue Force Situational Awareness
provides the ability to pull different Blue Force
Tracking devices together and display then in one
Common Operating Picture. This capability is in Iraq
today with Multinational Force West (MNF-W) and is
being tested to support XVIII Airborne Corps as we
speak.
RAIDER provides Time Sensitive Target attack
data/authorization to multiple aircraft en route to
targets. Currently, CENTCOM is using the capability in
nontraditional ISR missions in direct support of ground
operations, passing imagery to ground forces.
Command and Control On The Move--provides very large
bandwidth access to Intelligence & Command and Control systems
while on the move. The initial capability was delivered to V
Corps in July 2005 and is currently deployed to Pakistan to
support the humanitarian effort.
JFCOM is also evaluating additional capabilities for fielding under
Limited Acquisition Authority.
Simultaneous, two-way voice translation between
American English and Arabic dialects.
Public Key Infrastructure/Interoperability Express--a
method to provide secure, but unclassified information between
U.S. and coalition partners in the combatant commands.
Theater Battle Operations Net Centric Environment
(TBONE)--a means to readily develop and disseminate air tasking
orders to all participating units.
Multi-level-secure Information Infrastructure (MI2)--
provides information sharing within and across multi-level
security information domains.
Question. Do you believe this authority should be extended beyond
September 30, 2006? If so, what changes, if any, would you recommend to
improve the authority?
Answer. Yes. I strongly believe that extension of Limited
Acquisition Authority (LAA) beyond fiscal year 2006 will continue to
provide needed capabilities to the Regional Combatant Commanders;
especially in Command and Control functions, Communications,
Intelligence, Operations, and Interoperability. I strongly urge
Congress to extend the authority.
Limited Acquisition Authority can be improved by adding
appropriated funding commensurate to the authority and by allowing the
use of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds for sustainment of LAA-
acquired capabilities until transition to an existing program of
record, absorption of the sustainment into the recipient's O&M budget,
or termination of the requirement for each specific capability.
While LAA projects are bringing some much-needed improvements to
the joint warfighter, the LAA is not without significant challenges.
Finding adequate resources to support LAA projects is often more
challenging than defining, developing or fielding the capability. While
these authorities have provided opportunities to partner with Services
and defense agencies to field these tools, developing funding
agreements takes time, slowing the development and delivery of
capabilities to the troops--the very problem that LAA was designed to
address.
The ability to sustain/maintain these projects during transition to
programs of record also continues to present challenges. LAA does not
allow the use of O&M under the statute. Thus, we can research, develop,
and acquire a capability but not sustain it through transition to a
Service program of record or until project termination. If the Limited
Acquisition Authority were to expire as scheduled on 30 September 2006,
we would lose an excellent--and rapidly improving--method to accelerate
delivery of ``urgent need'' capabilities to the operational commanders.
Question. Do you believe similar acquisition authority should be
extended to other combatant commands, and, if so, which commands and
why?
Answer. I would like to reserve judgment on extension of this
authority to other combatant commands pending consultation with the
combatant commanders and pending further experience from Joint Forces
Command with Limited Acquisition Authority. As a supporting command,
JFCOM has Department-wide unique organizational structures, functional
experts and laboratories to represent the combatant commanders'
requirements and to develop, advance, and deploy technologies.
Potential considerations of providing LAA authority to multiple
combatant commanders include the possibility of a requirement for other
COCOMs to develop internal organizations, functional experts, and
laboratories to advance LAA initiatives, and multiple COCOMs developing
similar/redundant capabilities at the same time.
DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
Question. The Department's Science and Technology (S&T) programs
are designed to support defense transformation goals and objectives.
These programs should ensure that warfighters--now and in the future--
have superior and affordable technology to support their missions and
to give them revolutionary war-winning capabilities.
Do you believe there is an adequate investment in innovative
defense science to develop the capabilities the Department will need in
2020?
Answer. In my current capacity, I do not have enough visibility
into this issue to provide an informed answer. If you desire I will
look into this and come back to the committee if confirmed.
Question. Do you believe the Department's investment strategy for
S&T programs is correctly balanced between near-term and long-term
needs?
Answer. In my capacity as Deputy Commander, CENTCOM, I have not
been involved in the department's overall investment strategy for S&T.
I would like to reserve judgment until I have time to study this issue.
If confirmed, I will be happy to readdress this issue with the
committee in the future.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the
last few years. Challenges remain to institutionalizing the transition
of new technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons
systems and platforms.
What are your views on the success of the Department's technology
transition programs in spiraling emerging technologies into use to
confront evolving threats and to meet warfighter needs?
Answer. In addition to LAA, JFCOM is achieving success in several
different approaches to spiral development and delivery of emerging
capabilities.
JFCOM's Joint Futures Lab (JFL) is achieving success
through a process that takes prototypes from problem
identification to fielding in 3 to 6 months. Much of this work
is done by integrating emerging technologies into existing
infrastructures and legacy capabilities. This prototyping
approach enables detailed testing of capabilities in both real-
world and laboratory environments such as combatant command
exercises, Service war games, and ongoing operations. An
example of this process is the recent prototype effort to
support Multinational Forces--Iraq (MNF-I) with an open
standards, open source portal for cross-domain collaboration
and document management. This is allowing the coalition members
to rapidly share information from planning through mission
execution.
JFCOM was also recently delegated Technology Transfer
Authority by the Secretary of Defense. This allows the command
to share technology with academia and industry for the purpose
of research and development. JFCOM is using this authority to
speed the research and development process, which helps to
rapidly integrate and field new technologies.
Finally, technologies are also transferred to war
fighters through JFCOM's Joint Systems Integration Command and
the Joint Advanced Training Technology Laboratory. These
activities provide venues for quickly evaluating and
integrating new capabilities throughout the joint and component
training and acquisition communities.
In addition to JFCOM success, DOD has also had success with the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) developmental
efforts, Service Labs, and Service System Commands. While these
organizations are making significant progress in rapidly providing
capabilities to the Joint Warfighter, like LAA, these programs have
difficulty transitioning their deliverables to Programs of Record.
Question. What more can be done to transition critical technologies
quickly to warfighters?
