[Senate Hearing 108-856]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-856
NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
SECOND SESSION, 108TH CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
NOMINATIONS OF
FRANCIS J. HARVEY; LAWRENCE T. DI RITA; WILLIAM A. CHATFIELD; TINA
WESTBY JONAS; DIONEL M. AVILES; JERALD S. PAUL; MARK FALCOFF; GEN
GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., USA; ADM VERNON E. CLARK, USN; LT. GEN. JAMES E.
CARTWRIGHT, USMC; VADM TIMOTHY J. KEATING, USN; LTG BANTZ J. CRADDOCK,
USA; PETER CYRIL WYCHE FLORY; VALERIE LYNN BALDWIN; DR. FRANCIS J.
HARVY; RICHARD GRECO, JR.; GEN. GREGORY S. MARTIN, USAF; JOSEPH F.
BADER; R. BRUCE MATTHEWS; OTIS W. BRAWLEY; AND VINICIO E. MADRIGAL
__________
JANUARY 28; FEBRUARY 4; APRIL 27; MAY 11; JUNE 24; JULY 8, 21; OCTOBER
6; NOVEMBER 17, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-082 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JACK REED, Rhode Island
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BILL NELSON, Florida
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina EVAN BAYH, Indiana
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JOHN CORNYN, Texas MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Judith A. Ansley, Staff Director
Richard D. DeBobes, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Page
January 28, 2004
Nominations of Francis J. Harvey to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Networks and Information Integration; Lawrence T.
Di Rita to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public
Affairs; and William A. Chatfield to be Director of Selective
Service........................................................ 1
Statements of:
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas. 2
Di Rita, Lawrence T., to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Public Affairs................................................. 5
Harvey, Francis J., Ph.D., to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Networks and Information Integration....................... 6
Chatfield, William A., to be Director of Selective Service....... 7
February 4, 2004
To Consider the Nominations of Francis J. Harvey to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration;
Lawrence T. Di Rita to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Public Affairs; and Certain Other Pending Military Nominations. 55
April 27, 2004
Nominations of Tina Westby Jonas to be Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller); Dionel M. Aviles to be Under Secretary of the
Navy; and Jerald S. Paul to be Principal Deputy Administrator,
National Nuclear Security Administration....................... 59
Statements of:
Jonas, Tina Westby, to be Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller).................................................. 67
Aviles, Dionel M., to be Under Secretary of the Navy............. 67
Paul, Jerald S., to be Principal Deputy Administrator, National
Nuclear Security Administration................................ 68
May 11, 2004
Nominations of Tina Westby Jonas to be Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller); Dionel M. Aviles, to be Under Secretary of the
Navy; Jerald S. Paul to be Principal Deputy Administrator of
the National Nuclear Security Administration; William A.
Chatfield to be Director of the Selective Service; and Mark
Falcoff, to be a Member of the National Security Education
Board.......................................................... 123
June 24, 2004
Nomination of GEN George W. Casey, Jr., USA, for Reappointment to
the Grade of General and to be Commander, Multi-National Force-
Iraq........................................................... 127
(iii)
Statements of:
Casey, GEN George W., Jr., USA, for Reappointment to the Grade of
General and to be Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq......... 132
July 8, 2004
Nominations of ADM Vernon E. Clark, USN, for Reappointment to the
Grade of Admiral and to be Chief of Naval Operations; and Lt.
Gen. James E. Cartwright, USMC, for Appointment to the Grade of
General and to be Commander, United States Strategic Command... 177
Statements of:
Clark, ADM Vernon E., USN, for Reappointment to the Grade of
Admiral and to be Chief of Naval Operations.................... 183
Cartwright, Lt. Gen. James E., USMC, for Appointment to the Grade
of General and to be Commander, United States Strategic Command 184
July 21, 2004
Nominations of VADM Timothy J. Keating, USN, for the Appointment
to the Grade of Admiral and to be Commander, United States
Northern Command/Commander, North American Aerospace Defense
Command; LTG Bantz J. Craddock, USA, for the Appointment to the
Grade of General and to be Commander, United States Southern
Command; Peter Cyril Wyche Flory to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Policy; and Valerie Lynn
Baldwin to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial
Management and Comptroller..................................... 245
Statements of:
Keating, VADM Timothy J., USN, for the Appointment to the Grade
of Admiral and to be Commander, United States Northern Command/
Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command............ 251
Craddock, LTG Bantz J., USA, for the Appointment to the Grade of
General and to be Commander, United States Southern Command.... 251
Lewis, Hon. Jerry, U.S. Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 263
Hobson, Hon. David, U.S. Representative from the State of Ohio... 264
Flory, Peter Cyril Wyche, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Policy.............................. 267
Baldwin, Valerie Lynn, to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Financial Management and Comptroller........................... 268
October 6, 2004
Nominations of Dr. Francis J. Harvey to be Secretary of the Army;
Richard Greco, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Financial Management; and Gen. Gregory S. Martin, USAF, for
Reappointment to the Grade of General and to be Commander,
United States Pacific Command.................................. 333
Statements of:
Brownback, Hon. Sam, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas....... 335
Harvey, Dr. Francis J., to be Secretary of the Army.............. 344
Martin, Gen. Gregory S., USAF, for Reappointment to the Grade of
General and to be Commander, United States Pacific Command..... 344
Greco, Richard, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Financial Management........................................... 345
November 17, 2004
To Consider the Nominations of Joseph F. Bader and R. Bruce
Matthews to be Members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board; Otis W. Brawley and Vinicio E. Madrigal to be Members of
the Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences; and to Vote on Certain Military
Nominations.................................................... 407
APPENDIX......................................................... 411
NOMINATIONS OF FRANCIS J. HARVEY TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION; LAWRENCE T. DI RITA TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS; AND WILLIAM A.
CHATFIELD TO BE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:08 p.m. in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, E. Benjamin
Nelson, and Pryor.
Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff
director; and Gabriella Eisen, nominations clerk.
Majority staff members present: William C. Greenwalt,
professional staff member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff
member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel; and Richard F. Walsh,
counsel.
Minority staff members present: Creighton Greene,
professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel;
and Peter K. Levine, minority counsel.
Staff assistant present: Leah C. Brewer.
Committee members' assistants present: Derek J. Maurer,
assistant to Senator Collins; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to
Senator Chambliss; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben
Nelson; and Terri Glaze, assistant to Senator Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. The hearing will come to order. First I
extend apologies to all with regard to the start again, stop
again nature of this hearing. Due to the forecasted bad
weather, we had no solid information that the hearing could go
ahead this morning, because we were not sure that the
Government was coming in or the Sergeant at Arms was going to
convene the staff to support the Senate. So here we are and on
short notice, but we have pulled it all together, and we are
all here.
With that, Senator, I would like to invite you to make your
statement and then following that I will give my statement.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
join you, I know, today in welcoming Mr. Di Rita, Dr. Harvey,
Mr. Chatfield, and their families to the committee. I want to
thank all of you, particularly the family members, for the
sacrifices we all know that you will be asked to make. None of
the nominees would be able to serve in these positions without
the support of their families, and we thank you in advance for
those hardships.
Mr. Di Rita is well known to the committee from his
previous service as Special Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense, a job in which he has become intimately involved in
the decisionmaking process for the entire Department. This
experience should serve him well should he be confirmed as
assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. I thank you,
Mr. Di Rita, for the opportunity to have gone over a number of
issues the other day.
Dr. Harvey brings the accumulated knowledge of a 28-year
career in the defense industry with the Westinghouse
Corporation. Over the course of this lengthy and very
illustrious career, Dr. Harvey has been involved in more than
20 major systems development and production programs across a
spectrum of platforms, including surface ships, submarines,
aircraft, tanks, and missiles. This background will serve Dr.
Harvey well should he be confirmed as Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Networks and Information Integration.
Mr. Chatfield, whom I have known for a number of years, the
nominee to serve as Director of the Selective Service, has
served in a variety of government positions over the last 25
years. The Director of Selective Service oversees the
registration of young men and women of draft age in the United
States.
I look forward to hearing from all of the nominees today.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to make these
introductions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
I would like to invite our colleague Senator Hutchison to
make her statement now and then I will have a few comments and
perhaps Senator Pryor will as well. But I am sure you have a
full schedule and you are anxious to keep moving.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you so much, Senator Warner. Mr.
Chairman, Senator Nelson, Senator Pryor: I am very pleased to
be here.
There are two very important people that I have known for a
long time who are before you today and I appreciate your
rescheduling quickly, because they both need to hit the ground
running and get on to their new important jobs.
I want to start with Larry Di Rita because Larry was my
chief of staff, so I know him so well. I cannot think of a
better person to be Assistant Secretary of Defense. Certainly
in his job for public affairs he will be excellent. He has even
a much bigger role, I think, because he has been the Special
Assistant to the Secretary. The Secretary has confidence in
him, and I think that is important.
But he is also so well versed in not only military issues,
but military history. I found him as my chief of staff to be
the smartest, funniest, nicest person that we have ever had in
the Senate. He is really extraordinary. He is a Naval Academy
graduate and has a master's degree from Johns Hopkins. I found
that his judgment was always on target, and he had a
perspective that comes from being very well read as well as
knowing the issues of the moment.
So I think he is a perfect choice for this position, and I
hope he can be confirmed very quickly. I want to say that he is
going to introduce his wife in a moment. His wife, Therese, and
Larry and I have been really good friends from the very moment
that I met him, and his length of experience will make him a
superb candidate for this position.
Bill Chatfield is from Texas and I am happy to also
introduce him to be the Director of Selective Service. He has
had several positions in administrations of the past. He served
in Reagan's administration, where he was in the Office of
Presidential Personnel. He was there when it was President-
elect Reagan, and he was staff for the Deputy Under Secretary
for Policy at the Department of Defense. He has been on a
Congressman's staff, Congressman Tom Kindness from Ohio, and
has since then been in government relations and public affairs.
He has been on active duty service in the U.S. Marines and was
an intelligence analyst. He lives in Irving, Texas, and is
active in the Marine Corps Reserve. He graduated from American
University.
I forgot to mention about Larry Di Rita that he also served
in Operation Desert Storm, so he is a veteran of Operation
Desert Storm before he left the service in 1994 to join the
Heritage Foundation.
So both of these gentlemen have wonderful records, and I
recommend them to you for confirmation.
Chairman Warner. Senator, for several years you were a
member of this committee. You know it well. Your professional
judgment of these two nominees carries great weight.
Senator Hutchison. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say
I wish I were still on the committee. It was the best committee
I ever had. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. You made a great personal contribution
with us, I know.
We thank you very much. I am sure you are about ready to
move on to another challenge before this day is ended.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. First I would like to ask my colleague Mr.
Pryor, do you have some comments?
Senator Pryor. I do not, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. I am going to put into the record the
statement usually made by the chairman in this connection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
I am pleased that we have before the committee this morning three
distinguished individuals who have been nominated for positions of
significant responsibility and importance within the administration.
Dr. Francis J. Harvey has been nominated to be the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration, a new
position. Lawrence T. Di Rita has been nominated to be the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and William A. Chatfield has
been nominated to be the Director of the Selective Service System.
We welcome the nominees and their families.
Family support is critical to the success of individuals in senior
positions in our Government. We thank you all for your role in
contributing to the impressive careers of public service of our
nominees.
Dr. Francis J. Harvey comes well qualified for the position of
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information
Integration. He brings over three decades of senior corporate
management experience to this position, and has private sector
experience in areas such as technology development, domestic and
international banking, and academic governance, having served on the
Board of Regents at Santa Clara University since 1999. Dr. Harvey was a
White House Fellow in the Department of Defense in the late 1970s and
served on the Army Science Board. Thank you for your willingness to
serve in this new capacity.
As noted in Senator Hutchison's introduction, Lawrence Di Rita is
likewise well qualified for the position of Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs. A 1980 graduate of the Naval Academy with
active-duty service as a surface warfare officer, Mr. Di Rita was Chief
of Staff for our colleague and former member of this committee in the
late 1990s. Mr. Di Rita went to work as a Special Assistant to
Secretary Rumsfeld in early 2001, and has been a key advisor and
spokesman for the Secretary since that time.
William Chatfield has been nominated to head the Selective Service
System. He is a Marine Corps Reserve Chief Warrant Officer with over 33
years of officer and enlisted service. He had extensive and varied
government service during President Reagan's administration, serving on
the staff of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and in
key staff advisory roles with the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Office
of Personnel Management, the Department of the Interior, and the
Interstate Commerce Commission.
Our nominees have a wealth of experience, and I believe each of
them will excel in the positions to which they have been nominated. We
look forward to their comments and responses today.
Chairman Warner. Senator Hutchison has covered two of the
nominees. I would like to say a word about Dr. Harvey. You are
here all by yourself, are you not?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Well then, allow me to introduce you,
because I had a very pleasant visit with you. You are a most
impressive individual.
Dr. Harvey. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. The citizens of this country are fortunate
that you are taking this very significant challenge and, at
long last, coming into public service in this important
position. You are well qualified for the position of Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration.
You bring over 3 decades of senior corporate management
experience to this position and have private sector experience
in areas such as technology development, domestic and
international banking, and academic governance, having served
on the Board of Regents at Santa Clara University since 1999.
Dr. Harvey was a White House fellow in the Department of
Defense in the late 1970s. What years were they?
Dr. Harvey. 1978 and 1979, sir.
Chairman Warner. 1978 and 1979, and served on the Army
Science Board.
Again, thank you for your willingness and that of your
family to join us.
Dr. Harvey. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Di Rita, you and I know each other
very well, and I likewise think you are eminently qualified. I
will prejudge that.
Mr. Chatfield, we are getting to know you pretty fast, but
I must say thank you very much for stepping up to what some
might think is a challenge unlikely to occur. I was in the
Department of Defense at the time the Secretary and others
decided to end the draft, but I have strongly supported the
legislation through my several years here in the Senate to have
standby authority and other things in place should the occasion
ever arise for that. I think it is important for the young men
of this country to be conscious of an obligation that goes
along with service.
Would you kindly introduce your family, Mr. Di Rita?
Mr. Di Rita. Mr. Chairman, I will Senator Nelson, Senator
Pryor. I would like to introduce my wife Therese Shaheen.
Ms. Shaheen. How do you do.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Mr. Di Rita. Thank you very much for having her join us
today, sir. It was very nice of you to include her. She has
been a great source of support for me, and she is currently
serving as the Chairman of the American Institute of Taiwan
over at the State Department.
Chairman Warner. Very interesting.
I have been known in this position over many years to say
to the families it requires an enormous contribution to enable
you to serve in the Department of Defense because of the hours
involved in that Department. But you need not have that little
observation from me, because you are well experienced in the
time that Mr. Di Rita has been in office so far. So enough
said.
Dr. Harvey, you do not have anyone with you today. Mr.
Chatfield, do you have family here?
Mr. Chatfield. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. No family members?
Are any others deserving, Powell Moore, Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Legislative Affairs, of introduction, other than
yourself? [Laughter.]
Mr. Moore. I think you covered it, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Well, thank you very much.
Do any of my colleagues have anything further before we
just hear briefly from the nominees? [No response.]
We will start with you, Mr. Di Rita.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE T. DI RITA, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Mr. Di Rita. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. It is an
honor to be here today and to be considered for this position
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. I
first want to thank Senator Hutchison for her kind words. She
was a terrific boss. I worked for her for 5 years. She is a
tremendous leader, as you certainly know, Mr. Chairman and
Senators, a great Senator and first and foremost--and I think
she would appreciate this--a great Texan. So I am very grateful
that she was willing to do this today for me.
Chairman Warner. Well spoken. She is a Senator with
unlimited energy and vision.
Mr. Di Rita. She is indeed.
I also wish to thank President Bush for the confidence he
has shown in me in nominating me to this position. I certainly
thank Secretary Rumsfeld for his leadership and stewardship of
the Department of Defense. It has been my great pleasure to
work closely with him for 3 very interesting years.