Answer. There are several actions which can accelerate delivery of
critical technologies to the warfighter. First is the availability of
adequate funding to develop, field, and sustain new technologies until
they become a Program of Record. We also need to accelerate the
certification and accreditation process, encourage development using
open source products and open standards, and increase our efforts to
create partnerships with academia and industry. Additionally, it is
necessary to update export control policies to rapidly field new
technologies to our emerging global partners.
END STRENGTH OF ACTIVE-DUTY FORCES
Question. What level of Active-Duty personnel (by Service) do you
believe is required for current and anticipated missions?
Answer. I think this question will be more completely answered by
the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Study. I would like to reserve
judgment until that study is completed.
Question. How do you assess the progress made to date by the
services in reducing the numbers of military personnel performing
support functions through hiring of contractors or substitution of
civilian employees?
Answer. I don't have visibility on this issue across all the
services and combatant commands at this time. That said, from a
warfighter's perspective, there are still some issues to wrestle with
in the use of contractors/civilian employees in lieu of military
personnel in operational theaters and there is particular concern with
trying to use contractors/civilian employees for certain billets
requiring skill sets not possessed or readily available in the civilian
sector. We need to ensure that we only replace those support functions
which are appropriate and will not lead to a loss of combat capability.
RELIANCE ON RESERVE COMPONENT
Question. The men and women of the Reserve component have performed
superbly in meeting the diverse challenges of the global war on
terrorism and have been greatly relied upon in Operations Noble Eagle,
Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. The roles and missions that should
be assigned to the Reserve Forces is a matter of ongoing study.
What missions do you consider appropriate for permanent assignment
to the Reserve component?
Answer. The QDR is currently examining the roles and missions of
the Services and their Reserve components. This assessment will produce
recommendations regarding which capabilities should reside in the
active and Reserve components. These recommendations will also address
how those capabilities should be apportioned and resourced between the
components. In addition to the QDR, each Service is conducting their
own assessment to balance the capabilities between respective
components. I would like to Reserve final judgment on this question
until after having the opportunity to review the results of these
assessments. Having said that, putting all or significant portions of
any critical warfighting capability in the Reserve component is
problematic for a ``long war'' scenario.
Question. What should the focus of JFCOM be in ensuring that
Reserve Forces are trained and ready to participate effectively in
joint operations?
Answer. Joint Forces Command and the Services should train Reserve
Forces in the same manner that they train Active-Duty Forces. As
experience over the last 4 years clearly demonstrates, our Reserve
Forces operate with our Active-Duty Forces as an integral part of joint
operations. Therefore, the training for Reserve Forces should prepare
them to seamlessly participate effectively in joint operations.
Currently, JFCOM conducts Mission Rehearsal Exercises for Reserve units
in exactly the same manner as they do for the Active-Duty--and this
should continue. This is also true with our senior leader training
courses (Capstone, Keystone, and Pinnacle) and all aspects of joint
training that occurs at Joint Forces Command.
Question. The Department's Training Transformation Implementation
Plan of June 10, 2003, provides that the Department's training program
will benefit both the Active and Reserve components.
If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Reserve and the
National Guard benefit from the Joint National Training Capability, a
key component of the Training Transformation Implementation Plan?
Answer. JFCOM trains the Reserve Forces in exactly the same manner
that they train our Active-Duty Forces--from senior leader courses such
as Capstone and Keystone to mission rehearsal exercises. They are also
actively engaged with the leaders of the Reserve components to ensure
they have the fidelity and range architecture to integrate fully into
the Joint National Training Capability.
The Training Transformation Implementation Plan identifies the
National Guard Bureau as participating in the development of several
capability components. These include initiatives to improve training
simulations and training range infrastructure, create a mission
rehearsal and joint training capability, and develop a robust joint
training research and development program. Under an active Memorandum
of Understanding, JFCOM and the National Guard Bureau have pledged to
work toward maximizing interoperability and commonality of both
training infrastructure and capabilities. Near term efforts include an
fiscal year 2006 plan to connect GuardNet, the National Guard's
national network for distributed education and training, with the Joint
Training and Experimentation Network (JTEN). This will enable the Guard
to access the entire array of joint training tools such as the live,
virtual, constructive training environment. Additionally, in January
2006, JFCOM will become the Office of Primary Responsibility for the
Joint Knowledge Development and Distribution Capability (JKDDC). JKDDC
and JNTC are two of the three major initiatives that make up DOD's
Training Transformation effort. As part of that action, JFCOM will ramp
up the development and distribution of joint training courseware,
redoubling our efforts to engage the National Guard in developing
education products that will serve the joint training requirements of
both the National Guard and Active-Duty Forces.
SCHLESINGER PANEL FINDINGS ON DETENTION OPERATIONS
Question. In August 2004, the Independent Panel to Review DOD
Detention Operations, chaired by former Secretary of Defense James
Schlesinger, concluded that ``CJTF-7 was never fully resourced to meet
the size and complexity of its mission.'' The Schlesinger Panel found
that the Joint Staff, U.S. CENTCOM, and CJTF-7 took ``too long'' to
formally approve the Joint Manning Document (JMD) specifying the
personnel requirements for CJTF-7 headquarters. This left CJTF-7
headquarters at times with only about one-third the personnel
authorized under the JMD.
In your view, did CENTCOM and the Joint Staff take too long to
ensure that CJTF-7 had the staff and resources it needed to carry out
its mission, including the oversight of detention operations at Abu
Ghraib?
Answer. I assumed my duties as Deputy Commander at CENTCOM in late
October 2003. As such, I had no personal involvement in the original
sourcing decisions for the stand up of CJTF-7 which I understand
occurred in May 2003. The Schlesinger Panel reported that the Joint
Manning Document (JMD) for CJTF-7 was not finally approved until
December 2003. Assuming those facts are correct, I agree that 6 months
to validate the CJTF-7 JMD was too long. However, it is also likely
true that mission and force requirements were adjusted during the
period, and JMD requirements might therefore have been adjusted as
well.
Question. The Schlesinger Panel also found that: ``Once it became
clear in the summer of 2003 that there was a major insurgency growing
in Iraq, with the potential for capturing a large number of enemy
combatants, senior leaders should have moved to meet the need for
additional military police forces.'' The Schlesinger Panel criticized
CENTCOM and JCS for failing to consider options for increasing the
number of forces committed to the detention/interrogation operations in
Iraq (including reallocating in-theater Army assets, transferring
operational control other Service military police units in theater, or
mobilizing and deploying additional forces from the continental United
States).
Do you agree with the Schlesinger Panel's opinion that ``more
robust options should have been considered sooner''?
Answer. The 800th MP Brigade's purpose was to fulfill the mission
for which it was assigned. Brigade leadership was expected to fulfill
its mission by adapting and utilizing soldiers trained to accomplish
those mission requirements. As MG Taguba reported, the Commander of the
800th MP Brigade did a poor job of allocating resources. In addition,
that commander also did not train her soldiers in confinement
operations after it became clear that her mission changed. Adapting to
a changing mission is expected of commanders, especially senior
commanders. In addition, staffing decisions at that time were, in large
part, dictated by limitations in specific MP resources available, a
fact the Army has recognized and is taking action to correct (see
Schlesinger Panel Report, p. 17).
Question. What is your understanding of the actions taken by senior
leaders in CENTCOM to address JTF-7's requirements for detainee
operations?
Answer. I assume the time period in question is the summer of 2003.
As I stated earlier, I assumed duties as Deputy Commander in October
2003 so I have no firsthand knowledge of any actions taken. I
understand, however, that LTG Sanchez has testified previously before
this committee that he took corrective action to include an August 2003
request for a comprehensive assessment of all detention operations in
Iraq that was conducted by MG Ryder, the then Provost Marshall of the
Army. I believe that Gen Abizaid also testified before this committee
that he sent the CENTCOM Inspector General to Iraq in August 2003 to
assess detention operations in the Iraq Theater of operations.
Question. Do you believe that these actions were adequate?
Answer. Given the context in which they occurred, yes, I believe
these actions were adequate. In hindsight, it is clear that putting
more resources against the problem could have helped the overall
detainee situation.
STABILITY AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS
Question. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have underscored the
importance of planning and training for post-conflict stability and
support operations. Increased emphasis has been placed on stability and
support operations in planning and guidance in order to achieve the
goal of full integration across all departmental activities.
What is your assessment of the Department's current emphasis on
planning for post-conflict scenarios?
Answer. The Department has invested considerable emphasis on post-
conflict planning in the past few years. Of the four Joint Operating
Concepts (JOC) approved by the Secretary of Defense and signed by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one is dedicated exclusively to
Stability Operations. I believe the most critical step in improving our
post-conflict planning is the establishment and integration with a
counterpart civilian planning capability in an interagency forum. Along
these lines, I strongly support the establishment and the strengthening
of the Office for the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization
(S/CRS) within the Department of State. The DOD has assisted S/CRS in
building their own planning processes as well as integrating them into
the DOD's deliberate and crisis planning processes. These efforts, in
Washington as well as with the combatant commanders, have worked to
integrate stabilization and reconstruction operations into our
operational plans and theater exercises. JFCOM, in particular, has
fostered a personal relationship with Ambassador Pascual and has
provided expertise to S/CRS, partnering with S/CRS concept development
and experimentation events to develop their planning capacity and help
elaborate their operational concepts. Similarly, Ambassador Pascual has
contributed immensely to the work at JFCOM. This type of relationship
should serve as a model for the DOD's work with all government agencies
in an effort to improve its planning for post-conflict scenarios.
The department is developing a directive concerning stability
operations which will help integrate stability, security, transition,
and reconstruction operations into our overall campaign planning
efforts. The ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review, in which S/CRS is
participating, is just one way we are reassessing our requirements to
ensure we have the right mix of forces for the right missions,
including security, stability, reconstruction, and transition
operations.
Question. What role should the Joint Staff play in implementing new
directives in the areas of post-conflict planning and stability and
support operations?
Answer. As with most endeavors, the Joint Staff's primary role is
to help the Chairman perform his assigned duties. Although it is
statutorily restricted from directive authority over the Services and
COCOMs, the Joint Staff is nevertheless uniquely positioned to provide
to both of those bodies national level guidance in their creation of
joint doctrine and plans. Planning for stability and reconstruction
operations demands a particularly high level of U.S. Government
interagency coordination. By virtue of its habitual interactions in the
Washington, DC community, the Joint Staff (particularly within J-5) can
define, open and reinforce staff-level lines of communication between
COCOM planners and their appropriate U.S. Government interagency
partners. The Joint Staff should help facilitate coordination between
governmental agencies, such as the Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS), the Services, and the
combatant commanders and their staffs.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate relationship
between the Department and other Federal agencies in the planning and
conduct of stability and support operations in a post-conflict
environment?
Answer. Security, stability, transition, and reconstruction
operations require the coherent application of diplomatic, information,
military and economic elements of national power. Clearly, the military
has a role to play in conjunction with partners inside the U.S.
Government as well as Allies, international organizations, and
nongovernmental organizations. The proper relationship between the DOD
and other Federal agencies in planning and executing these operations
vary with conditions on the ground. Several principles need to be
considered and should be applied when able. First, the Command and
Control arrangements need to be clear and understood by all parties.
Second, the pragmatic application of the supported and supporting
commander concept and the Lead Federal Agency concept can be very
helpful and appropriate in this area. Finally, any relationship between
DOD and other Federal agencies will require leaders who understand the
capabilities each agency can bring to bear. For this reason, JFCOM has
incorporated interagency topics and participants--as both fellows and
presenters--in the vast majority of wargames and exercises as well as
in Capstone, Pinnacle, and Keystone courses designed to prepare flag
and general officers to lead Joint Task Forces in the execution of
security, stability, transition, and reconstruction operations.
Question. What lessons do you believe the Department has learned
from the experience of planning and training for post-conflict
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. U.S. Joint Forces Command has undertaken a robust and
dynamic lessons-learned mission to actively work on the lessons--at the
joint operational level--from our ongoing operations. This has resulted
in an extremely rich set of insights, observations and analyses. JFCOM
has provided many of these products to Congress in previous testimony
and briefings to congressional staff members. I believe detailed
briefings such as these would be useful to provide the necessary
context and detail which these issues require.