Chairman Warner. Well, you are very fortunate, as I can say
with personal experience. I served in that building for a
number of years, and served under three secretaries, and each
of them left a very profound mark on my life. I have had the
privilege, as you have had, to work with Secretary Rumsfeld. I
think he is an absolutely outstanding Secretary of Defense and
has put together a great team.
So, consider yourself a lucky person.
Mr. Di Rita. I do indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may say briefly, sir, of the many communications
responsibilities that we do have in the Department of Defense,
I believe it is vital that we never lose sight of our most
important audience, and that is the military forces themselves
and their families. We ask much of them, and we owe it to them
to provide timely, accurate information in a time when that is
challenging because of nearly instant and continuous
communications media.
Our public affairs office at the Department also has a
wonderful opportunity to tell the story about our Armed Forces
to the public, here at home and abroad. There are many media
and methods of doing so, and the Department must use them all
to get their magnificent story out.
If confirmed, I would accept with pleasure the
responsibility to work with this committee and with others in
Congress to do what is right by and for the men and women who
wear our Nation's uniform.
I do thank you for your time today, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Nelson, Senator Pryor.
Chairman Warner. Tell us a bit about your own distinguished
service in the United States Navy.
Mr. Di Rita. I served for 13 years on active duty, sir. I
was a surface warfare officer. I served on a variety of ships
and one or two shore assignments, including on the Joint Staff
for a couple of years. I served on both coasts and also abroad.
I was stationed in Yokosuka, Japan, for 4 years.
Chairman Warner. Well, given that the persons in uniform
are your principal audience, you know them, and you understand
them, and the importance of the families to be kept informed. I
think it is very fortunate that we have a person that has had
that active duty to take on this responsibility.
Now, Dr. Harvey.
STATEMENT OF FRANCIS J. HARVEY, Ph.D., TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION
Dr. Harvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Nelson,
Senator Pryor. I am honored to appear before you this afternoon
as the President's nominee to serve as the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Networks and Information Integration and the
Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense.
I would first like to thank the President and Secretary
Rumsfeld for their support and confidence by selecting me for
this position. If I am confirmed, I look forward to the
opportunity to serve my country at a time when our national
security environment is markedly different and perhaps more
complex than at any other time in our Nation's history.
Under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership, the Department has
developed and is implementing a defense strategy to address the
challenges of this 21st century security environment. One of
the key elements of this strategy is defense transformation,
which is focused on effecting significant changes in the way
our military fights and the way the Department does business.
From my perspective, the success of this transformation is
critically dependent on the development, deployment, and
integration of a Department-wide information infrastructure and
supporting network that is global, interoperable, secure, real-
time, and user-driven, thereby establishing the foundation for
network-centric operations.
The position for which I have been nominated has primary
responsibility for leadership, management oversight, and
governance of all information activities across the Department
and consequently has a major impact on the success of this
transformation effort. If confirmed, I plan to intensely and
energetically focus myself and the team that I lead on
achieving this success.
Let me close by stating that, if I am confirmed, I look
forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of the
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.
Chairman Warner. An excellent statement. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Chatfield.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. CHATFIELD, TO BE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE
SERVICE
Mr. Chatfield. Mr. Chairman, Senator Nelson, Senator Pryor:
I also want to start by expressing my gratitude to the senior
Senator from Texas. I have had the pleasure of knowing her for
the last 20 years, and I agree with Mr. Di Rita, it is quite an
honor that she would be here and give of her time.
I am indeed further honored and humbled by the fact that
President Bush has expressed his confidence in me to become the
11th Director of Selective Service. Pending Senate
confirmation, I do look forward to serving my country in this
new position.
At one time or another, I think most of us have dreamt of
being placed in charge of an organization where we can make a
difference. If I am confirmed as Director, you will be placing
me in a fortunate situation. As someone who is very interested
in national security and our Armed Forces, I believe I am
highly qualified to preserve the best aspects of a proud agency
that has a distinguished 63-year history, while making
improvements to operational efficiency, motivating employees
and volunteers, and boosting morale.
The Selective Service System is an important Federal
agency, with dedicated people doing terrific work. But there is
always room for improvement. I know about people. I have
studied how the Selective Service System operates. I understand
its importance to national defense readiness as America's only
proven defense manpower insurance for our Nation's all-
volunteer military.
I stand ready to make the needed improvements to the
agency's structure and defend its budget and necessary
existence as a key component of national defense readiness.
Because of personal experience with the military and our
wonderful veterans, I also understand and believe in the role
that every young man must play with regard to Selective
Service. I will encourage the 2 million men reaching age 18
every year in the United States that they must live up to their
patriotic, legal, and civic obligations to help provide for the
common defense by registering with Selective Service.
With your support, I stand ready to take up the challenges
of this important assignment, and I thank you for considering
me.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
The committee asked our witnesses, colleagues, to answer a
series of advance policy questions. Each of the nominees has so
responded and, without objection, I will make the questions and
responses part of the record.
As chairman, it has been the tradition of this committee to
ask of all presidential nominees the following standard
questions, which I will propound and receive an individual
response from each of you. First, have you adhered to
applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of
interest? Dr. Harvey?
Dr. Harvey. Yes.
Mr. Di Rita. Yes, I have.
Mr. Chatfield. Yes.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which
would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation
process?
Dr. Harvey. No.
Mr. Di Rita. No, sir.
Mr. Chatfield. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with the deadlines established for requested communications by
the committees of Congress, including questions for the record
in hearings?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Di Rita. Yes.
Mr. Chatfield. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing briefers
and witnesses in response to the committees of Congress?
Dr. Harvey. Yes.
Mr. Di Rita. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chatfield. Yes.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
possible reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Di Rita. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chatfield. Yes.
Chairman Warner. 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 that
appointed you?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Di Rita. Yes.
Mr. Chatfield. Yes.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
We will now call on our witnesses. You have already stated
your opening statements, but we will open the floor for
questions. Senator Nelson, why don't you lead off, and I will
follow with wrap-up questions.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Harvey, in your answers to the pre-hearing policy
questions you mentioned that the Deputy Secretary of Defense
had transferred the space policy oversight from the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information
Integration to the Under Secretary for Policy. If you are
confirmed, how do you see your role developing in the policy
oversight of those space programs that will be critical to
achieving the Department's goals for improving communications
capability?
Dr. Harvey. Thank you, Senator. I see my role as a
supporting role in regards to policy, but my understanding, my
initial understanding, is that in regards to space
communication programs, that we still have program oversight
responsibility in my role as the Assistant Secretary.
So the policy component is transferred over to the Under
Secretary of Policy, but the program oversight responsibility
stays with this office. So we have the duty to ensure that the
cost, schedule, and technical objectives of these programs are
met. It is a complementary and supporting role, but an
important role, I think.
Senator Ben Nelson. Do you see a conflict developing
between policy and the integration of processes?
Dr. Harvey. No, I see it as an iterative process. It is
like a lot of other things that go on in the Department, where
you start with a position, or a point, and then there are
inputs to the policy and there are changes, modifications to
the policy. Once that process goes on, and the decisions are
made by the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary, then we execute
on that policy.
But I see a collaborative, iterative process leading up to
that.
Senator Ben Nelson. One of your primary tasks will involve
the policy oversight of the programs supporting the
communications upgrades inherent in defense transformation. In
essence, these programs are intended to provide much better
situational awareness throughout the defense establishment.
Some have raised concerns about whether this DOD effort will
adequately consider requirements for supporting existing and
future intelligence systems operated by the combat support
agencies.
If you are confirmed, what would be your intent in ensuring
that DOD communications improvement plans are harmonized
throughout DOD in the Intelligence Community? What are the
biggest concerns that have been raised with respect to
intelligence and other operations?
Dr. Harvey. My initial understanding and, believe me, I do
not quite know the details yet, but my initial understanding is
that the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the Assistant
Secretary has responsibility for reviewing programs, including
all information technology (IT) programs across the Department,
all the components, the service agencies, the combat support
agencies, assessing the performance of those programs, and, as
the principal staff adviser to the Secretary, to make
recommendations on those programs in regards to their
performance, resources, improvements, whether they should be
continued or terminated, and so forth.
My current understanding is I have programmatic oversight
responsibilities across the Department and my plan, and
certainly my management style, would be to ensure that those
programs meet their stated cost, schedule, and technical
objectives and are integrated with other associated programs.
Senator Ben Nelson. At the end of some day, the question
would be will the different groups within the military be able
to talk with one another through the technological wonders that
we all share today? We understand at the present time that is
not the case.
Dr. Harvey. Excellent point, Senator. Interoperability is
one of the objectives. My current understanding of the future
state of this communications network, the so-called Global
Information Grid, that in the development of that, in the
architecture of that, that interoperability is--without that,
nothing, a sine qua non capability. Believe me, I will be
dedicated to ensure that happens.
I think the plans are in place to do that. The architecture
downstream is to do that. We clearly do not have that today,
but I can tell you, as I said in my opening statement, I will
energetically and enthusiastically pursue that, because it does
not do us any good not to have that capability at the end of
the day. It would be a waste of money and at the end of the day
we certainly want our warfighting forces to be more militarily
effective and be in a position to be interoperable, and from my
point of view, I think that will save lives.
So it is all a plus-plus, and I will be dedicated to ensure
that happens.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, it seems to me that you share the
view that IT is about tools, not toys.
Dr. Harvey. That is exactly right.
Chairman Warner. Let us let our colleague Mr. Pryor ask
some questions, and we will come back to another round.
Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Di Rita, I have a question based on your answer to the
written questions submitted beforehand. It talks about
responsibilities, and it asks about your principal
responsibilities. You said: ``My principal responsibilities, if
confirmed, would be to assure the Secretary that the Department
is doing all it can to tell the story of the men and women
serving all of us by defending our country.''
Could you elaborate on that answer a little bit?
Mr. Di Rita. Yes, Senator. What I mean when I say that is I
do view the responsibilities of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Public Affairs in sort of a two-track way, that
we have a very important responsibility to communicate inside
the Department. This is a Department of over 2 million people
when you include the reservists and civilians. It is an
enormously large and complex organization.
Particularly at a time when there is an awful lot of change
and we are engaged in a global war, the importance of
communicating inside the Department cannot be overstated. When
you look at all of the instantaneous global communications and
the opportunities that people inside the Department have to get
news and information from a variety of sources, being able to
convey important messages to the troops in particular, and,
particularly, deployed forces, it is very important, and we
have learned that in the course of the mobilization and the
deployments with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. So that is
one element.
The other element that I think we have a very important
responsibility to do is to quickly, in a timely way, and
accurately, get news and information out to the public. That is
something that we work hard at. We are structured and organized
to do that and we have a variety of ways that we do do it.
Senator Pryor. I guess your answer, your written answer,
sort of implies those things, but it just did not spell it out.
I notice in my notes a Defense Directive that talks about
ensuring the free flow of information and news to the news
media, etcetera.
Mr. Di Rita. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor. So I understand this directive is both
internal and external, and I just wanted to hear a little
elaboration on that.
Second, in a related vein, we all know, there has been a
lot of news coming out of the Department of Defense in the last
couple years, and more so with our activities in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other places around the globe. How would you
rate the job that the Department of Defense has done in the
last couple years in providing information, both internally and
externally?
Mr. Di Rita. I think it has been uneven. We learn as we go
along. One of the experiences that we have had--and I mentioned
it in the previous question--is that we are dealing at the
current time with--take the internal communications challenge.
We are dealing at the current time with some significant number
of National Guard and Reserve components mobilized. They are
scattered. They do not live in the same geographical area. It
is important to get information to them that is timely, that
affects their lives and their families' lives. We have
developed better tools as we have gone along in the process to
do that in a more sophisticated way. But it is something that
we work very hard to try and do well all the time.
In terms of news to the general public, I think what I
would point to first and foremost is the frequency with which
senior officials at the Department communicate. The Secretary
sets the example, but we have a lot of senior officials who
have spent an awful lot of time doing this. This year alone we
have probably conducted--we have something that we call
Operation Tribute to Freedom where we essentially hold town
hall meetings around the country. We have made officials of the
Department, and returning deploying forces and others available
to members of Congress who would like to include them in town
hall meetings. We probably have 500 events scheduled this year,
community outreach type activities.
We did the embedding process during Operation Iraqi
Freedom, which gave, I think, the general public a very
important insight into the mission and the capabilities of our
Armed Forces in a way that, I believe, is probably
unprecedented.
So there are a lot of tools, and we do always look for ways
to get better.
Senator Pryor. You mentioned at the beginning of that
answer that it has been uneven. Do you have specific plans to
even that out and avoid those valleys?
Mr. Di Rita. If I am confirmed, one of my principal
objectives would be to even it out. I do not have any unique
proposals to offer other than, as I said, we learn as we go
forward, and we have seen things work. For example, the
embedding program. We think that it's a program that still has
a lot of merit in Iraq. It is a difficult place in Iraq; it is
a difficult environment for reporters to report, and we have
offered reporters the opportunity to be embedded with units in
Iraq. It is more difficult to persuade reporters in an
environment where they are not tied to a specific unit, but
there are advantages to doing that.
So it is something that we will keep trying to encourage.
But that is just one example.
Senator Pryor. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. You go ahead, Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Mr. Di Rita, in early 2002, the
Pentagon's new Office of Strategic Influence was abandoned
after public concerns were raised that the office might provide
false news stories to journalists in an effort to influence
policymakers and the public in friendly countries overseas. A
year later, similar concerns were expressed when the New York
Times reported that the Department was planning to revise a key
directive on information operations to authorize operations
directed at influencing public opinion and policymakers in
friendly and neutral countries. Last month, the New York Times
reported that the Pentagon had awarded a $300,000 contract to
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to study
how the Department could design an effective strategic
influence campaign around the world.
In your view, what is the appropriate role of the
Department of Defense, as opposed to the Department of State,
in trying to influence policymakers in friendly and neutral
countries around the world? As a secondary question, under what
circumstances, if any, do you believe that it would be
appropriate for the Department of Defense officials, any
Department of Defense officials, to intentionally provide false
or misleading news stories to journalists in the United States
or friendly countries?
Mr. Di Rita. If I could expand a little bit on the premise.
Senator Ben Nelson. By all means.
Mr. Di Rita. The question of how the United States
communicates in the world is a most important one. I would say
that in the world we live in now, the Government of the United
States is not particularly well organized to do that. It is
something that during the Cold War we had established a variety
of mechanisms that seemed to fit the times. We had various
government agencies that were committed to public diplomacy and
to communicating the principles of America and the objectives
of our foreign policy. A lot of those organizations were
disbanded or somehow consolidated after the Cold War for a
variety of reasons that were probably appropriate at the time.
But it is a difficult challenge that we face, in a world
where--and this is not my term, but others have said--in some
sense our very ideas, ideals and principles are at stake, are
being challenged by others who do not feel as constrained as we
do to tell the truth. So it is a very important thing that we
have to set ourselves about doing, and that is developing
mechanisms that we can influence. ``Influence'' can take on
overtones that it need not. We certainly want to try and
influence others to understand what American principles are and
what objectives we have in our foreign policy. At the moment,
our objectives in foreign policy have to do with, in large
part, discrediting the notion of terrorism as an instrument of
power.
So you asked, what is the role, the proper role of the
Department of Defense and the Department of State? To be very
specific, the Department of State has public diplomacy
functions. They perform those functions well, with people who
are well intended. The Department of Defense has information
operations that are more targeted at military operations,
influencing the battlefield. It was used to some significant,
and I would say effective, measure in Operation Iraqi Freedom
as well as Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The
combatant commanders use various tools at their disposal to try
and influence the battlefield through public information
campaigns, and I think those are entirely appropriate, and
those too are areas where we continue to try and learn and get
better.