Joint Forces Command has learned several key lessons about
security, stability, transition, and reconstruction operations. First,
in these types of environments, the time between acquiring intelligence
and conducting operations must be as close as possible. Agile
operations require actionable intelligence--and the best way to achieve
that is through HUMINT collection. Second, there is enormous value in
the ability to maintain persistent surveillance over desired areas. Our
current capabilities only allow us to maintain surveillance for finite
periods of time over limited areas. Persistent surveillance allows us
to better track changes in the environment and to track high-value
targets. Third, the value of detailed, adaptive and collaborative
planning is essential. Our successes were enabled by detailed planning;
our shortcomings usually occurred in areas where planning efforts or
expertise was lacking. Fourth, our military commanders need money they
can immediately spend--as much as or more than they need bullets and
guns--as a key tool to jump start reconstruction efforts. Fifth, we
need to ensure the right balance of capabilities (such as Civil Affairs
units) between Active and Reserve components because their immediate
engagement and long-term sustainment are critical. Sixth, collaborating
with Allies is essential and requires considerable effort. Seventh, our
ability to communicate with the civilian population--the center of
gravity in these operations--needs to be enabled with linguists,
communications, media, and an effective strategic communications
capability. Eighth, the need for integrated interagency planning and
execution requires an effective Joint Interagency Coordination Group.
These are some of the many lessons we have learned, and are acting on,
in our execution of stability, security, transition, and reconstruction
operations. I would offer more detailed briefings as requested by
Congress.
JOINT EXPERIMENTATION BUDGET
Question. The Services cumulatively spend about $500 million per
year on experimentation. The JFCOM budget for joint experimentation for
fiscal year 2006 is approximately $109 million.
Are these amounts for joint experimentation adequate to ensure the
effective integration and interoperability of our future forces?
Answer. JFCOM has had multiple successes with their experimentation
program that are being used by joint warfighters. However, given the
global, rapidly changing asymmetrical threat and the speed at which we
are finding ourselves required to identify and provide solutions to the
field, these resources may need to be increased. If confirmed I would
like to assess the adequacy of funding and provide that answer back to
you.
Question. What is the appropriate role for JFCOM in determining how
the respective services should invest their experimentation dollars?
Answer. The UCP assigns JFCOM the responsibility to lead joint
concept development and experimentation (CDE) and coordinate the CDE
efforts of the Services, combatant commands, and defense agencies to
support joint interoperability and future joint warfighting
capabilities. The Commander of JFCOM is also tasked with leading the
development, exploration, and integration of new joint warfighting
concepts and serving as the DOD Executive Agent for joint warfighting
experimentation. This does not necessarily require strict JFCOM control
of how Services invest their experimentation dollar, but does require a
clear communication of the planned activities of Service
experimentation and the ability to develop a common vision of the
course of experimentation with the CJCS and Joint Chiefs. Services can
then exercise their appropriate fiscal authorities under title 10,
guided by that common vision of the course of experimentation.
NATO TRANSFORMATION
Question. NATO officials have acknowledged that transformation
means changing NATO thinking, organization, and culture by adopting new
structures, improving training methods, adopting doctrine and educating
leaders. The NATO Response Force has been identified as a key element
in NATO's transformation progress.
What role is the NATO Rapid Response Force playing in facilitating
modernization and transformation of NATO forces?
Answer. The NATO Response Force (NRF) is NATO's primary vehicle for
transformation, paving the way for transformed NATO forces in all 26
NATO nations. Besides establishing itself a highly-credible force for
real-world expeditionary military operations across the full spectrum
of military operations, it is NATO's operational test-bed for
transformation. The rotation of NRF forces will facilitate
modernization and transformation of all NATO forces throughout the
Alliance. The NRF is the vehicle by which NATO military forces will
exercise all aspects of joint and multinational interoperability to
include doctrinal and cultural change. Lastly, the NRF will also
facilitate experimentation efforts aimed at providing improved
capabilities to the warfighters.
Question. When will the NATO Response Force achieve full
operational capability?
Answer. The NRF will achieve Full Operational Capability not later
than 30 Oct 2006.
Question. What success has Supreme Allied Commander Transformation
achieved in bringing about transformational change to NATO forces and,
if confirmed, what would be your most significant challenges in this
role?
Answer. The Alliance has achieved remarkable success towards its
goal of military transformation. Specifically,
Working with the Supreme Allied Commander Europe,
Allied Command Transformation (ACT) delivered the Bi-Strategic
Commander's Strategic Vision which describes how NATO should
conduct operations in the future and the concomitant required
Alliance future military capabilities. The first document of
its kind in NATO.
Working with United States Joint Forces Command, ACT
has greatly expanded NATO's concept, development and
experimentation efforts which are critical to furthering the
development of transformational capabilities.
ACT has issued the most comprehensive Defense
Requirements Review to date and, at their request, ACT has
reviewed the National Defense Plans and Reform efforts of
several Alliance nations.
ACT's Joint Warfare Centre has improved NATO mission
performance through Joint Task Force Headquarters Training for
all NATO-led International Security Assistance Force
Headquarters and all NATO Response Force Headquarters.
ACT has responded to emerging operational demands such
as NATO's Training Mission in Iraq by providing key support to
Allied Command Operations.
Through concept development, defense planning, and
capability development efforts, operational level battle staff
training and a broad array of complementary efforts, ACT is
establishing itself as the hub of military transformation in
the Alliance.
If I assume the role as Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, I
anticipate that my main challenges will be 1) delivering timely
transformational products to Allied Command Operations and the Allied
Nations that improve and transform our military forces, 2) advancing a
clear understanding throughout the Alliance of military transformation
and ACT's role in the process; and 3) working with the Allied Nations
to adopt and fund transformation requirements.
RESPONSES TO WMD THREATS AND NATURAL DISASTERS IN THE UNITED STATES.
Question. Deficiencies in the responses of Federal, State, and
local agencies to Hurricane Katrina have generated debate about the
appropriate role for military forces in responding to national crises.
What do you see as the appropriate role for Commander, JFCOM;
Commander, U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM); and the Governors and
Adjutant Generals of each state and territory in responding to weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) threats within the United States?
Answer. Even though an event occurs within the United States, JFCOM
retains its supporting role to NORTHCOM as the Joint Force Provider,
Joint Force Integrator, and Joint Force Trainer. As such, JFCOM has a
responsibility to be able to provide properly organized, trained, and
equipped Joint forces to NORTHCOM to deal with any level of WMD event
within the United States.