Senator Ben Nelson. You would agree, though, that there is
a difference between a strategic effort to influence and
providing public information? Obviously, public information can
influence, depending on what the facts are. But there is a
difference between trying to lay out facts for people to draw
their own conclusions and another thing altogether to try to
influence their conclusions in a certain direction.
Mr. Di Rita. It is a fair point, Senator. I think, again,
the term ``influence'' can have connotations when you are
trying to educate elite opinion in foreign countries.
Senator Ben Nelson. Or inform.
Mr. Di Rita. Educate or inform opinion in other countries.
Some may see that as trying to shape influence in those
countries. I am not sure it has to be seen in any way other
than what it is intended, which is to try and convey to
particularly elite opinionmakers the principles of American
foreign policy and American security policy.
So it is something that, again, I would just zoom out a
little bit. It is an important priority for this government and
one that I think Congress has some opportunity to provide
oversight and leadership over, because it is one in which, I
would just say, my observation is, we are not particularly well
organized for the period ahead.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you.
Mr. Di Rita. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Senator Pryor, do you have any more
questions?
Senator Pryor. No, thank you.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Di Rita, I would have to tell you that
I have known, through many years of association with the
Department, a lot of your predecessors. I would rank your
immediate predecessor, Torie Clarke, as among the most able
persons that ever occupied that position. Did you have an
opportunity to work directly with her?
Mr. Di Rita. I did. I would, first of all, agree with you.
I did not probably know as many predecessors as you did, Mr.
Chairman, but I can say that Torie is a gifted communicator,
and she was a communicator first and foremost. I worked closely
with her. I learned an awful lot from her, probably not enough,
and it is a dual challenge to take this job and also to take
this job behind Torie Clarke. But, if confirmed, I will
certainly work hard to measure up to the many standards that
she set.
Chairman Warner. I also feel that the Secretary and the
Deputy handle their press appearances quite well. He sort of
arrives with a smile on his face, and he leaves with a smile on
his face.
Mr. Di Rita. They do indeed. I agree with you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I will never forget, on September 11, I
called the Secretary up and just chatted with him a little bit
because I had known him for a long time. He invited me over. I,
in turn, called Senator Levin, and Senator Levin and I both
went over.
We went into the press room, and it was magnificent, the
way he handled himself together with the chairman. That sort of
cemented in my mind that he can really handle that job. So I am
wondering why he really needs you? [Laughter.]
Mr. Di Rita. I have asked the same question myself.
Chairman Warner. Well, I was just kind of suggesting you
leave well enough alone, and do what you can to defend him
against the barbs.
Mr. Di Rita. The ``do no harm responsibility.''
Chairman Warner. Now, I wish I could say that about the
Legislative Affairs Department. Therein we have a fairly good
working relationship, but, fortunately, with the long
friendship that you and I have had, Secretary Moore, we manage.
One of the issues that was before Ms. Clarke, and now is
still before you, is that question about handling of the
distressing reports connected with casualties, be it loss of
life or loss of limb. My colleagues around the table here from
time to time have expressed some concern about it, and as a
consequence we put in the fiscal year 2004 legislation a
provision that requires the Department, not later than May, to
prescribe a policy regarding public release of the names and
other identifying information about military members who,
regrettably, become casualties.
I would hope that you could stay on track with regard to
the date and come up with something that would be workable.
Mr. Di Rita. I will, Mr. Chairman, and I will look at that
in particular. I am aware of the legislation. I have not made a
study of it or of the policy in general, although I do know
that, again in this time of instantaneous communications, it is
always a challenge to ensure the proper notification and the
proper sequencing. As I understand the current policy, we do
try and give the families as much advance notice as possible.
Chairman Warner. The emphasis you place, or how you
prioritize, for lack of a better word, between those who have
lost their lives and those who have been injured, is important.
I mean, stop to think. All of us who have visited Walter Reed,
and I am sure you have, have seen firsthand the tragic wounding
of individuals and the burden it has put on their families for
an indefinite period of time in many instances. So I am glad
that you are going to do this.
Now, Mr. Chatfield, this committee, all through the many
years I have been here has been concerned about how the high
schools treat recruiters. That will not be in your direct area,
but a first cousin of that is the registrars that you have to
send out. Have you looked into that, what problems there may
be? It may be too early to ask you, but I will ask you, but you
do not have to answer today: would you give some thought to
legislation that would help you?
Mr. Chatfield. Well, Mr. Chairman, to this point I have
been briefed that the registrars--there are about 25,000 post-
secondary schools participating in that program. I think it is
about 82 percent. If I am confirmed, we are going to try to, of
course, enhance that figure.
At this point in time, initially the Selective Service
staff has shared with me, that it is going along quite well,
and further legislation might be possibly conceived or
misconceived as big brother trying to horn in. Mr. Chairman, if
I am confirmed in the position, I will certainly take a look at
that and inform this committee as to what I would feel if we
might need some legislative help.
Chairman Warner. My next question is to you, Dr. Harvey.
The background, and I want to make it very clear the question
is not asked in any way to express any criticism to what we
call affectionately ``the other body,'' the House of
Representatives. But in the last round of conference with the
House, we had quite a difference on the issue of Buy America.
Putting aside for the moment how that finally was resolved--and
I think it was resolved, from our perspective, and I hope my
good friend the chairman in the House feels the same, in a
proper way at this point in time.
But this issue of Buy America is going to be examined by
this Congress in a broader context than in the Department of
Defense. Every day we hear about a loss of jobs, the exporting
of those jobs overseas. So it is likely to be addressed again
in this bill.
But your area is one which you and I shared some thoughts,
and I have some familiarity with it in the modest training I
had many years ago. Information technology, comprising both
computer and telecommunications equipment, is critical to our
weapons systems. This technology in many cases is commercially
developed and dependent on global suppliers for component parts
and research and development (R&D). Indeed, many contractors
are now relying on overseas participation. Also, there should
be I think, the maximum amount of exchange achievable between
other nations and their counterparts to yourself.
Suddenly, if we see another Buy America coming along, I
would hope that you would guard at the gate on this. I am not
so sure that if we move out into a Buy America legislative
pattern that those areas in which you have responsibility are
well protected to give you the maximum freedom to deal with
sources abroad or wherever you think you can get the best
equipment to do the job you can.
Have I sufficiently framed the problem?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, your words are right on the mark. It is a
very difficult issue. I have had past experience with this in
the defense industry. We had certain Buy American provisions,
and certainly the positive--there are positives and negatives
involved here. I think, in theory, you are trying to accomplish
from an economic point of view, and from a U.S. point of view,
an ideal situation, where you are driving down the cost of a
product. You are improving its performance, and at the same
time that means that you are increasing your markets. You are
increasing your market share, and therefore you are hiring
people to do other functions if you are outsourcing certain
components to foreign markets.
Now, my experience is that it is very difficult to
administer Buy American provisions. I just had the opportunity
to buy a Dell computer last summer, state of the art, and I
noticed when it came to me the monitor was made in China. Some
of the software, the operating system part of it, was made in
India, and the disk drive was made in Thailand. I think it was
assembled in the United States, but they did not tell me.
So that begs the question of what does ``Buy America''
mean? Are we going to define 51 percent American labor,
American components, and so forth?
Chairman Warner. Let me give you a little bit of advice.
Why do you not just think about it? This is in the record right
now.
Dr. Harvey. Okay.
Chairman Warner. But I just want to bring this to your
attention, and you have to focus on it.
Dr. Harvey. Yes, and it is important.
Chairman Warner. I want you to learn more about this area,
because some colleagues might have a view different than yours,
and we might have to bring you back up here and really go after
you.
Dr. Harvey. Okay.
Chairman Warner. Do we understand each other?
Dr. Harvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will think about it,
and I have thought about it.
Chairman Warner. All right. Do other colleagues have any
questions? Ben, do you want to ask one?
Senator Ben Nelson. I do, for Mr. Chatfield.
I probably ought to give you the same advice and counsel
that the chairman just gave the good doctor there a minute ago
before I ask you the question. The new All-Volunteer Force
obviously has served the Nation well. It has provided us with
the best military in our history in the world. The quality of
our service personnel has never been better. Everyone seems to
agree with that, and the military leaders do not want to go
back to a conscripted military.
Based on that, is there any reason that you can give us to
continue the registration requirement for 18-year-old males
living in the United States? If we are not looking to return to
that system, and nobody is pursuing that system, the question I
ask is the obvious one: Why do we perpetuate the system?
Mr. Chatfield. Senator Nelson, this to my awareness has
become----
Senator Ben Nelson. I bet you thought I was going to ask
you if we go back to the draft, whether we should draft men and
women. But I am not going to ask you that.
Mr. Chatfield. Senator Nelson, I am so glad you did not ask
me that. [Laughter.]
But the question you did ask, sir, has been asked and
addressed by this body ever since 1980, many times, by
administrations as well. The bottom line at this moment, I have
been told, is that it is still certainly purposeful as an
insurance policy, if you will, an accurate insurance policy, a
database that, were I to be confirmed, I would ensure the
accuracy of that database. If called upon, and if our friends
at the Department of Defense do ever task through congressional
mandate, of course, that there be a call-up of some kind, the
Selective Service must be ready to act upon that with that
accurate database.
The feeling at the agency is that it provides that
capability and therefore in fact has a raison d'etre, because
it is there to provide for the common defense in a way that, if
needed, it would be ready to go.
Senator Ben Nelson. But you might agree with this, that the
very fact that we are considering your nomination today will
cause some people to say, given all the stories that are being
written about a potential erosion in the Reserve and Guard
units because of the overutilization of those units, and
because of the lengthy commitments and deployments that many of
the Active-Duty Forces will have, that this is more than a belt
and suspenders, it is just a prelude to going back, to a
request to consider going back to a conscripted force.
Mr. Chatfield. Well, sir, again I analogize the scenario
somewhat like preventive medicine: An ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure. I am fortunate, or if I am confirmed I
would be fortunate, with the agency to be a service
organization, not a policymaker. That of course once again lies
in the hands of this body, this particular committee, and the
President of the United States, and any decision to be made to
change the system as far as reinstating the draft or what have
you, were I to be in that job, I would be very proud of being
ready to administer that which is legislated and be ready to
go, to do it in a timely, fair, and equitable fashion.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chatfield. I have no further questions.
Chairman Warner. I would like to make an observation or
two, again drawing on my experience through many years, going
back to World War II. I was not drafted. I volunteered. But I
served with a lot of draftees during that period, and I suppose
that was my introduction to a very important distinction, and
that is I was there because I volunteered and wanted to be
there and a lot of other folks were there because they were
drafted and they did not want to be there.
I saw the friction in the gearbox between those two
approaches to service, and I witnessed it again during the
conflict in Korea, and certainly I witnessed it when I was in
the Department during Vietnam.
I certainly support what you are doing, and I think we
should continue it, but people should stop to think that this
All-Volunteer Force is extraordinary, and every single
individual is there because they want to be there. This Nation
has to think very carefully of the consequences if we were to
move towards a draft.
In the first place, any draft would have to be predicated
on fairness. The first issue we would have to face is whether
or not women would be subjected to the draft as well as the men
if we had to bring it about. That is step number one. Step
number two is that the total number of recruits--I just asked
my assistant--the total pool of eligible 18-year-olds far
exceeds what the projected needs are for the Armed Forces,
which means that if you started a draft you would have to go
down and pick out just a few compared to all those that would
be eligible by virtue of being 18 and, presumably, in sound
mind and sound health.
So that is the first cut where there is some measure of
discrimination or luck by what system you pick one and not pick
the other. Then you get into the question of deferments, and I
saw that very dramatically during the war in Korea, because I
remember I trooped off and came back to law school and a lot of
folks who had never seen World War II service were still there,
had gotten all the deferments, went on out and graduated and
still had never served. I always felt that was a somewhat
inequitable situation.
Lastly, since you cannot use the whole pool and those you
do use would have to put their life on the line, in fairness
you would have to utilize those that are not taken in the
military as a civilian corps of workers. You are talking about
significant costs and investments. You try and set up some type
of civilian corps of workers to do perhaps wonderful jobs to
help this country in many respects, but the cost is tremendous.
Then do those civilian workers get a GI Bill, just like the
folks who go into uniform? Therein is another big cost. Then
you start thinking the military person gets what we believe is
the best of health care. Are the folks in the civilian corps
entitled to the best of health care? Then suddenly you are
looking at major dollars.
Some day, sit down and think that through and look at the
record of my observations here and see whether you agree or
disagree. Perhaps you will think of other aspects of that,
because we actually have a bill that is in the House now to
reinstate the draft, put in by a man that I admire a great
deal. As a matter of fact, he is a gentleman that served in
Korea with distinction in the United States Army in a combat
position. He is a man that understands military life. So that
bill may come over here, and we may have to address that issue,
and you would be among the first people I would call up and get
a little advice from.
Mr. Chatfield. I would be honored, sir.
Chairman Warner. Good.
Now, Dr. Harvey, the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet, are you
familiar with that?
Dr. Harvey. Just in a very general sense.
Chairman Warner. This committee played a major role in
getting it established, and it is close to $7 billion. An awful
lot of wonderful things can come from this, but if there is a
weak link in it I am concerned that the whole thing might not
function. I am going to ask you to commit to this committee
that you are going to spend a good deal of time on that program
and that you will come to this committee if you are concerned
that there is a risk it is not going to work the way Congress
intended and the Department of Defense is trying to implement.
All right?
Dr. Harvey. I am committed, and I will apply my normal
programmatic background to ensure that it is either on
schedule, on cost, or it is not and what we are going to do to
fix it.
Chairman Warner. Lastly, Mr. Di Rita, again ``Stars and
Stripes.'' I have a great affection for that periodical, and I
am a strong supporter of it. I would hope that you would find
the time to really see what you can do to help it become even a
better means of communication to the men and women of the
military, because it is read all over the world.
Mr. Di Rita. I will spend time on it. It is in Iraq. It is
being published in Baghdad.
Chairman Warner. Absolutely.
Mr. Di Rita. It is a very important tool for
communications.
Chairman Warner. The troops like to stick it under their
arm and read it whenever they get a few spare moments.
Mr. Di Rita. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Good.
Well, colleague, I think we have seen some excellent
individuals nominated by our President and with the Secretary
of Defense's endorsement. Now it is left up to us to evaluate
them. This committee will take into consideration the record
that my colleague and I have established today. I thank you for
joining me today, Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I concur that
we have an excellent slate of nominees and I look forward to
sharing that information with the rest of our colleagues.
Chairman Warner. Good.
I wish you and your families well, with the expectation
that each of you will be confirmed in due course. Thank you for
your offer of public service.
The hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 5:07 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Francis J. Harvey 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 wholeheartedly 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 to national security.
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 these proposals?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department is continuing to
examine ways to better support the goals of the reform in light of our
ever changing environment. If confirmed, I will fully support the
intent of the reforms and advocate legislative proposals and policies
that will enhance the Department's ability to respond to the 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.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe that I have three basic qualifications for the
position of ASD(NII). First, I know how to lead and manage large
organizations, particularly program based organizations involved in the
development and deployment of technology and systems. In the management
area, 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.
Second, 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 the defense industry and also includes
energy, environmental and infrastructure, electronics, communications
and information systems. In the defense area, I have been involved in
various phases of over 20 programs that span the entire spectrum from
under seas to outer space including submarines, surface ships,
aircraft, missiles, and satellites.
Finally, I have a hands-on management approach that I believe 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 have a BS from the University of Notre
Dame and a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania in metallurgical and
materials science.
I believe that the combination of successfully leading and managing
large, technology-based organizations, the broad base of industrial
experience centered on the defense industry, and education have
prepared me for the ASD(NII) position.
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. Assuming I am confirmed, I expect that the duties and
functions that the Secretary would prescribe for me would be similar to
those discussed above plus additional ones that he deemed necessary in
my area of responsibility.
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
Secretaries of Defense for Intelligence to ensure that intelligence
systems are fully integrated with the Department's current and future
communication and information systems.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Answer. With respect to acquisition of IT, other than Major
Information Automation Systems (MAIS), 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 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.
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, and
command and control (C2), and 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 continue to 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 Imagery and Mapping 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.
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). 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. My
understanding is that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is
leading the improvement initiatives and, if confirmed, I plan to work
very closely with him to ensure that this effort is 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 establish a strong
systems engineering function in the OASD(NII) to ensure that systems
and services being developed fully meet the objective operational
capabilities. Thirdly, I would establish robust governance processes to
ensure that the evolving elements of the information infrastructure are
consistent with the principles of network-centric warfare operations.
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 roadmaps.
Finally, in regards to business process improvement, my
understanding is that the USD (Comptroller) has established a broad
based initiative to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
business process across the Department. If I am confirmed, I would work
very closely with the USD (Comptroller) 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. Therefore, at a
minimum, these would be in the following areas: program execution;
program, systems and systems-to-systems integration; transition of
legacy to future systems and DOD business process improvement.
c3i 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, organization and vision of the ASD(NII) organization?
Answer. Prior to the establishment of the USD(I), the mission of
ASD(C3I) 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(C3I) to the USD(I).
However, in my view, the vision and mission of the ASD(NII) have not
changed substantially from those of the ASD(C3I).
Question. How would you assess the evolution, to date, in the
establishment of these two organizations, the separation of
responsibilities, and the understanding of employees and consumers of
the new areas of responsibility?
Answer. At this point I am not sufficiently informed to offer an
opinion. If I am confirmed, I would be happy to discuss this topic with
the committee at a later date.
Question. What remaining challenges do you foresee in fully
implementing the responsibilities of these two organizations--USD(I)
and ASD(NII)?
Answer. At this time, I am not sufficiently informed to comment on
this issue. However, if I am confirmed, I can assure you that I would
continue to foster a close and cooperative relationship with the
USD(I).
Question. What do you see as the appropriate relationship between
ASD(NII) and USD(I) in performing CIO responsibilities regarding the
Combat Support Agencies which have intelligence support missions?
Answer. It is my understanding that the ASD(NII), as the DOD CIO in
conjunction with the DCI CIO, is responsible for information
architectures, interoperability and acquisition relative to his CIO
responsibilities regarding IT and national security systems of the
Combat Support Agencies of the Department of Defense which have
intelligence support missions.
information superiority
Question. Many have described the major responsibility of the
ASD(NII) as ``information superiority.''
Describe your vision of information superiority for DOD, including
any major impediments to information superiority facing the Department.
Answer. In the general area of information superiority, a major
responsibility of the ASD(NII) is to enable the Information Age
Transformation of the DOD by building the foundation for network-
centric operations which primarily involves the development and
deployment of the future, or ``to be'', Global Information Grid.
On this basis, I envision a Department of Defense that is second to
none in its ability to leverage Information Age concepts and
technologies, creating an organization that has superior situational
awareness, the ability to collaborate as well as to self coordinate and
is both interoperable and agile enough to meet the challenges of an
uncertain future. Providing each and every individual with access to
the information he needs, ensuring that he has access to the
individuals and organizations with whom he needs to interact, and
facilitating and supporting these interactions with a rich
collaborative environment will enable our warfighters to employ new
concepts of operation and command and control approaches that are and
will continue to emerge to meet the challenges of that uncertain
future.
At this time I believe the major impediments to progress are: (1)
our inability to quickly field emerging information related
capabilities; and (2) cultural barriers to information sharing,
collaboration, and experimentation that impede facilitation of these
essential conditions. If confirmed, I will devote my energies and focus
the ASD(NII)'s efforts to make each and every individual throughout DOD
fully network-enabled, make information accessible, and foster
collaboration while simultaneously ensuring that our information and
information processes and systems are adequately protected and assured.
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.
Describe your vision for the role of information operations in the
conduct of military operations.
Answer. As discussed in the previous question, information
superiority requires robustly networked forces that share global,
secure, reliable, real-time information. Obviously, any disruption to
the network or the ability to share information would significantly
decrease or neutralize a position of information superiority relative
to an adversary. Likewise, adversely affecting an enemy's
communications and information systems will improve our relative
position and, therefore, enhance our capability to efficiently and
effectively conduct network-centric operations.
On this basis, my vision is that information operations plays a
critical role in the effective and efficient conduct of network-centric
operations and that a major emphasis should be placed on developing a
first class capability to conduct these types of operations.
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. I am unable to answer that question because I am not
familiar with the details at this time.
Question. What lessons have been learned regarding information
operations in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the details at this time to
respond to this question.
Question. How will these lessons learned affect your vision for
information operations?
Answer. I am unable to answer this question at this time. However,
I would be happy to discuss this topic with the committee if I am
confirmed and I have had an opportunity to become familiar with the
details.
information assurance
Question. The protection of the Department of Defense's critical
information infrastructure has become a high priority. Training and
retention of personnel in this developing profession of computer
security and infrastructure protection has been challenging.
Are you satisfied with the Department's current level of effort to
protect critical DOD information infrastructures? Have sufficient
resources been allocated for this task?
Answer. While I am not yet fully familiar with the details, like
other organizations in which I have been involved in the past, DOD
appears to be constantly in a race to stay up with technology and to
balance growing IT demands with the required security. From my outside
perspective, the Department appears to have made significant progress
over the years in improving its ability to protect information and
defend the network, DOD must continue to evolve and strengthen its
ability to defend its networks, computer and information systems. If
confirmed, I will assess our progress to date and determine what
additional actions and resources may be required.
Question. What are your views on the professional development and
retention of the highly skilled personnel required to ensure the
security of our Department of Defense information systems?
Answer. While I am not yet fully familiar with the details, in DOD,
as in most organizations, development and retention of skilled people
is critical and one of our most challenging tasks. It is my
understanding that DOD has made strides in identifying and improving
the management of these critical personnel. For example, I understand
that DOD is making progress with its widely successful IA Scholarship
Program, the implementation of Centers of Academic Excellence, and the
introduction of a much more security relevant curriculum in DOD
professional military education.
Question. Given DOD's growing dependence on commercial networks and
systems, what role, if any should DOD play in ensuring that the private
sector sufficiently addresses information security issues?
Answer. By leveraging its important position in the information
security market place, DOD needs to make security a priority mandate
via its procurement policies and its configuration control
requirements.
conversion to internet protocol version 6
Question. The Department has mandated a transition of DOD networks
to technologies based on Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). However,
there are concerns that conversion of systems from either IPv4 or
asynchronous transfer mode (ATM)-based systems could result in
additional costs to critical service programs (such as the Army's
Future Combat Systems) and potentially reduce the performance of
critical networks, by limiting encryption speeds and reducing network
quality of service.
If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in ensuring that cost
and performance considerations are appropriately considered by DOD
during the transition to IPv6 systems?
Answer. It is my understanding that in order to accomplish the
Information Age Transformation of DOD, a transition to IPv6 technology
is necessary. As the DOD CIO, I would ensure that this transition is
necessary and fully justified as well as recommend to the Secretary
efficient and effective investments to achieve that transition. If
confirmed, I plan to stay closely involved in the planning and
implementation of the transition process.
open source software
Question. What are the current challenges facing DOD as it develops
strategies for the development and use of open source software?
Answer. My understanding is that the challenges facing DOD with
respect to Open Source Software (OSS) are similar to those facing any
government organization or industry. The principal challenge is to
maintain robust security.
global information grid
Question. If confirmed, what would your plans be to ensure adequate
test and evaluation of components of the Global Information Grid (GIG)?
Answer. It is my understanding that the ASD(NII) development
approach to test and evaluation of the GIG involves an end-to-end
testing capability. If confirmed, my plan would be to ensure that this
approach becomes a reality.
Question. If confirmed, how would you assess the current and
potential future threats to military forces dependent on the GIG?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work in partnership with the Joint
Staff, the relevant combatant commanders, the Intelligence Community,
and the information security community to protect the GIG by
implementing a risk management-based approach. This approach would
address current and potential threats to network-centric forces and
develop measures to effectively deal with those threats.
asd(nii) roles in space programs and policies
Question. The 2001 report of the Commission to Assess United States
National Security Space Management and Organization (also known as the
Space Commission) stated that space interests had to be ``recognized as
a top national security priority'' but argued that ``the only way they
will receive this priority is through specific guidance and direction
from the very highest government levels.'' ASD (NII) is responsible for
space policy formulation and coordination within the Office of the
Secretary Defense.
If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in the formulation of
space policy?
Answer. I am informed that the Deputy Secretary of Defense recently
decided to transfer space policy from the ASD(NII) to USD(Policy). My
plan, if confirmed, would be to work with USD(P) to define a supporting
role for ASD(NII) in matters where space policy and ASD(NII)
responsibilities intersect.
Question. Do you believe that responsibility for the Department's
space policy is appropriately assigned, in light of the Space
Commission's recommendations?
Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the
transfer to comment at this time. However, I would reiterate that if
confirmed, I would work closely with the USD(Policy) to define
(ASD)NII's role.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in the
oversight of space programs?
Answer. With the very recent transition of space policy to
USD(Policy), I do not believe there has been time to fully address the
details of oversight responsibility. If confirmed, I would work with
the USD(P) and the USD(Intelligence) to establish relative roles and
responsibilities that will ensure that these types of programs are
executed in the most efficient and effective manner. I plan to continue
to actively pursue the oversight of space programs that involve the
development of information and communications systems as well as space
support programs such as assured access, space control, position,
navigation and timing, environmental sensing, and satellite operations
programs as delegated by USD(AT&L) and in coordination with USD(I) and
USAF.
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 is the status of the Department's efforts to implement the
Clinger-Cohen Act?
Answer. At the present time, I am not sufficiently informed to know
the details of the Department's efforts to implement the Clinger-Cohen
Act. However, in my past experience I have extensively used a portfolio
review approach to manage a closer grouping of programs. I believe this
approach would be extremely beneficial in managing interrelated
information technology programs under my purview.
Question. 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. If confirmed, I expect to perform the statutory and
regulatory role envisioned for the CIO with regard to IT embedded in
major weapons systems. I will make recommendations to the Secretary of
Defense on whether to continue, modify or terminate IT investments,
including those in major weapons systems.
Question. What do you see as the appropriate relationship between
the ASD(NII) and the service acquisition executives in this effort?
Answer. As I responded in the duties portion, if I am confirmed one
of my major duties will be 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 matters in support of the Defense Mission. On that
basis, I would expect that the Service Acquisition Executives would
follow the Department's policies and governance in the acquisition of
IT, C2 and communications systems.
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 as ASD(NII), I would be the Secretary's chief
advisor on spectrum matters. In that capacity, I will have the lead for
spectrum policy formulation and for providing guidance to the various
Department spectrum management entities.
Question. If confirmed, would you represent the Department of
Defense in interagency and international negotiations regarding
spectrum management issues?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will be responsible for representing
the Department in national and international forums.
Question. What steps, if any, would you recommend the Department of
Defense take to improve its spectrum management policies?
Answer. In order to properly answer this question, I will need the
additional information and data available to me as the ASD(NII). There
are several factors to be considered such as organization, technology
and strategic plans in the improvement of spectrum management policies.
The emphasis and approach used on these key aspects will be determined
once I have received additional information and background data, in the
event of my confirmation.
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. While I am not yet fully familiar with the details, to the
best of my knowledge, there has been more attention focused on spectrum
in recent years--this is crucial to the Department of Defense. If
confirmed, I plan to continue to focus on accurately projecting future
requirements for spectrum use to enable efficient operation.
Question. What do you see as the proper balance between defense and
other uses of the frequency spectrum, and what is your view of the
current process by which those needs are balanced?
Answer. In balancing spectrum uses I believe that national security
as well as financial considerations must be fully taken into account in
making any changes to spectrum allocations. It is my understanding that
there are two organizations in the Federal Government that have overall
responsibilities for frequency spectrum management. The Department of
Commerce is responsible for integrating government requirements, and
the Federal Communications Commission resolves commercial and
government requirements. At this time, I believe that the process is
adequate.
asd(nii) as chief information officer
Question. DOD Directive 5137.1 stipulated that the ASD(C3I) would:
``Serve as the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Department of
Defense (DOD). This responsibility includes providing direction and
oversight for Information Management (IM) and Information Technology
(IT)--including a Departmental IM strategic plan integrated with the
Planning, Programming & Budgeting System and the institutionalization
of performance- and results-based management.''
Has that role changed under the newly-formed ASD(NII) office?
Answer. No. To the best of my knowledge, this role has not changed
under the newly formed ASD(NII).
coordination between cio and cfo
Question. Title 40, Chapter 25 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 branch to consult with both the CIO and the CFO 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. While I am not yet fully familiar with the details, it is
my understanding that as a part of the CFO's initiative to improve the
efficiency of business processes across the Department, he 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. Given the long history of difficulties with financial and
accounting systems at the Department of Defense, 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. Based upon my response to XVII A. above, 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.
chief information officer role
Question. The Chief Information Officer position is required by law
to report directly to the Secretary of Defense.
Is the ASD(NII) placement in the OSD hierarchy conducive to meeting
this legislative requirement and, if confirmed, how do you anticipate
fulfilling the DOD CIO role?
Answer. If confirmed, I will report directly to the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary of Defense. I anticipate forming strong partnerships
with the Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the DOD CIO community. I believe these
alliances will be key to the DOD CIO in providing leadership, direction
and oversight, and successfully executing the CIO's statutory and
regulatory responsibilities.
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. At this time, I do not believe I am sufficiently informed
to know specific problems and challenges. If confirmed, I would plan as
part of the goals and objectives setting process to solicit the input
from my colleagues on DISA performance and how to improve it, and
structure the goals and objectives accordingly. However, in general, I
believe that at least some of the major challenges that DISA faces are
similar to those previously discussed in the question on (ASD)NII's
major challenges--delivering quality products and services on time at
affordable cost.
joint command and control
Question. Initial reporting from recent military operations
indicates joint command and control capabilities have greatly improved
in recent years.
What is your assessment of the performance of the Department's
global and theater C2 systems?
Answer. I am not sufficiently informed at this time to answer this
question, but if confirmed I will carry out in depth reviews and make
recommendations for improvements to performance.
Question. What interoperability challenges remain between service
to service and service to joint C2 systems?
Answer. I do not have the details at this time, but it is clear to
me that achieving interoperability is key to network-centric
operations.
Question. What role should ASD(NII) play in ensuring the
development of reliable, interoperable, and agile command and control
systems?
Answer. It is my view that the role of the ASD(NII) is to provide
leadership, management, policy and governance to the DOD wide
information infrastructure and supporting network as well as C2 and
communication matters in support of the Defense Mission.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes, I 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 Saxby Chambliss
global information grid bandwidth expansion
1. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Harvey, Secretary Rumsfeld assured the
leadership of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees that end-
to-end testing would be conducted on DOD's Global Information Grid-
Bandwidth Expansion (GIG-BE) solution. Based on his assurances, we
dropped language in our conference report that had been adopted in our
markup. The Naval Research Lab has already determined that $15-$18
million will be required to carry out the required tests, but only $3
million has been made available by DOD for that purpose. If you are
confirmed, can you assure this committee that this funding shortfall
will be eliminated to ensure completion of the entire testing regime?