NORTHCOM, as the geographic combatant commander for North America
(minus Hawaii), is responsible for the effective employment of forces
provided by JFCOM. This should include all pre-event exercises,
planning, and organization of any Joint Task Force Headquarters that
the provided forces would fall in on.
In a WMD event, the Governors and the Adjutant Generals exercise
their responsibilities to provide the logical connection between local
first responders and outside Federal responders. For a large area,
complex event, they coordinate the response of the local incident and
area commanders and coordinate other States involved. Prior to an
event, they have a responsibility to ensure local plans are nested
within larger State plans which are in turn compatible with Federal
plans, and seek opportunities to validate these plans through rigorous
exercises. After an event occurs, they have the critical responsibility
of providing the initial assessment of the situation and timely
recommendations for the employment of Federal support.
Question. What is the appropriate role and response for active-duty
military forces in responding to natural and manmade disasters not
involving WMD threats within the United States?
Answer. Military forces bring extensive planning and process skills
as well as robust communications capabilities that can be invaluable in
helping jump-start a domestic humanitarian assistance/disaster relief
effort. The active-duty military possesses unique capabilities and the
ability to surge them quickly on short notice to an affected disaster
area. Providing these capabilities when directed by appropriate
civilian authorities within applicable laws and policy is the
appropriate role for the active-duty military forces. The specific role
of active-duty military forces and the trigger to employ them should be
based on the severity of the event and the assessed impact on American
citizens, not what caused it.
Question. Hurricane Katrina has demonstrated the importance of
joint and interagency training in preparation for support disaster
operations.
In your view, how could JFCOM influence joint and interagency
training to enable better coordination for natural disasters
operations?
Answer. As the Joint Force Trainer, JFCOM is responsible for
conducting two exercises per regional Combatant Commander per year,
plus all Mission Rehearsal Exercises for deploying Joint Task Force
Headquarters. While these exercises have been primarily Joint in the
past, there is already a robust Interagency component to most of them.
In the light of the events of Katrina, if confirmed, I will direct
JFCOM to seek increased interagency participation in these exercises,
from the local, State, and Federal levels. Additionally, JFCOM can
bring to bear the full capabilities of military modeling and simulation
to provide an unparalleled realistic training environment on a scale
which normally would not be available to other interagency players in
Homeland Defense.
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION--CIVIL SUPPORT TEAMS
Question. What role do you believe JFCOM should play in the
training, assessment of readiness, and employment of the Weapons of
Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams?
Answer. Weapons of Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams are a
National Guard Asset. As such, they are trained as all other National
Guard units with the assistance of the Training Support Divisions.
Through this process, 32 of 55 Civil Support Teams have already been
certified. If the review of the Katrina response dictates a greater
role for JFCOM in this process, then the components of JFCOM, in
conjunction with Joint Forces Special Operations Command, should take
the lead in developing doctrine for and training of WMD-Civil Support
Teams. This would be consistent with the manner in which JFCOM provides
similarly trained Civil Affairs Teams for Iraq and Afghanistan.
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 Commander, JFCOM/Supreme
Allied Commander Transformation?
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 James M. Inhofe
FUTURE JOINT WARFIGHTING CONCEPT
1. Senator Inhofe. General Smith, it my understanding that one of
the primary roles of Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) is to identify the
future joint warfighting concepts. It also provides a place for joint
experimentation and possibly exercises. As you assess JFCOM from the
outside, what do you see as areas where JFCOM could improve? In other
words, where could JFCOM help the combatant commanders and the Joint
Staff more?
General Smith. Based on my experiences in Korea and CENTCOM, I
think JFCOM has done a very good job in developing future joint war
fighting concepts and supporting the Combatant Commanders in their
experimentation and exercise needs. This is a continuously developing
requirement with many expanding opportunities. There are two specific
areas where JFCOM's initial efforts are starting to pay dividends, but
which will require continued emphasis and resources.
First, additional strides are being made in broadening and
deepening coalition and interagency participation into the development
of current and future stability operations and war fighting concepts
and capabilities. JFCOM holds a unique position in our Defense
Department due to its ability to bridge across an exceptionally diverse
community of U.S. and foreign militaries, government agencies, private
sector organizations, industry, academia, and a host of powerful
knowledge centers. This will ensure we most effectively leverage
coalition and interagency contributions and collaboratively develop
interoperable capabilities.
A second area where great progress is being made to provide
combatant commanders and the Joint Staff additional capabilities is in
the modeling and simulation area. Technology now allows us to better
simulate realistic operating conditions for both exercises and
experiments that will improve the Department's ability to deliver
capabilities the combatant commanders require in a timely and efficient
manner.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
CAPABILITIES GAP IN NATO FORCES
2. Senator Akaka. General Smith, what are your views on the gap in
capabilities between U.S. and our NATO allies? Is there a problem, and
if so, is it getting better or worse?
General Smith. Most NATO Allies, with smaller militaries with
substantially less resources and funding, cannot match the U.S.
military step for step in capabilities. However, this is not the sole
measure of whether NATO Allies can effectively train, exercise and
deploy in operations with the U.S. and the Alliance as a whole. A focus
of Allied Command Transformation is to work with nations so that their
resources and funding are used in a way that ensures these militaries
are more capable, usable, interoperable and deployable. This is at the
heart of the NATO Response Force, a capability currently in development
within NATO.
While there is a significant capability gap, there is not a
significant technology gap. This goes to the heart of interoperability.
Because many NATO countries are smaller and have fewer resources, the
development of niche capabilities that can fill shortfalls in the
Alliance is critical. Because not every member of the Alliance has the
capability to handle all aspects of every NATO mission, what is
important is that the Alliance as a whole can produce these
capabilities--and that they can be integrated and made interoperable.
ACT will continue to lead the way in bringing coherence to future
concepts and capabilities for NATO. The co-location of this relatively
new and increasingly important NATO Transformation Command with JFCOM
has already proven to be an invaluable resource to the militaries of
all NATO countries, including the United States. The JFCOM-ACT
partnership is enormously important and mutually beneficial as we
develop future concepts and capabilities leveraging our combined
capabilities.
As for the gaps themselves, the situation is getting better, not
worse. As NATO's expeditionary missions continue to mount, most
recently the training and exercises conducted for the African Union in
Sudan, our Allies continue to see the value in transformation. More
importantly, many of them are fundamentally changing the way their
militaries have done business in the past, so that they can better meet
future challenges. As quickly as possible, we must continue to
transform and posture our collective capabilities to counter new
threats and to leverage new capabilities as we counter global terrorism
which challenges the security of nations throughout the world.
ROLE OF JFCOM TRAINING
3. Senator Akaka. General Smith, what do you see as the proper role
for JFCOM in the training of our forces, which is still primarily a the
title 10 responsibility of the Services?
General Smith. JFCOM has a very important joint training role as
outlined in the President's 2004 Unified Command Plan. In this
capacity, JFCOM is responsible to the CJCS to serve as the lead agent
for joint force training. These responsibilities include:
Supporting other combatant commanders, Combat Support
Agencies (CSAs), and National Guard Bureau (NGB) in their
implementation of the Chairman's Joint Training Policy and
Guidance and the execution of their joint training programs;
Managing the combatant commanders' portion of the CJCS
exercise program;
Conducting and assessing joint and multinational
training and exercises for assigned forces;
Assisting the CJCS, other combatant commanders, and
Service Chiefs in their preparations for joint and combined
operations;
Establishing joint training programs for assigned
forces that produce joint staffs and joint force packages
capable of accomplishing common mission essential tasks to
standards established by the combatant commanders who may
employ them;
Providing joint training for and/or assistance with
the joint training of combatant commander battle staffs, joint
task force (JTF) headquarters (HQ) staffs, and JTF functional
component commanders and their staffs;
Designing standardized joint training processes and
programs for JTF HQ and functional component joint training
events in support of geographic combatant commander
requirements;
Conducting joint and supporting component
interoperability training of assigned forces;
Annually assessing the effectiveness of Joint training
and the JFCOM joint training program for assigned forces,
reporting the results of that assessment to the CJCS;
Coordinating and scheduling joint training events for
assigned forces, as well as deconflicting the participation of
forces in worldwide joint training events in support of
combatant commander'srequirements; and
Coordinating and providing consequence management
support for combatant command training events and exercises.
Based on my experience in Korea and at CENTCOM, I think JFCOM's
role is focused on the proper areas of joint training. JFCOM's joint
mission rehearsal program, which now also incorporates Joint National
Training Capabilities, interagency and multinational participation is
an excellent example of the invaluable joint training service JFCOM
provided to CENTCOM.
4. Senator Akaka. General Smith, is JFCOM doing too little or too
much to guide joint training, or are you satisfied with the current
system?
General Smith. I am satisfied with the current system; however,
there are important initiatives which must be further developed.
First, continuing to work hard to bring the Joint National Training
Capability to Full Operating Capability.
Second, continuing partnership with the Joint Staff, Services, and
combatant commands to more fully develop and implement the readiness
and training standards needed to certify Joint Task Force Headquarters.
Third, establishing a coherent framework for Joint Force Trainer
capability development requirements (warfighter training, education and
learning) under an integrated Center of Excellence.
Finally, establishing a common, transparent, and uniformly
accountable business model for all of the joint training programs that
incentivizes Services to conduct their training requirements in a joint
training venue. This new business model is being considered in the QDR
discussion as a means to enhance our Joint Capabilities by improving
Joint Training and Education.
______
[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith, USAF,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
October 19, 2005.
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, U.S.C., section 601:
To be General
Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith, 0000.
______
[The biographical sketch of Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith, USAF,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith, USAF
Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith is Deputy Commander, U.S. Central Command,
MacDill Air Force Base, FL.
The general entered the Air Force in 1970 after completing Officer
Training School. He commanded two fighter wings and led two air
expeditionary force deployments to Southwest Asia: AEF III and the 4th
Air Expeditionary Wing. He served as the Commander of 7th Air Force,
Pacific Air Forces; Air Component Commander, ROK and U.S. Combined
Forces Command Korea; and Deputy Commander U.S. Forces Korea. The
general also served two tours at the Pentagon and was Commandant of the
NATO School at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, Commandant of
Air War College and Commander of the Air Force Doctrine Center.
General Smith flew more than 165 combat missions in Southeast and
Southwest Asia in the A-1 Skyraider and the F-15E Strike Eagle. A
command pilot, he has more than 3,000 hours in the T-33, T-37, T-38, A-
1, A7, A-10, F-111F, F-15E, and F-16.
Education:
1969...................................... Bachelor of Arts degree in
business management,
Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, Blacksburg
1978...................................... Master of Arts degree in
business management,
Central Michigan
University, Mount Pleasant
1982...................................... Air Command and Staff
College, Maxwell Air Force
Base, AL
1990...................................... Army War College, Carlisle
Barracks, PA
1994...................................... Advanced Executive Program,
J.L. Kellogg Graduate
School of Management,
Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL.
Assignments:
June 1970-June 1971....................... Student, undergraduate pilot
training, Columbus AFB, MS.
June 1971-September 1971.................. A-1 combat crew training,
Hurlburt Field, FL.
October 1971-October 1972................. A-1 pilot, 1st Special
Operations Squadron, Nakhon
Phanom Royal Thai AFB,
Thailand.
October 1972-July 1973.................... Instructor pilot training,
Randolph AFB, TX.
July 1973-September 1977.................. Instructor pilot and chief,
check section, 96th Flying
Training Squadron, Williams
AFB, AZ.
September 1977-January 1979............... Staff officer, Air Staff
Training Program, Deputy
Chief of Staff for
Personnel, the Pentagon,
Washington, DC.
January 1979-August 1981.................. Student, A-7 Corsair
conversion training, A-7D
aircraft commander, flight
commander and assistant
operations officer, 76th
Tactical Fighter Squadron,
England AFB, LA.
August 1981-June 1982..................... Student, Air Command and
Staff College, Maxwell AFB,
AL.
June 1982-July 1986....................... Air Staff Officer, Deputy
Chief of Staff for Plans
and Operations; Project
Checkmate analyst for
interdiction, Europe and
Southwest Asia; Air Force
team chief, Joint
Assessment and Initiative
Office, and executive
officer to the Air Force
Director of Operations, the
Pentagon, Washington, DC.
July 1986-July 1989....................... Chief of Safety, later,
Assistant Deputy Commander
for Operations, 354th
Tactical Fighter Wing,
Myrtle Beach AFB, SC.
July 1989-June 1990....................... Student, Army War College,
Carlisle Barracks, PA.