Dr. Harvey. DOD is conducting end-to-end testing of the GIG-BE in
accordance with a Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) approved by
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). In accordance with
acquisition policy, and approved program documentation, the first tests
focus on GIG-BE operational suitability and effectiveness at
operational test locations, and certification of interoperability with
existing legacy systems. GIG-BE testing has started and will continue
in phases culminating in interoperability testing by the Joint
Interoperability Test Command (JITC). GIG-BE testing is fully funded at
$22 million.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In a previous response to a similar congressional inquiry, the
figure $29 million was erroneously used to indicate the amount of
funding allocated for GIG-BE testing--the correct amount is $22
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to, yet distinct from the compliance, interoperability,
operational, and other required testing being conducted on the GIG-BE
acquisition program, the Department plans to conduct integrated, end-
to-end evaluations of the Department's transformational communications
components, including the GIG-BE, using the newly established Global
Information Grid (GIG) End-to-End Evaluation Facilities (GIG-EF)
located and run by the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). The Evaluation
Facilities program is intended to facilitate early interaction between
transformational and existing communications programs and identify
issues or gaps in the areas of standards, protocols, and operating
procedures before these programs reach full operating capability. The
task assigned to NRL encompasses the GIG as a whole and addresses end-
to-end issues such IPv6 transition, efficient routing, information
assurance, quality-of-service, performance and scalability, and test
and measurement. The evaluation facilities provide an instrumented
inter-networked test environment for experts to understand and validate
transformational operational solutions for the warfighter. It does not
supplant the need for each program within the GIG environment, such as
the GIG-BE, to conduct its own testing.
The $12-18 million referenced in your question was a figure
prepared by NRL and was used as an input to deliberations by senior
management for the fiscal year 2005 President's budget request as well
as to identify mechanisms for initiating this capability in fiscal year
2004. Based on rigorous analysis by both the Joint Staff and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, we determined the fiscal year 2005-2009
budget request for the GIG-EF of $35 million will meet our projected
test facility requirements. The $3 million available in fiscal year
2004 is core funding to initiate the overall effort. This initial
funding for the effort led by NRL will be used to: stand up the
evaluation/test team, install and configure components purchased in
fiscal year 2003, prepare for and support evaluation requirements, and
develop and field test measurement systems.
2. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Harvey, DOD has embraced the concept of
network transformation with a view toward getting real time (e.g.
video) mission information to commanders and troops. In fact, the
notion of transformation is the basis for upgrading the Global
Information Grid. Given this is the case, why is the Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA) implementing certain technologies
that are older, far less reliable, and far less accurate than that
which they are planning to replace?
Dr. Harvey. The technology basis for the Department's Information
Age transformation is based on the commonly used communication
protocol, Internet Protocol (IP)--a networking technology developed
originally by DARPA but adopted globally, by both the commercial and
public sectors. Business, industry, and the DOD have found IP to be not
only reliable and accurate, but also to be the only viable technology
for networking computers and enabling network centric operations. The
technologies that the overall GIG architecture and in particular, the
GIG-BE, are replacing are based on circuit-based communications
approaches that do not support network centric warfare.
There are several programs that are key to the Department's
Information Age transformation. They are part of the larger GIG
environment and include: GIG-BE--the terrestrial communications
backbone, the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)--the wireless portion
of this transformation, Transformational Satellites (TSAT)--the space
portion, and Net-Centric Enterprise Services (NCES)--core services
critical to operate in an IP-based transformational network centric
environment. These transformational programs will work together to
provide a global interoperable, reliable, and secure network centric
GIG, which is vastly superior to the current patchwork of independent
networks. The GIG environment must be fundamentally dynamic to manage
the constantly changing information flows between any and all users at
whatever bandwidth is required. This is the essence of net centricity.
The Internet Protocol (IP) is the only commercially available
technology that can enable this network centricity.
A fundamental aspect of the design of the GIG-BE is to buy the
latest, state of the art technology. The competitive telecommunication
industry dictates that its technology be robust, reliable, and result
in a highly capable trusted network. As a verification of the GIG-BE
design, last year the then Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks
and Information Integration (ASD (NII)) invited industry leaders from
AT&T, Lucent, Telcordia, and Verizon to do an independent assessment of
our design, test plan and procurement strategy. This review confirmed
that the GIG-BE IP-based design and implementation was appropriate and
``consistent with industry direction.''
3. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Harvey, why is DISA rolling out networks
that will require them to maintain a separate network infrastructure
for mission critical applications?
Dr. Harvey. The Department's vision, as described previously, is to
implement a common, integrated IP-based network architecture,
implemented through the GIG-BE, JTRS, TSAT, and other transformational
communications initiatives. It is essential that we transform to a
network-centric operational environment if defense transformation is to
be achieved. DISA is not rolling out a separate network. However, there
will be, by necessity, a period of transition or change from where we
are today to where we are going in the future. This will require us to
maintain, and provide interfaces to, legacy networks and communications
services.
The IP protocol has long supported many of the DOD's mission
critical applications including the global transportation network
(GTN), global command and control system (GCCS), global broadcast
system (GBS), global combat support system (GCSS), Predator video,
defense message system (DMS), etc. Convergence of all of our
applications and information onto a single network is essential to
achieving net centricity. IP is the only commercially available
technology that supports this convergence.
4. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Harvey, why is DISA rolling out a ``next
generation'' network that is unable to encrypt at high speeds? Do you
know that DISA's current network is capable of encryption at speeds 2.5
Gbps and, very soon, could be at 10 Gbps?
Dr. Harvey. The ``next-generation network,'' i.e., IP-based GIG-BE,
will be able to encrypt data at high speeds of up to 10 Gbps. The GIG-
BE architecture allows us to leverage emerging commercial encryption
architectures while allowing the use of U.S. Government algorithms to
provide the protection needed for critical DOD applications. This
architecture allows enhanced interoperability, allows the degree of
protection to be tailored to the application, and can be integrated
with host computer information assurance (IA) functions. More
importantly, it enables the many-to-many interactions that will happen
in a network centric environment.
The National Security Agency (NSA) is developing a family of IP
encryption products, as part of our overall development of the larger
GIG, under a program known as high assurance IP encryption (HAIPE).
HAIPE is unique in the history of NSA encryption developments in that
the government is only paying for a portion of the development costs.
Major technology companies such as L3, General Dynamics, and ViaSat are
investing half of the capital required to develop HAIPE devices because
they believe there is a significant market for this technology. This
encryption market is not new, over the past 15 years the DOD and
Intelligence Community (IC) have purchased and fielded over 40,000 IP
encryption devices.
The existing 2.5 Gbps encryption capability you mention is based on
legacy ATM technology. The current planned 10 Gbps HAIPE devices will
be available by 2006. NRL is working closely with NSA to develop 40
Gbps IP encryption technology applicable to GIG-BE, and is working
toward a goal of creating Tbps encryption technology. While current ATM
encryption is faster than IP encryption available today, ATM networking
technology is not integrated with major computer operating systems,
routers or applications, thereby limiting the usefulness of ATM
encryption devices. More importantly for the DOD, an all ATM solution
is not commercially viable for network centric warfare. Further, GIG-BE
has been designed to support users requiring encrypted native ATM
services or other legacy circuit based communications through direct
bandwidth provisioning.
5. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Harvey, one of the stated goals of GIG-BE
is to have unified network architecture. Why is DISA rolling out a
``next generation'' network where provisioning bandwidth is far more
difficult, time consuming, and expensive, e.g. separate outboard costly
network management systems for Optical, SONET (15 year old technology),
and router bands?
Dr. Harvey. In reality, implementation of the GIG-BE will make
bandwidth provisioning simpler and be more responsive to the warfighter
and other customers' communications requirements. Bandwidth
provisioning is a concept based on the legacy circuit switched designs,
where bandwidth has to be allocated based on projected needs and
requirements. This notion of provisioning bandwidth is obsolete. The
DOD mission requires a very dynamic network, where bandwidth is made
available automatically as the demands of the warfighter changes. Our
vision is a mesh network where bandwidth is not a constraint to be
managed by operators. In this environment, dynamically changing any-to-
any communications are supported without having to provision circuits.
The exception is where we must support legacy applications that rely on
ATM or SONET based point-to-point circuits.
A guiding principle in implementing the GIG is to base it on
commercial information technologies (IT), standards and protocols where
flexibility and ease of provisioning is automated in a very dynamic
networking environment. The Multi-Standard Provisioning Platform
integrates both IP and legacy circuit switching into a single device
that is managed from a single network management system. Thus,
management of GIG-BE is highly automated and much less labor intensive
than the current networks.
6. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Harvey, why is the U.S. Intelligence
Community walking away from the GIG-BE to build their own network
infrastructure?
Dr. Harvey. The Intelligence Community (IC) is not walking away
from the GIG-BE to build its own network infrastructure. The IC and DOD
have made great strides in working communications infrastructure
sharing initiatives in the past few years. This is the direct result of
the efforts of the IC Chief Information Officer and the ASD(NII)/
Department of Defense Chief Information Officer working jointly to
develop the communications and information technology infrastructure
necessary to allow for a more robust information sharing technical
architecture.
Over 70 percent of the sites to be serviced by the GIG-BE serve IC
interests as well as DOD needs. While we do not envision full-scale
migration of all Intelligence customers to the GIG-BE, the IC will
consider the GIG-BE in any future communications needs. Furthermore,
the Defense Intelligence Agency and National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency leadership have fully embraced the program.
7. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Harvey, why has the GIG-BE solution not
been thoroughly tested beforehand? The DOD has stated that they intend
to do this testing; however, the GIG end-to-end test bed has not been
funded to do the testing.
Dr. Harvey. Thorough operational testing to verify the performance
of GIG-BE terrestrial IP-based network with legacy systems has been
funded and synchronized to support incremental program decision points
that are tied to purchases of GIG-BE components, which prevents major
investments of unproven capabilities. The GIG End-to-End Evaluation
Facilities (GIG-EF) was not established to do Developmental Test/
Operational Testing (DT/OT) of the GIG-BE program or any other
individual acquisition program. When fully implemented, the GIG-EF
coordinated by NRL, will be used to evaluate the technical and
operational characteristics between and among the GIG- component
programs--including GIG-BE, JTRS, and TSAT. The GIG-EF is expected to
work for community members yet remain independent, allowing for
unbiased, objective evaluation/testing required for the successful
convergence of communications and applications. The objective of the
end-to-end testing is to bring programs together before critical
milestones so that designs can be stressed and issues can be
identified/addressed.
8. Senator Chambliss. Dr. Harvey, DISA elected to have a systems
integrator determine the appropriate technologies and procure the GIG-
BE on its behalf. The systems integrator stated that GIG-BE was not an
agent for DISA. However, DISA materially participated in the
procurement. For example, DISA participated in the: (1) oral
presentations; (2) testing; and (3) determination as to which
contractors would be awarded GIG-BE contracts. Given DISA's role in
this procurement, how can the Department assert that DISA is not
required to adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)?
Dr. Harvey. The GIG-BE program used an innovative approach for
identifying, evaluating, testing, and acquiring hardware for deployment
that is consistent with the FAR. This approach involved using DISA
existing, competitively awarded, network integration contract (DISN
Global Solutions or DGS) with SAIC to identify and test a best value
hardware solution to meet the GIG-BE functional requirements. This task
was judged to be fully within scope of the DGS contract and this
approach was documented in the GIG-BE Acquisition Strategy, endorsed by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense Chaired Overarching Integrated
Process Team (OIPT), and approved by the GIG-BE milestone decision
authority (MDA).
In this approach, DISA documented the function requirements for the
GIG-BE and tasked SAIC to identify a best value hardware solution to
meet these requirements. In order to maximize competition, SAIC
requested proposals based on the GIG-BE functional requirements in a
full and open competition for hardware. SAIC received 57 responses to
this solicitation. Those responses meeting the most critical of the
GIG-BE requirements were requested to give oral presentations to SAIC.
Senior government engineers observed, but did not materially
participate in, these presentations to ensure SAIC's process was both
open and sound. Based on these presentations, SAIC recommended a small
number of vendors be further evaluated. The government accepted SAIC's
recommendation, and these vendors were allowed to demonstrate their
equipments in a series of laboratory tests known as ``bake offs.'' Once
again, the government observed, but did not materially participate in,
the bake offs to ensure SAIC's process was fair. Based on the results
of bake off and additional best value analysis, SAIC recommended a
single vendor for each equipment type as it is further evaluated. The
government decided to accept SAIC's recommendation, and these vendors
shipped large amounts of hardware to AT&T Labs in Middletown, NJ,
(SAIC's subcontractor), for equipment integration evaluation testing.
This testing validated that the equipment satisfied the GIG-BE's
critical technical parameters (CTPs) as documented in the GIG-BE Test
and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP). Once again, the government observed
but did not materially participate in this testing. As a result of the
equipments meeting the government's CTPs, SAIC made a final
recommendation to the government to use equipments from four vendors
(Juniper, Ciena, Qwest/Cisco, and Sprint/Sycamore) for the GIG-BE. The
government decided to accept SAIC's recommendation and these vendors
were added as subcontractors to the DGS contract.
______
[The nomination referenced of Francis J. Harvey follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
November 6, 2003.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Francis J. Harvey, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice John P. Stenbit.
______
[The biographical sketch of Francis J. Harvey, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Francis J. Harvey
Dr. Fran Harvey is a proven business executive who has extensive
experience in leading and managing large organizations, particularly
program based organizations involved in the development and deployment
of technology and systems. As part of his results oriented management
approach, Dr. Harvey places major emphasis on organizational
transformation especially through the application of information
technology.
His broad base of experience has been multi-dimensional in terms of
industries, functions, and markets. His industrial experience is very
diverse and includes aerospace and defense, environmental and
infrastructure, energy, government facilities management, electronics,
information systems, and the Internet. In the defense sector, Dr.
Harvey has been involved in over 20 major systems development and
production programs across a spectrum of platforms including surface
ships, submarines, aircraft, tanks, and missiles.
Over the course of his 28-year career with Westinghouse (1969-
1997), Dr. Harvey had direct responsibility for the research and
development, engineering, manufacturing, planning, and project
management functions with major emphasis in the defense and energy
areas. In addition, he has extensive experience in acquisitions,
divestitures and joint ventures as well as international experience,
particularly in Western Europe, Japan, and China. Dr. Harvey also
served in the Department of Defense as a White House Fellow for 1 year.
In his last position with Westinghouse, Dr. Harvey was the Chief
Operating Officer of the Corporation's $5 billion Industries and
Technology Group, which consisted of six global businesses (Power
Generation, Energy Systems, Government and Environmental Services,
Process Control, Communications and Information Systems and Thermo
King) operating in 67 countries with 40,000 people. Under his
leadership, a comprehensive change and improvement program to transform
the organization was initiated and resulted in significant operational
improvements.
Prior to becoming Chief Operating Officer, he served as President
of the Corporation's $3 billion Defense and Electronics business, which
was acquired by Northrop Grumman. This business consisted of six
segments: Combat Systems; Battle Space Management; Command, Control and
Communications; Information Systems; Naval and Security Systems. He
also served as President of the Corporation's Government and
Environmental Services Co. which consisted of three business units-
Department of Energy Facilities Management, U.S. Navy Nuclear Reactor
Development and Procurement, and Environmental Services. As the Vice
President of Science and Technology, he directed a 1,000 person center
which developed and applied technology in 8 major areas: advanced
materials, microelectronics, advanced energy systems, power
electronics, materials engineering, information and decision making,
advanced electromechanical systems and environmental.
Since leaving Westinghouse in 1997, Dr. Harvey has served on 12
different corporate and non-profit boards, 3 of which are portfolio
companies of the Carlyle Group. In 2000 and 2001, he was the interim
COO of two high-tech start-ups. Most recently, he was Vice Chairman and
served as acting CEO of the IT Group, Inc. and currently is the Vice
Chairman of Duratek.
Dr. Harvey began his career in 1969 as a senior engineer at the
Westinghouse Science and Technology Center, where he published over 50
scientific papers and reports and was awarded 12 patents.
Dr. Harvey obtained his BS degree from Notre Dame and his PhD from
the University of Pennsylvania in Metallurgy and Materials Science.
______
[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 Francis J.
Harvey 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.)
Francis Joseph Harvey II.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Network and Information
Integration and Chief Information Officer.
3. Date of nomination:
November 6, 2003.
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 8, 1943; Latrobe, PA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Mary Louise Dziak Harvey.
7. Names and ages of children:
Francis Joseph Harvey III (36 years old).
Jonathan Charles Harvey (33 years old).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Latrobe High School (1957-1961) Diploma.