June 1990-August 1992..................... Commandant, NATO School,
SHAPE, Oberammergau,
Germany.
August 1992-September 1993................ Vice Commander, later,
Commander, 27th Fighter
Wing, Cannon AFB, NM.
September 1993-June 1995.................. Assistant Director of
Operations, Headquarters
Air Combat Command, Langley
AFB, VA.
June 1995-July 1997....................... Commander, 4th Fighter Wing,
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC.
July 1997-August 1998..................... Vice Commander, 7th Air
Force and U.S. Air Forces
Korea, and Chief of Staff,
Combined Republic of Korea
and U.S. Air Component
Command, Osan Air Base,
South Korea.
September 1998-December 1999.............. Commandant, Air War College,
and Vice Commander, Air
University, Maxwell AFB,
AL.
December 1999-November 2001............... Commander, Air Force
Doctrine Center, Maxwell
AFB, AL.
November 2001-October 2003................ Deputy Commander, United
Nations Command; Deputy
Commander, U.S. Forces
Korea; Commander, Air
Component Command, Republic
of Korea and U.S. Combined
Forces Command; and
Commander, 7th Air Force,
Pacific Air Forces, Osan
AB, South Korea.
October 2003-present...................... Deputy Commander, U.S.
Central Command, MacDill
AFB, FL.
Flight information:
Rating: Command pilot.
Flight hours: More than 3,000.
Aircraft flown: T-33, T-37, T-38, A-1, A-7, A-10, F-111 F, F-15E,
and F-16.
Major awards and decorations:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Distinguished Service Medal
Silver Star with two oak leaf clusters
Defense Superior Service Medal
Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster
Distinguished Flying Cross with two oak leaf clusters
Purple Heart
Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters
Air Medal with one silver and four bronze oak leaf clusters
Aerial Achievement Medal with oak leaf cluster
Air Force Commendation Medal
Army Commendation Medal
Humanitarian Service Medal
Honor Cross of the Bundeswehr Medal (Republic of Germany)
Order of National Security Merit Gukseon Medal (Republic of Korea)
Order of National Security Merit Cheonsu Medal (Republic of Korea)
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm
Effective dates of promotion:
Second Lieutenant.................................... May 18, 1970
First Lieutenant..................................... Nov. 11, 1971
Captain.............................................. Oct. 18, 1973
Major................................................ Dec. 4, 1978
Lieutenant Colonel................................... Feb. 1, 1982
Colonel.............................................. July 1, 1989
Brigadier General.................................... July 1, 1995
Major General........................................ April 1, 1998
Lieutenant General................................... Jan. 1, 2002
______
[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 Lt. Gen. Lance
L. Smith, 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.)
Lance L. Smith.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command and Supreme Allied Commander
Transformation.
3. Date of nomination:
October 19, 2005.
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 18, 1946; Akron, Ohio.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Linda Buddenhagen Smith.
7. Names and ages of children:
Scott A. Smith; age 36.
Rustin L. Smith; age 31.
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.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Air Force Association.
Order of Daedalians.
A-1 Skyraiders Association.
Red River Rats Association.
Armed Forces Benefit Association.
MOAA.
Virginia Tech Athletic Association (Hokie Club).
11. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals 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 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.
Lance L. Smith.
This 22nd day of August, 2005.
[The nomination of Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith, USAF, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Warner on October 27, 2005,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on October 28, 2005.]
TO CONSIDER CERTAIN PENDING MILITARY AND CIVILIAN NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:57 a.m. in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Roberts,
Collins, Talent, Chambliss, Cornyn, Thune, Levin, Lieberman,
Reed, Akaka, E. Benjamin Nelson, and Dayton.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, chief clerk; Cindy Pearson,
assistant chief clerk and security manager; and Leah C. Brewer,
nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: William M. Caniano,
professional staff member; Sandra E. Luff, professional staff
member; Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff member; Robert M.
Soofer, professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general
counsel; Kristine L. Svinicki, professional staff member; and
Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Gabriella Eisen, research assistant;
Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff member; Richard W.
Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Creighton Greene,
professional staff member; Bridget W. Higgins, research
assistant; Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel; Peter K.
Levine, minority counsel; and Michael J. McCord, professional
staff member.
Staff assistant present: Benjamin L. Rubin.
Committee members' assistants present: Arch Galloway II,
assistant to Senator Sessions; Mackenzie M. Eaglen, assistant
to Senator Collins; D'Arcy Grisier, assistant to Senator
Ensign; Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to Senator Talent; Clyde A.
Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Meredith Beck,
assistant to Senator Graham; Russell J. Thomasson and Stuart C.
Mallory, assistants to Senator Cornyn; Mieke Y. Eoyang,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Erik Raven, assistant to Senator
Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator Lieberman;
Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Darcie Tokioka,
assistant to Senator Akaka; William K. Sutey, assistant to
Senator Bill Nelson; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben
Nelson; Todd Rosenblum, assistant to Senator Bayh; and Andrew
Shapiro, assistant to Senator Clinton.
Chairman Warner. We have a quorum and we very much need to
get some nominations out. Would you withhold?
Senator Levin. Of course.
Chairman Warner. With a quorum now present, I ask the
committee to consider 7 civilian nominations and 788 pending
military noms. In the interest of time, I would ask if there is
any objection to the committee considering en bloc our civilian
and military nominees whose names are on the list provided to
each Senator, which I now read. [No response.]
There being no objection--did everyone get the list over
here? See the list on the back? Do I need to read it?
Senator Levin. No.
Chairman Warner. All right, fine.
There being no objection, I ask the committee to consider
the nominations of:
Michael W. Wynne to be Secretary of the Air Force;
Dr. Donald C. Winter to be Secretary of the Navy;
John G. Grimes to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Networks and Information Integration;
William C. Anderson to be Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Installations and Environment;
John J. Young, Jr., to be Director, Defense Research
and Engineering;
Dr. Delores M. Etter to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition;
Dr. A.J. Eggenberger to be a member of the Defense
Nuclear Board;
General Burwell B. Bell III, U.S. Army, for
reappointment as a general and assignment as Commander,
United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, and
U.S. Forces Korea;
Lieutenant General Lance L. Smith, U.S. Air Force,
for appointment as a general and assignment as
Commander, U.S. Forces Command, and Supreme Allied
Commander for Transformation; and
A list of 785 military nominations. All of these
nominations have been before the committee the required
length of time and no objections have been raised
regarding them.