University of Notre Dame (1961-1965) BS--1965.
University of Pennsylvania (1965-1969) Ph.D.--1969.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Self Employed--Los Gatos, CA, 1997-Present.
Duratek, Inc.--Vice Chairman.
IT Group, Inc.--Vice Chairman and Acting CEO.
Corporate Director--Ten Companies.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Chief Operating Officer, Industries and Technology Group,
Pittsburgh, PA, 1996-1997.
President, Electronic Systems, Linthicum, MD, 1995-1996.
President, Government and Environmental Services Co.,
Pittsburgh, PA, 1994-1995.
Vice President, Science and Technology Center, Pittsburgh,
PA, 1993-1994.
General Manager, Marine Division, Sunnyvale, CA, 1986-1993.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
White House Fellow (1978-1979).
Army Science Board (1998-2000).
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.
Duratek, Inc. (1999 to Present), Director, Vice Chairman.
IT Group, Inc. (1999 to Present), Director.
Santa Clara University (1999 to Present), Regent.
Kuhlman Electric Corp. (2000 to Present), Director.
Bridge Bank (2001 to Present), Director.
Gardner Technologies, Inc. (2002 to Present), Director.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
The Duquesne Club.
The Metallurgy Society.
Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
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.
Lifetime member of the 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.
2003 Republican National Committee, $360.
2002 Republican National Committee, $475.
2001 Republican National Committee, $975.
2000 Republican National Committee, $150.
Tom Campbell Campaign, $1,000.
Campbell Victory Committee $2,500.
Jim Cuneen Campaign, $450.
Victory 2000 California, $1,000.
1999 Republican National Committee, $150.
George W. Bush Campaign, $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.
Tau Beta Pi.
Alpha Sigma Mu.
NSF Fellowship.
Outstanding Young Men Of America.
Westinghouse Patent Awards.
White House Fellowship.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
1. ``A Steady-State electrochemical Study of the Kinetics of the
Reaction of Water Vapor with Liquid Pb-Te Alloys'' with G.R. Belton,
Heterogeneous Kinetics at Elevated Temperatures, Plenum Press, 1970.
2. ``The Rate of Vaporization of Tungsten in Argon'', Met. Trans.,
3:1972 (1972).
3. ``The High Temperature Oxidation of Tungsten in O2-
Argon Mixtures'' Met. Trans. 4:1513 (1973).
4. ``The High Temperature Oxidation of Tungsten in CO2-
Argon Mixtures'' Met. Trans. 5:35 (1974).
5. ``Gas Transport Controlled Oxidation of Tungsten,'' Gordon
Research Conference, 1973.
6. ``The Co-Ti-C System at 1100 C, with R. Kossowsky, Met. Trans.,
5:790 (1974).
7. ``Failure of Incandescent Tungsten Filaments by hot Spot
Growth'', J. Illuminating Eng. Soc., 3:295 (1974).
8. ``The High Temperature Oxidation of Tungsten in H2O-
Argon Mixtures'', Met. Trans., 5:1189 (1974).
9. ``The Kinetics of Texture Development and Sulfur Removal in
Oriented Silicon Iron, with W.M. Swift and K. Foster, Met. Trans. B,
6B:377 (1975).
10. ``The Role of Plasma Heating Devices in the Electric Energy
Economy'' with M.G. Fey, Met. Eng, Quarterly, 16(2):27 (1976).
11. ``A Model of Particle Heat Transfer in Arc Heated Gas Streams''
with T.N. Meyer, R.E. Kothmann and M.G. Fey, Proceeding of Int'l Round
Table on the Study and Application of Transport Phenomena in Thermal
Plasmas, Odeillo, France, September 1975.
12. ``Mass Transfer Model of Halogen Doped Incandescent with
Application to the W-O-Br Systems, Met. Trans. A, 7 A:1167 (1976).
13.``A Model of Heat and Mass Transfer from Liquid metal Droplets
in Arc Heated Gas Streams,'' with T.N. Meyer, Gordon Conference on
Plasma Chemistry (1976).
14. ``Magnetite Spheriodization Using an AC Arc Heater, with M.G.
Fey and C.W. Wolfe, I&EC Process Design and Development. 16:108 (1977).
15. ``The Use of Complex Equilibria Calculations in the Design of
High Temperature Processes,'' presented at the 1977 Fall Meeting of the
Metallurgical Society, Chicago, October 1977.
16. ``A Model of Liquid Metal Droplet Vaporization in Arc Heater
Gas Streams'' with T.N. Meyer, Met. Trans. B 9B:615 (1978).
17. ``Development of a Process fro High capacity Arc heater
Production of Silicon for Solar Arrays,'' with M.G Fey, TY.N. Meyer,
R.H. Read and F.G. Arcella, presented at the 13th Photo Voltaic
Specialists Conference of the IEEE, June 1978.
18. ``Thermodynamic Aspects of Gas-Metal Heat Treating Reactions,''
Met. Trans. A, 9A:1507 (1978).
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.
Francis J. Harvey.
This 12th day of November, 2003.
[The nomination of Francis J. Harvey was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on February 4, 2004, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was withdrawn by the President on September 15, 2004.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Lawrence T. Di Rita 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.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. Goldwater-Nichols is the law of the land and applies across
a wide range of Department activities. My impression is that
implementation is extensive, ongoing, and under continued review and
assessment.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The following paragraph summarizes the most important
aspects, as I understand the act.
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 believe
it might be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I have not given the matter much consideration. It is
important to regularly assess the manner in which the department is
organized. During the period in which I have served this administration
thus far, when organizational proposals have surfaced, there has been
significant consultation with Congress. That certainly would be the
case with any future proposals.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be
with:
The Secretary of Defense?
Answer. Daily interaction in order to remain abreast of the
Secretary's insights, priorities, and decisions, and to offer my advice
to him across the range of issues facing the Department. Will assist
the Secretary manage the Department's communications requirements to
the Congress, the general public, and--most importantly--within the
Department to civilian and military personnel.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Deputy Secretary
would be much the same as my relationship with the Secretary of
Defense.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense?
Answer. Regular interaction to assist them communicate matters for
which their components are responsible.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs?
Answer. Critical daily interaction. I view communications with
Congress as an important priority to ensure Congress is kept informed
of important national security and defense-related matters.
Question. The DOD General Counsel?
Answer. Regular interaction to ensure that our communications
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 communication 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 their 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 messages 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 Naval
Information; Marine Corps' Director of Public Affairs; and Air Force's
Director of Public Affairs?
Answer. Please see my responses to the previous two questions. If
confirmed, I would expect to be working closely and on a regular basis
with the service public affairs chiefs.
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 years as a military officer give me a deep understanding
of just how important it is that senior leaders of the department
communicate well and regularly with our Armed Forces.
Several years serving as a staff member in the United States Senate
taught me the importance of regular executive branch communications
with the legislative branch.
While serving as a senior staff assistant to a United States
Senator, I also developed sensitivity to the importance of regular
interaction with the media.
Finally, my service in the Department for the past nearly 3 years
has given me a breadth and depth of exposure to the Department that
should help in my responsibilities to communicate the Department's
priorities credibly, in a timely fashion, and accurately.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next ASD (PA)?
Answer. We must continue to communicate internally, to Congress,
and to the public the President's priorities in the global war on
terror, to ensure the lessons of September 11 remain front and center.
We also face 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 communication and public outreach,
and that must continue and evolve to match our changing circumstances.
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 our first, most important
audience.
responsibilities
Question. If confirmed as the ASD (PA), what would you view as your
principal responsibilities to the Secretary of Defense?
Answer. My principal responsibilities if confirmed would be to
assure the Secretary that the Department is doing all it can to tell
the story of the men and women serving all of us by defending our
country.
Question. Department of Defense Directive 5122.5 provides that the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs 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 fora, 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. The ASD (PA) has responsibility for the security review
of Department of Defense materials for publication and release,
including testimony before congressional committees.
If confirmed, what policy would you intend to follow in carrying
out these responsibilities?
Answer. Coordination of congressional testimony is in the purview
of the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs and the Department's
Security Review Office. If confirmed, I would of course coordinate when
necessary to ensure the communications aspects of such materials are
properly considered prior to release.
Again, consistent with the principles of information and
appropriate security/sensitivity/classification considerations, if
confirmed I would work to help ensure that we provide such information
in a timely and accurate fashion.
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.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
required security reviews do not result in late submission of written
testimony?
Answer. Although the ASD (PA) does not hold particular
responsibility for this matter, it is important that required security
reviews be accomplished. I believe this responsibility can be
discharged without undue delay in the submission of testimony and other
information.
If confirmed, I would work with department officials to help ensure
that they provide written testimony and follow-up information for the
record in a timely and accurate fashion. This is a principal
responsibility of the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, but
I would work with that official and others to assist as needed in this
matter.
posting of information by the department of defense inspector general
(dodig)
Question. On December 5, 2003, the DODIG issued a memorandum
discussing IG data which would be posted on the DODIG Web site. The
memorandum stated that ``information of questionable value to the
general public,'' ``information not specifically approved for public
release,'' and ``information for which worldwide dissemination poses an
unacceptable risk to national security or threatens the safety and
privacy of the men and women of the Armed Forces'' would not be posted
on the IG's Web site. The policy contained in this memo has been
criticized as creating new categories of protected information that do
not exist in law and announcing, in effect, a new policy of non-
disclosure.
What role, if any, did you as Acting ASD (PA) have in the
formulation of the categories of information cited by the DODIG in his
memo of December 5?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, I had no role
in the formulation of the DODIG memo.
Question. How do you interpret these categories of information vis-
a-vis existing requirements for release under the Freedom on
Information Act (FOIA) and the principles of information set forth in
DOD Directive 5122.5?
Answer. As I read the DODIG memo, and I have not discussed the
intent of the memo with the IG, he is attempting to provide policy with
respect to information on the DODIG Web site during the period in which
the applicable DODIG instruction undergoes a review and update as
necessary. I do not view it as an intent or desire to create a new
class or new classes of restricted information.
Regardless of the intent, though, it is important that matters with
respect to information policy within the department be coordinated with
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. It is
possible that the IG staff coordinated with the staff in the Office of
ASD (PA), but I am unaware if that is the case.
Question. If confirmed, what responsibility, if any, would you have
under the DODIG's policy for determining what information falls under
the categories for nondisclosure cited in the memorandum?
Answer. If confirmed, my responsibility with respect to
communications policy of the Department is spelled out in DOD Directive
5122.5, and I would expect to discharge my responsibilities
accordingly. I do not believe the DODIG memo supersedes the principles
of information established in DOD Directive 5122.5, nor do I believe
that is the intent of the IG in promulgating his memo. If confirmed, I
would work with the IG and other component heads to ensure compliance
with the principles of information cited in the directive.
news analysis and news clipping service
Question. The ASD (PA) has responsibility for overseeing the
provision of news analysis and the news clipping services (including
the Early Bird, the Supplement, and the Radio-TV Dialog) for the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the headquarters of
the military departments.
What policy would you follow, if confirmed, in providing news
analysis and in determining which news media reports should be
disseminated throughout the Pentagon?
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
available be included in the various clipping services.
There are broad guidelines established to ensure that these
products include timely, accurate information, but judgment is applied
at various levels within the Office of the ASD (PA) to ensure the
products are useful to senior decisionmakers in the Department.
european-pacific stars and stripes
Question. Stars and Stripes is an independent news organization,
but it is also authorized and funded in part by DOD. Representatives of
the Society of Professional Journalists recently 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?
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.
I am unaware of any attempts in OSD to shape the editorial content
of the Stars and Stripes.
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. Based on your experience in OSD, are the Stars and
Stripes newspapers and internet reporting editorially independent? If
so, what are your views about the appropriate level, if any, of OSD and
AFIS oversight over the content of Stars and Stripes newspapers?
Answer. DOD Directive 5122.11 outlines the editorial operations of
Stars and Stripes. In accordance with the DOD Directive, ``as a
Government organization, the Stars and Stripes news staff may not take
an independent editorial position.'' When publishing editorials and
other opinion pieces, I understand the editors attempt to provide a
broadly representative range of views over time.
The DOD Directive does allow the Star and Stripes editor to
``establish a standard code of personal and professional ethics and
general editorial principles.'' My impression based on casual
observation and reporting is that the paper is independent, and is
perceived as such by military commanders.
Question. In October 2003, Stars and Stripes newspapers featured a
story titled ``Ground Truth: Conditions, Contrasts and Morale in
Iraq.'' This story included the results of a survey of individual
soldiers on such topics as personal and unit morale, concern of chain
of command about living conditions, adequacy of training, and
understanding of soldiers' mission.
What is your opinion of the content of the foregoing articles and,
in particular, the survey that was reported on in the October 15, 2003,
edition of Stars and Stripes?
Answer. It is my understanding that Stars and Stripes editors and
reporters periodically develop questionnaires such as the one reported
in the October 15, 2003, edition. The morale, living conditions, and
training of U.S. forces is a responsibility that the entire chain of
command within the Department of Defense takes seriously. The senior
uniformed and civilian leaders of the Department have taken a number of
steps to address these issues and ensure we treat our people right.
It is helpful to receive information on these matters from a wide
variety of sources, including such surveys as the one used by the Stars
and Stripes.
Finally, I understand that the Stars and Stripes Ombudsman, in a
letter to the publisher, gave the Department's leadership high marks
for its approach to this series.
Question. The function and responsibilities of the Stars and
Stripes' Ombudsman have been the subject of discussion within the AFIS
and among journalists outside the Department of Defense.
Do you support an independent Ombudsman for Stars and Stripes?
Answer. I do. I have met with the Ombudsman and corresponded in
writing with him on occasion. I have found his insights quite helpful.
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 expect to continue working with the Stars
and Strips 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 fulfill 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 transformation working group
Question. The mission of the Stars and Stripes Transformation
Working Group was to evaluate the current operations of Stars and
Stripes and to develop recommendations on how the newspaper would best
fulfill its mission in serving the U.S. military of the 21st century
that will be increasingly mobile, deployed at fewer large-scale
overseas bases, and likely situated in new locations around the world.
What were the findings and recommendations of the Stars and Stripes
Transformation Working Group?
Answer. The working group made a number of recommendations
regarding the budget, business operations, and organization of the
newspaper. I found the recommendations thought provoking and asked that
the working group leader brief relevant congressional committee staff
and the Stars and Stripes management board.
Question. In your opinion, what efficiencies, if any, regarding
business operations, operating expenses, sources of income, and DOD
funding, etc., 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.
Question. In the Chairman's Preface to the Transformation Working
Group Final Report, it was stated that the newspaper's editorial
philosophy needed review and that throughout the course of the Group's
study ``military leaders in the combatant commands with whom the
Working Group has met have consistently raised concerns about accuracy,
balance and investigative reporting in Stars and Stripes.''
What are your views about the accuracy, balance, and investigative
reporting of Stars and Stripes?
Answer. I have not read the paper in my present capacity closely
enough to form a view. As a former overseas-stationed naval officer, I
read it regularly and found that it presented a wide range of views,
news, and information. The relevant DOD Instruction calls for the paper
to provide a balanced source of news, information, and editorial
content and my impression is that the managers of the paper attempt to
do so in a professional manner.
Question. How did the Department address these concerns?
Answer. The discussion on editorial philosophy as described in the
Chairman's Preface represents the views of the chairman alone, and he
is entitled to them. To the best of my recollection, the Chairman's
Preface was not briefed to the paper's management or oversight
officials, or to the relevant congressional committee staff.
The other recommendations of the working group have been made
widely available, as described above. I should note that the Stars and
Stripes Ombudsman received the briefing and had ample opportunity to
comment. In fact, I found his comments quite helpful. To my knowledge,
we have not taken any specific action with regard to any of the
recommendations as yet.
Question. In your view, what are the most appropriate means to
address the concerns raised by the Chairman of the Transformation
Working Group?
Answer. I preface by stating my sense that the Chairman performed a
useful service to the Department by leading the Transformation Working
Group. It is my understanding that he was asked to perform this service
by senior OSD officials, and he volunteered his service.
Subsequent to the conclusion of his report, we provided venues for
him to brief the findings of the working group as described above. The
management of the paper and the appropriate oversight officials in the
department will consider these findings as they seek to ensure the
efficient and effective operation of Stars and Stripes going forward.
Question. The governing directive for Stars and Stripes newspapers
and business operations is DOD Directive 5122.11, dated October 5,
1993, with changes through September 3, 1996.
What aspects of DOD Directive 5122.11, if any, require changes?
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 to our forces and their families as broadly and
effectively as possible, and also the prospects for increased
efficiencies and reduced operating costs for the paper.
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.
press coverage of combat operations
Question. In the past 10 years, press coverage of combat operations
has increased. This increased coverage culminated during Operation
Iraqi Freedom in authorization by the Department of ``embedded''
reporters.
What is your assessment of the practice of ``embedding'' reporters
in Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Answer. My impression is that the embedding process was a
worthwhile program. It provided the opportunity for the public to
receive much better insight into the skill, courage, and
professionalism of our 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 ensure more accurate defense-related journalism in the
future.
Question. What were the most significant ``lessons learned'' from
this practice?
Answer. I have not conducted any analysis of the program
sufficiently to draw broad lessons. My observation, bolstered by a
large number of anecdotal reports, leads me to believe that the program
was effective. The department continues to encourage embedding for
journalists covering the post-major conflict period in Iraq.
One area needing analysis is the question of whether it was more
difficult for our forces to manage interactions with non-embedded
journalists during the conflict. I have heard anecdotal reports on this
issue but no systematic study has been done that I am aware of.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
the next of kin of combat casualties are informed of death or injuries
by Service representatives prior to release of identifying information
by either the Department or reporters?
Answer. This is an important priority always, and it takes constant
oversight to help ensure we do it right. As always, our first and most
important communications audience is our forces and their families and,
if confirmed, that will be one of my operating precepts.
freedom of information act
Question. If confirmed, what would your role and responsibilities
be with regard to the Freedom of Information Act?
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 factors 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 information service
Question. What long term goals should the Department support for
AFIS?
Answer. As noted earlier in my responses, internal communications
is the most important communication priority we have. The American
Forces Information Services is the means by which we manage most of our
internal communications responsibilities. If confirmed, I will seek
every media avenue the department has to ensure we are speaking
clearly, timely, and accurately with our forces--including our Reserve
component forces--and the families that support them.
There are also opportunities to use technology, including distant
learning capabilities, to improve and expand the Public Affairs
training we conduct in the department. If confirmed, I will work with
the management of AFIS on this and other important training priorities.
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 all of 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.
One area of emphasis must be to improve the timeliness and accuracy
of information provided to the Reserve component and their families.
There is much we can do with improved technology to expand services to
meet this challenge
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Lawrence T. Di Rita follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
November 21, 2003.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Lawrence T. Di Rita, of Michigan, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Victoria Clarke.
______
[The biographical sketch of Lawrence T. Di Rita, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Lawrence T. Di Rita
Lawrence T. Di Rita is the Special Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense. He joined the Department after serving as Legislative
Director, the Chief of Staff, for Senator Hutchison from 1996-2001.
Prior to that, he served as Policy Director to the 1996 presidential
campaign of Senator Gramm.
A former Navy surface warfare officer and Operation Desert Shield/
Desert Storm veteran, Mr. Di Rita served in several ships and short
assignments before leaving the service in 1994. His final tour was on
the Joint Staff under General Colin Powell.
While on active duty, Mr. Di Rita served in U.S.S. Kirk (FF 1087),
U.S. Midway (CV 41), U.S.S. Leyte Gulf (CG 55) and on the Joint Staff
in J-5's International Negotiations Policy Branch.
Upon leaving the Navy, Mr. Di Rita joined the Washington-based
Heritage Foundation in 1994 as Deputy Director of Foreign Policy and
Defense Studies. He has published frequently on issues pertaining to
the U.S. armed services and national security policy.
A 1980 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, he has his
master's degree from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced
International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, DC. Originally from
Detroit, Michigan, Mr. Di Rita now lives with his wife, Therese, and
daughter in Potomac, Maryland.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Lawrence T. Di
Rita 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.)
Lawrence Thomas Di Rita.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs).
3. Date of nomination:
November 21, 2003.
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:
12 March 1958; Detroit, MI.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Shaheen, Therese Marie.
7. Names and ages of children:
Isabelle Dolores Di Rita (5).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
M.A., 1987, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced
International Studies.
B.S., 1980, United States Naval Academy.
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.
1993-1995, Deputy Director, Foreign Policy/Defense, The Heritage
Foundation.
1995-1996, Issues Director, Phil Gramm for President.
1996-2001, Legislative Director/Chief of Staff, Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison.
2001-Present, Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense.
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.
1976-1980, Midshipman, United States Naval Academy.
1980-1993, United States Navy.
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.
N/A
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, United States Naval Institute.
Member, Friends of Navy Squash.
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.
N/A
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
$1,000, Bush/Cheney 2000.
$500, Jeb Hensarling for Congress.
$500, Jeb Hensarling for Congress.
Perhaps so, will provide separately if so. [No further information
provided.]
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Joint Service Commendation Medal.
Navy Commendation Medal (2).
Navy Achievement Medal.
Various Navy campaign medals.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
See attached list.
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.
N/A
18. 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.
Lawrence T. Di Rita.
This 9th day of January, 2004.
[The nomination of Lawrence T. Di Rita was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on February 4, 2004, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was withdrawn by the President on November 16, 2004.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to William A. Chatfield by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. If confirmed as the Director of Selective Service what
would you view as your principal responsibilities and duties?
Answer. The principal responsibilities of the Director are noted in
the Military Selective Service Act: to be ready to provide both trained
and untrained manpower to the Armed Forces in the numbers and
timeframes requested by the Department of Defense, and to be prepared
to manage an Alternative Service Program for those men classified as
conscientious objectors. This charter implies that Selective Service be
organized, staffed, and trained to perform these tasks.
relationships
Question. The mission of the Selective Service System is to provide
manpower to the Armed Forces in time of national emergency and to
manage an Alternative Service Program for men classified as
conscientious objectors during a draft.
If confirmed, what would your relationship be to the Secretary of
Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness?
Answer. It is clear that the chief customer of Selective Service is
the Secretary of Defense. Today, Selective Service receives its
guidance on the number of conscripts that may be required in a crisis,
as well as the desired timeframes from the manpower planners in his
Department. The Agency's primary contact within DOD is the Office of
the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness. We also work very
closely with the Military Entrance Processing Command which also comes
under this structure. As necessary, there is also direct liaison with
the Office of the Secretary of Defense regarding SSS policy issues.
Over many years, these relationships have worked well and I will ensure
that they continue.
Question. If confirmed, what would your relationship be to the
Assistant Secretaries for Manpower in the military services; the
uniformed personnel chiefs of the military services; the Director of
the National Guard Bureau; the Reserve component chiefs; and the
manpower officials in the Joint Staff?
Answer. As an independent civilian agency, Selective Service's
principal interface with DOD is the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Joint and Service manpower officials express their needs up their chain
to OSD. This said, Selective Service has historically responded to the
Services on Service-unique issues. For example, the SSS has been
assisting individual Service recruiting efforts by including a
recruiting brochure for the active and Reserve components in our
registration acknowledgment envelope mailed to more than 40,000 men
each week. As Director, I will meet with the Service Secretaries as
necessary. The Chief of the Bureau and the Reserve chiefs support the
agency by placing 400 National Guard and Reserve officers in Selective
Service assignments and assisting with the registration of young men.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Director of the Selective Service System?
Answer. There are four: getting the registration message out to the
public given budget limitations, maintaining the registration
compliance rate above the 90 percent range, assuring the public that if
a draft is reinstated it will be fair and equitable, and defending the
System against challenges to its survival from those who believe that
our Nation no longer needs the Agency.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. To heighten awareness of the registration requirement among
men 18 through 26 years old I would focus more mass mailings to
targeted shortfall areas, augmented with public service advertising.
This would expand the reach and frequency of the registration message.
In support of this approach, I would add momentum and sustainability by
encouraging more States to link driver's permits and licenses to the
Federal registration requirement. Finally, I would ensure a top to
bottom review of all mobilization programs to determine the exact costs
for readiness and whether the proper level of readiness has been
achieved. Selective Service needs only to be as ready and capable as is
necessary to fulfill its responsibilities. With the foregoing
accomplished, justification for survival of the Agency and its missions
would be self-evident.
most serious problems
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Selective Service System?
Answer. I believe they are two: eroding public awareness of the
Federal registration requirement and an essentially no-growth budget. I
am sensitive to the fact that the public awareness task is never
completed because another 5,000 young men turn 18 years old every day
in the U.S.
Question. What plans do you have for addressing these challenges?
Answer. One of my first actions would be to spend about 60 days
assessing the structure and organization of the System. Given the
sizeable Agency investment in information technology over several
years, Selective Service need not operate as it did coming out of deep
standby in 1980. Through a smarter realignment of programs and people,
and capitalizing upon automation already in place, the resources should
be available for reprogramming in sync with priorities that I will
identify, especially awareness of the registration requirement.
military personnel and the selective service system
Question. The Selective Service System relies on military members,
from both the active and Reserve components, to accomplish its mission.
For example, about 450 National Guardsmen and reservists fulfill their
military training obligations with the Selective Service System.
Please describe the current military manpower requirements of the
Selective Service System and any initiatives taken by the Department of
Defense and each of the Services to lower the number of uniformed
military personnel who support the Selective Service System.
Answer. Over the years, OSD and the military services have been
most cooperative in satisfying the Agency's military requirements, and
working with them, Selective Service has reduced its uniform assets.
Since the mid-1990s, SSS has continuously realigned and updated those
requirements. So the Agency now has assigned only two full-time active
duty officers vice the previous 19; 400 part-time National Guard and
Reserve officers instead of 750; and a cut in field grade positions of
about 22 percent.
Question. To your knowledge, have there been proposals to
substitute civilian positions for active duty or Reserve component
personnel and what are your views about such an initiative?
Answer. Yes, SSS has proposed replacing higher cost active duty
positions with civilians. Although there has been a reduction in active
duty officers, there has not been a one-for-one replacement with
civilians. Further, the Agency has never sought replacements for its
declining number of part-time Reserve component personnel. Declining
military personnel have been compensated for by applying more
automation, changing policies, reshaping the organization, and through
staff training. These approaches have worked and the Agency is doing
more with less, so there is no need to add more employees.
Question. What are your personal views about the requirement for
military personnel to operate and manage the Selective Service System?
Answer. While there is a benefit from military representation in
the Agency, and we have this with our part-time National Guard and
Reserve officers, Congress created Selective Service to be the
independent, civilian buffer between the end user of conscripts, the
DOD, and American society. This approach has been working for over 63
years. But I do not believe that it is appropriate for military
personnel to occupy decisionmaking positions; these ought to be
civilian.
coordination with secondary schools
Question. Former Director Alfred Rascon stated that the Selective
Service System had to overcome two major hurdles when reaching out to
young men: ``ignorance of the law and apathy toward responsibility.''
The Selective Service System has cultivated ties with organizations
representing secondary school principals and counselors and community
organizations in an effort to ensure knowledge of the requirements of
law and voluntary compliance.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to overcome the obstacles
identified by Mr. Rascon?
Answer. My background is communications and building partnerships
with various audiences. I believe that an aggressive public awareness
program, coupled with outreach to those groups which influence and
touch young men--both educational and others, is the way to dispell
ignorance and address youthful apathy.
Question. What Selective Service programs exist to inform and
influence parents, teachers, and other organizations regarding the
requirement to register with the Selective Service System, and how
widespread are these programs?
Answer. SSS is already outreaching to influencers, schools, young
men themselves, and other groups. Some are national in scope, such as
radio Public Service Announcements to all the major media markets, high
school kits to volunteer Selective Service registrars in 25,000
schools, and professional associations which deal with youth: National
Association of Secondary School Principals, National School Boards
Association, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers, and the National Association of Financial Aid
Administrators. Examples of national influencer groups include: The
League of United Latin American Citizens, National Urban League,
Organization of Chinese Americans, and the National Congress of
American Indians. Additionally, several programs focus on local or
regional communities, such as YMCAs, local ethnic media, immigration
services organizations, and others. These local efforts are targeted in
areas of low registration compliance. Finally Selective Service has an
extensive network of 10,000 civilian Board Members who are ambassadors
for our programs in virtually every county across America.
Question. What is your understanding of the level of voluntary
participation by secondary schools in assisting the Selective Service
in achieving compliance by male students?
Answer. The Nation's secondary schools are supportive. The
Selective Service registrars in 25,000 high schools are volunteer staff
or faculty members who distribute SSS awareness materials, approach the
young man directly to register, and send him to the library to register
on the Internet at www.sss.gov. Today, SSS has 86 percent of the
Nation's high schools participating with registrars.
Question. If confirmed, would you recommend imposing legal
obligations on school systems that received Federal funding to assist
in overcoming ignorance of the law and apathy toward compliance?
Answer. There is no doubt that this legal mandate would foster
greater registrations, however, it might be perceived as ``Big
Brother'' being too heavy handed. I believe that the programs already
in place at SSS are working; the registration compliance rate is moving
upward and at the end of calendar year 2002 it was 91 percent. This
number can only be improved upon as more and more States adopt driver's
license legislation supporting the Federal registration law. But
registration awareness remains a challenge and has to be worked daily.
This is one of my priorities.
assistance to military recruiting
Question. The Selective Service System has assisted in military
recruiting by placing rotational recruiting messages for the active and
Reserve components on registration acknowledgment cards mailed to more
than 38,000 men each week.
How effective has the Selective Service System's recruiting effort
been?
Answer. The Department of Defense is pleased with this Selective
Service partnership which provides information about military
opportunities available in all the active and Reserve components. One
very big selling point is the fact that SSS names and addresses are the
most accurate to be found anywhere because they are recently submitted
by the men themselves. Therefore, there is no wasted postage to contact
them. The satisfaction of DOD is expressed by its replacement of the
joint program previously handled by OSD with the SSS mailing.
Question. What are your views and recommendations about additional
methods the Selective Service System might use in assisting in
recruiting efforts?
Answer. Conceptually, there are additional ways that SSS might aid
in this area. For example, if reenlistment rates or enlistments
themselves fall in the Reserve components as a result of many
protracted deployments, SSS might draft exclusively for them. A
variation of this could be a National Guard and Reserve draft, in which
the military person completes his basic and advanced training on active
duty, then performs a full-time homeland security mission in the U.S.
for a period of time, followed by a part-time assignment in a Guard or
Reserve unit. Finally, a special skills draft might be necessary for
the Armed Forces if volunteers prove too few. I am sure that there are
other ways for SSS to contribute in support of our all-volunteer
military.
Question. What are your views and recommendations about initiatives
the Department of Defense might implement to assist the Selective
Service System in achieving higher compliance rates?
Answer. I cannot think of anything additional that DOD might do for
us to achieve higher registration compliance. The Department already
provides us its commercially-developed recruiting list. We bounce it
against our registration database and if a name isn't there, SSS
contacts the man to solicit his registration. Additionally, each
Service ensures a new recruit is registered with Selective Service as
he processes into the military. So Defense is helping us out currently.
state by state compliance
Question. For several years, the Selective Service System has
issued ``report cards'' by State measuring the percentage of eligible
men turning 20 who have registered in accordance with the law.
What programs and requirements used by States have proven most
influential in achieving above average compliance rates?
Answer. The two most successful programs at the State level which
foster registration compliance are State driver's license legislation
and laws which parallel the Federal Solomon and Thurmond amendments.