Is there a motion to favorably report out these civilian
and military nominations?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Chairman Warner. Second?
Senator Dayton. Second.
Chairman Warner. All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed? [No response.]
I thank you, colleagues.
[The list of nominations considered and approved by the
committee follows:]
Civilian and Military Nominations Pending with the Senate Armed
Services Committee Which are Proposed for the Committee's Consideration
on October 27, 2005
1. Michael W. Wynne, of Florida, to be Secretary of the Air Force
(Reference No. 803).
2. Donald C. Winter, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Navy
(Reference No. 804).
3. John G. Grimes, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Networks and Information Integration (Reference No. 640).
4. William Anderson, of Connecticut, to be Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Installations and Environment (Reference No. 553).
5. John J. Young, Jr., of Virginia, to be Director of Defense
Research and Engineering (Reference No. 768).
6. Delores M. Etter, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition (Reference No. 805).
7. A.J. Eggenberger, of Montana, to be a Member of the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for a term expiring October 18, 2008
(reappointment) (Reference No. 674).
8. General Burwell B. Bell III, USA, to be general and Commander,
United Nations Command and Republic of Korea/United States Combined
Forces Command Commander, United States Forces Korea (Reference No.
829).
9. Lieutenant General Lance L. Smith, USAF, to be general and
Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command and Supreme Allied Commander for
Transformation (Reference No. 1001).
Total: 9.
______
Military Nominations Pending with the Senate Armed Services Committee
which are Proposed for the Committee's Consideration on October 27,
2005
1. Major General Michael W. Peterson, USAF, to be lieutenant
general and Chief, Warfighting Integration and Chief Information
Officer (Reference No. 643).
2. Lieutenant General William T. Hobbins, USAF, to be general and
Commander, US Air Forces Europe/Commander, Air Force Component,
Ramstein/Director, Joint Air Power Competency Center (Reference No.
798).
3. In the Army Reserve there are 31 appointments to the grade of
brigadier general (list begins with Daniel B. Allyn) (Reference No.
835).
4. MG Michael D. Maples, USA, to be lieutenant general and
Director, Defense Intelligence Agency (Reference No. 929).
5. In the Air Force Reserve there are 19 appointments to the grade
of major general and below (list begins with Eugene R. Chojnacki)
(Reference No. 958).
6. In the Army Reserve there are 4 appointments to the grade of
major general and below (list begins with Thomas D. Robinson)
(Reference No. 959).
7. RADM Patrick M. Walsh, USN, to be vice admiral and Commander,
U.S. Naval Forces, Central Command and Commander, FIFTH Fleet
(Reference No. 960).
8. In the Air Force Reserve there is one appointment to the grade
of colonel (John S. Baxter) (Reference No. 961).
9. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of
colonel (Jose R. Rael) (Reference No. 962).
10. In the Army Reserve there are two appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Suzanne R. Avery) (Reference No. 963).
11. In the Army Reserve there are four appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Donna J. Dolan) (Reference No. 964).
12. In the Army Reserve there are 21 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Paul F. Abbey) (Reference No. 965).
13. In the Army Reserve there are 35 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Paul S. Astphan) (Reference No. 966).
14. In the Army Reserve there are 39 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Lynn S. Alsup) (Reference No. 967).
15. In the Army Reserve there are 66 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with James W. Agnew) (Reference No. 968).
16. In the Marine Corps there is 1 appointment to the grade of
major (Darren W. Milton) (Reference No. 969).
17. In the Marine Corps there are 77 appointments to the grade of
major (list begins with Christopher J. Aaby) (Reference No. 970).
18. In the Navy there is one appointment to the grade of captain
(William D. Fuson) (Reference No. 971).
19. In the Navy there are 429 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Daniel Albrecht) (Reference No. 972).
20. In the Navy there is one appointment to the grade of commander
(James S. Thompson) (Reference No. 973).
21. In the Navy there are six appointments to the grade of
lieutenant commander (list begins with James F. Brinkman) (Reference
No. 974).
22. BGEN Michael J. Diamond, USAR, to be major general (Reference
No. 989).
23. In the Air Force Reserve there is one appointment to the grade
of colonel (Christopher Sartori) (Reference No. 991).
24. In the Air Force there are seven appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel and below (list begins with Suzanne M. Cecconi)
(Reference No. 992).
25. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of major
(Melissa A. Saragosa) (Reference No. 993).
26. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of lieutenant
colonel (Deborah Whitmer) (Reference No. 997).
27. In the Army there are four appointments to the grade of major
(list begins with Steven C. Henricks) (Reference No. 998).
28. In the Army there are 29 appointments to the grade of colonel
and below (list begins with Gary L. Gross) (Reference No. 1002).
Total: 786.
______
[The nomination reference of Michael W. Wynne follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 6, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Michael W. Wynne, of Florida, to be Secretary of the Air Force,
vice James G. Roche.
______
[The nomination reference of Donald C. Winter follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 6, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Donald C. Winter, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Navy, vice
Gordon England.
______
[The nomination reference of John G. Grimes follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 16, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
John G. Grimes, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice John P. Stenbit.
______
[The nomination reference of William Anderson follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 26, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
William Anderson, of Connecticut, to be an Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force, vice Nelson F. Gibbs.
______
[The nomination reference of John J. Young, Jr., follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 28, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
John J. Young, Jr., of Virginia, to be Director of Defense Research
and Engineering, vice Ronald M. Sega.
______
[The nomination reference of Delores M. Etter follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 6, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Delores M. Etter, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, vice John J. Young.
______
[The nomination reference of A.J. Eggenberger follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 29, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
A.J. Eggenberger, of Montana, to be a member of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board for a term expiring October 18, 2009.
(Reappointment)
______
[The nomination reference of GEN Burwell B. Bell III, USA,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
Senate of the United States,
September 6, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment in the United States
Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance
and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:
To be General
GEN Burwell B. Bell III, USA, 0000.
______
[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith, USAF,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
Senate of the United States,
October 19, 2005.
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, U.S.C., section 601:
To be General
Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith, 0000.
[Whereupon, at 10 a.m., the committe adjourned and
proceeded to other business.]
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----.