Driver's license legislation links a driver's permit, license, license
renewal, and State ID card to registering by means of the license
application or submitting one's Selective Service number. We now have
32 States, two territories, and the District of Columbia participating.
This is a wonderful source of registrations because every young man
wants a license as soon as he can get it. The other great source of
registrations is a State law which links a man's eligibility for State-
funded higher education benefits and State jobs to the Federal
registration requirement. To date, 36 States and territories have
enacted these laws.
Question. What recommendations for legislation, if any, or for new
programs at both the Federal and State level do you have for increasing
compliance levels nationwide?
Answer. At the Federal level, there really isn't a need for new or
additional legislation. However, we hope that at the State level
driver's license legislation might eventually include all 50 States and
every U.S. territory.
Question. In your view, is the current budget of the Selective
Service System sufficient to prevent declines in compliance rates?
Answer. I think that SSS has proven that its current initiatives
are improving the challenges to compliance. However, what I am
concerned about is an essentially straight-lined budget which precludes
applying those public awareness initiatives, technology, and staffing
changes necessary to conduct business smarter and more effectively.
incentives to individuals for compliance
Question. Selective Service registration currently is a requirement
for a number of opportunities, including Federal student loans, job
training, employment, and U.S. citizenship.
Are there any additional incentives that you consider appropriate
to encourage more young men to register in a timely manner?
Answer. Thanks to Congress and most State legislatures, I believe
that SSS has the bases covered. From its point of view, the one that
needs to be expanded, the one that is the most productive source of
registrations, is driver's license legislation. But this is totally
dependent upon the wishes of States that have not yet enacted such
legislation.
performance of the selective service system
Question. In his responses to questions submitted by the committee
in May 2001, former Director Rascon indicated that the accuracy of the
address information of Selective Service registrants is good because of
measures for voluntary submission of changes and through reliance on
the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address system.
What is your estimate of the current accuracy of the address
information of Selective Service registrants in the prime induction
group?
Answer. It is highly accurate because Selective Service employs the
same program as the U.S. Postal Service--the National Change of Address
System. In addition, this program is supplemented with changes provided
by the registrant himself from our acknowledgment mailing to him at his
residence, through changes a registrant mails using a card at any Post
Office, from changes he provides by telephone, and with address updates
he supplies on the Internet. Actual mailings average over a 98.5
percent successful contact rate, so our procedures are working.
Question. What additional steps is the Selective Service System
taking to ensure the accuracy of address information?
Answer. SSS is continuing the successful Postal Service system, has
printed on the outside of all its cards and envelopes the postal
endorsement for address corrections to ensure notification to the
agency, and practices internal controls to guarantee that address
changes from a registrant are posted to his file immediately and
accurately.
military conscription
Question. The demands placed on our military forces fighting the
war on terror have led to calls by some to reinstate the draft.
Legislative proposals have been introduced in the Senate and the House
of Representatives that would require all young men and women in the
United States to perform a period of military service or a period of
civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland
security.
What are your views on reinstating the draft to support the war on
terror?
Answer. I see Selective Service as a service organization and, as
such, it does not make policy; it responds to and implements policy.
Policymaking is the realm of this committee and the administration. It
would be my job to lead the agency in conducting a timely, fair, and
equitable draft if Congress and the President so direct. It would not
be within my purview to determine when and if such a draft is
necessary.
Question. In your opinion, should women be subject to the draft if
it is reinstated?
Answer. Since the founding of the Nation, the U.S. has never
drafted women. To do so would require congressional and presidential
policy and lawmaking decisions. Personally, I see no pressing need to
do so. The primary customer, the DOD, has taken the position that there
is no ``military necessity'' to register, let alone, draft females,
especially since a general draft would be intended to replace combat
casualties. As a matter of longstanding policy, the Nation continues to
exclude women from front-line, ground combat assignments.
Question. Are there any circumstances under which you would
recommend reinstating the draft? If so, what are these circumstances?
Answer. It would be my job to lead the agency in conducting a
timely, fair, and equitable draft if Congress and the President so
direct. It would not be within my purview to determine when and if such
a draft is necessary. But I can speculate that the Nation's
policymakers might consider a draft if confronted with very serious
threats from a hostile adversary or group of adversaries, or if a
conflict was to be protracted over several years and volunteers were
too few, or if there appeared to be no other solution to filling
critical skills vacancies in the Armed Forces.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Absolutely. I see it as a matter of integrity and principle
that the Agency Head be the facilitator between Selective Service and
the Congress in an ongoing dialogue. I've mentioned public awareness of
the registration requirement, but the other type of awareness is Agency
awareness by the oversight committees. This can only be achieved if I
am responsive; I intend to be responsive.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. If the committee desires the personal views of Bill
Chatfield, it just has to ask.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Director, Selective
Service System?
Answer. If confirmed, I envision my job as director to be the lead
in the exchange of information between the committee and the Selective
Service System. Selective Service is a public agency doing the public's
business. It can only retain its program credibility if what it does is
open to public view and this means Congress.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. I assure you that, if confirmed, I and Selective Service
will continue to be forthright and responsive in any communications to
or from a committee.
______
[The nomination reference of William A. Chatfield follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 3, 2003.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
William A. Chatfield, of Texas, to be Director of Selective
Service, vice Alfred Rascon, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of William A. Chatfield, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of William A. Chatfield
Mr. Chatfield, of Texas, has more than 25 years of experience
working with the executive and legislative branches of the Federal
Government.
He commenced public service with the doorkeeper of the U.S. House
of Representatives from 1978 through 1979, and performed in several
appointed positions of increasing responsibility from 1980 through 1987
in the Reagan administration. He served on the staff of the Deputy
Under Secretary for Policy at the Department of Defense; as Regional
Director of the Civil Aeronautics Board; Special Assistant to the
Director, Office of Personnel Management; Assistant to the Chairman of
the Consumer Product Safety Commission; Special Assistant for
Congressional Liaison in the Department of the Interior; and, Staff
Advisor to the Commissioner at the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Since 1987, he has engaged in governmental affairs consulting. In
1989, he and former Congressman Tom Kindness established Kindness &
Chatfield Associates, a government relations and public affairs
consulting firm.
He attended Union College, majoring in political science and
criminal justice, and continued studies at American University. During
his active duty with the U.S. Marine Corps, he was an intelligence
analyst. Currently, he is an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by William A.
Chatfield 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 Austin Chatfield.
2. Position to which nominated:
Director, Selective Service System.
3. Date of nomination:
September 3, 2003.
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 14, 1951; Catskill, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Cynthia Lynn Garza Chatfield.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Union College, Cranford, NJ; 1973-1975.
American University, Washington, DC; 1979-1980.
No degree received.
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.
Kindness & Chatfield Associates; Partner; government relations
consulting; Washington, DC; 1989-present.
SKC & Associates; Associate; government relations consulting;
Washington, DC; 1987-1989.
Reagan administration: Politically Appointive Positions:
Department of Defense, staff of the Deputy Under Secretary
for Policy, Washington, DC, 1981-1982.
Civil Aeronautics Board, Regional Director, Dallas/Fort
Worth, TX, 1982-1984.
Reagan-Bush 1984 Campaign, Regional Field Director, Rocky
Mountain Region, Phoenix, AZ, 1984.
Office of Personnel Management, Special Assistant to the
Director, Washington, DC, 1985.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Assistant to the
Director, Washington, DC, 1985-1986.
Department of the Interior, Special Assistant for
Congressional Liaison, Washington, DC, 1986.
Interstate Commerce Commission, Staff Advisor to the
Commissioner, Washington, DC, 1986-1987.
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 other than those 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.
Consultant to:
Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Reserve Affairs, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve.
NVE, Inc., Andover, NJ; nutritional supplement manufacturer.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
The Capitol Hill Club, Washington, DC; membership only.
The Army & Navy Club, Washington, DC; membership only.
The Reserve Officers Association, Washington, DC; membership only.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
None.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
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 Austin Chatfield.
This 26th day of September, 2003.
[The nomination of William A. Chatfield was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on May 12, 2004, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on November 21, 2004.]
TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF FRANCIS J. HARVEY TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION; LAWRENCE
T. DI RITA TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS; AND
CERTAIN OTHER PENDING MILITARY NOMINATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to recess, in executive session
at 10:27 a.m. in room HR-2118, Rayburn House Office Building,
Senator John Warner (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain,
Roberts, Sessions, Collins, Ensign, Talent, Chambliss, Graham,
Dole, Cornyn, Levin, Kennedy, Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E.
Benjamin Nelson, Dayton, Bayh, Clinton, and Pryor.
Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff
director; Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, chief clerk; Cindy Pearson,
assistant chief clerk and security manager; and Leah Brewer,
nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Charles W. Alsup,
professional staff member; L. David Cherington, counsel; Regina
A. Dubey, research assistant; Brian R. Green, professional
staff member; 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;
Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member; Lynn F. Rusten,
professional staff member; Joseph T. Sixeas, 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; 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; Jeremy L. Hekhuis,
professional staff member; Maren R. Leed, professional staff
member; Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel; Peter K. Levine,
minority counsel; and Bridget M. Whalan, special assistant.
Staff assistants present: Michael N. Berger, Andrew W.
Florell, and Sara R. Mareno.
Committee members' assistants present: Christopher J. Paul
and Pablo Corello, assistants to Senator McCain; Arch Galloway
II, assistant to Senator Sessions; James P. Dohoney, Jr. and
Derek Maurer, assistants to Senator Collins; Pam Thiessen,
assistant to Senator Ensign; Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to
Senator Talent; Clyde Taylor IV, assistant to Senator
Chambliss; Aleix Jarvis and Meredith Moseley, assistants to
Senator Graham; Christine O. Hill, assistant to Senator Dole;
Russell J. Thomasson, assistant to Senator Cornyn; Sharon L.
Waxman and Mieke Y. Eoyang, assistants to Senator Kennedy;
Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Davelyn Noelani
Kalipi, assistant to Senator Akaka; William K. Sutey, assistant
to Senator Bill Nelson; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator E.
Benjamin Nelson; Todd Rosenblum, assistant to Senator Bayh;
Andrew Shapiro, assistant to Senator Clinton; and Terri Glaze,
assistant to Senator Pryor.
Chairman Warner. First, I move that the committee favorably
report out the nomination of Dr. Francis Harvey to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration.
Is there a second?
Senator Levin. Second.
Chairman Warner. All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed? [No response.]
The ayes have it.
Next I move that the committee favorably report out the
nomination of Lawrence Di Rita to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs. Is there a second?
Senator Levin. Second.
Chairman Warner. All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed? [A single nay.]
I note one Senator indicated his opposition. The ayes have
it.
Finally, I move the committee favorably report out 438
military nominations. These nominations have been in committee
for the requisite period of time, involve no adverse
information, and are appropriate for consideration by the
committee.
Is there a second?
Senator Levin. Second.
Chairman Warner. All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Those opposed? [No response.]
The ayes have it.
I thank my colleagues.
[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 4,
2004.
1. In the Army there are three appointments to the grade of
major general (list begins with Brigadier General Lloyd J.
Austin III, USA) (Reference N. 626).
2. In the Army there are 79 appointments to the grade of
major and below (list begins with Constance A. Bell) (Reference
No. 1181).
3. Colonel George T. Lynn, ANG to be brigadier general
(Reference No. 1221).
4. In the Army Reserve there are two appointments to the
grade of major general and below (list begins with BGEN Conrad
W. Ponder, Jr., USAR) (Reference No. 1222).
5. Rear Admiral (Selectee) Albert M. Calland III, USN to be
vice admiral and for assignment as Associate Director of
Central Intelligence for Military Support, CIA (Reference No.
1224).
6. Rear Admiral James D. McArthur, Jr., USN to be vice
admiral and for assignment as Commander, Naval Network Warfare
Center (Reference No. 1225).
7. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of
colonel (Margot Krauss) (Reference No. 1226).
8. In the Army there are 20 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Mark S. Ackerman) (Reference No.
1227).
9. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (Timothy G. Wright) (Reference No. 1228).
10. In the Army there are six appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (list begins with Ida F. Agamy) (Reference
No. 1229).
11. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of
major (David J. King, Jr.) (Reference No. 1230).
12. In the Army there are two appointments to the grade of
major (list begins with Michael G. Gray) (Reference No. 1231).
13. In the Army there are two appointments to the grade of
major (list begins with Terry R. Moren) (Reference No. 1232).
14. In the Navy there is one appointment to the grade of
commander (Todd E. Bailey) (Reference No. 1234).
15. In the Navy there are four appointments to the grade of
commander (list begins with Jennifer R. Flather) (Reference No.
1235).
16. In the Navy there are 31 appointments to the grade of
commander and below (list begins with Wing Leong) (Reference
No. 1236).
17. In the Air Force Reserve there is one appointment to
the grade of colonel (Vincent T. Jones) (Reference No. 1240)
18. In the Air Force Reserve there is one appointment to
the grade of colonel (Richard H. Villa) (Reference No. 1241).
19. In the Air Force Reserve there are seven appointments
to the grade of colonel (list begins with Robert J. Bernard)
(Reference No. 1242).
20. In the Air Force Reserve there is one appointment to
the grade of colonel (Harris H. Brooks) (Reference No. 1243).
21. In the Air Force Reserve there are seven appointments
to the grade of colonel (list begins with Paula C. Gould)
(Reference No. 1244).
22. In the Air Force Reserve there are 203 appointments to
the grade of colonel (list begins with Jeffrey S. Alderfer)
(Reference No. 1245).
23. In the Air Force Reserve there are 21 appointments to
the grade of major general and below (list begins with BGEN
Richard W. Ash, ANG) (Reference No. 1246).
24. In the Air Force Reserve there are 20 appointments to
the grade of major general and below (list begins with BGEN
Robert E. Duignan, USAFR) (Reference No. 1247).
25. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of
major (Amy E. Preen) (Reference No. 1255).
26. In the Navy there are 20 appointments to the grade of
lieutenant commander (list begins with Jonathan Q. Adams)
(Reference No. 1258).
Total: 438.
------
[The nomination reference of Francis J. Harvey follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 15, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Francis J. Harvey of California, to be Secretary of the Army, vice
Thomas E. White, resigned.
______
[The nomination reference of Lawrence T. Di Rita follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
November 21, 2003.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Lawrence T. Di Rita of Michigan, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Victoria Clarke.
[Whereupon, at 10:29 a.m., the executive session was
adjourned and the committee proceeded to other business.]
NOMINATIONS OF TINA WESTBY JONAS TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
(COMPTROLLER); DIONEL M. AVILES TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; AND
JERALD S. PAUL TO BE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL NUCLEAR
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004
U.S.Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The comittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Inhofe, Allard,
Levin, Akaka, Bill Nelson, and Pryor.
Committee staff member present: Leah C. Brewer, nominations
and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Charles W. Alsup,
professional staff member; L. David Cherington, counsel; Brian
R. Green, professional staff member; William C. Greenwalt,
professional staff member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff
member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member; Lynn F.
Rusten, professional staff member; Diana G. Tabler,
professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority Staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Madelyn R. Creedon, professional
staff member; Creighton Greene, professional staff member;
Gerald J. Leeling, professional staff member; Peter K. Levine,
minority counsel; and Michael J. McCord, professional staff
member.
Staff assistant present: Nicholas W. West
Committee members' assistants present: Lance Landry,
assistant to Senator Allard; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi, assistant
to Senator Akaka; William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill
Nelson; and Terri Glaze, assistant to Senator Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. The hearing will get underway. I will soon
be joined by Senator Levin but this is a big day for all of you
and in a way it is an interesting day for me. I am going to
have to leave early to go over with former Senator Bob Dole and
four other current Senators to the new World War II Memorial.
There are five of us here in the Senate who served in World War
II and we are going to have our picture taken, five survivors
at the opening of the new memorial which will officially be
dedicated on Memorial Day, but we are going over today. So I am
going to get underway with my statement.
We are very pleased on the committee, to have each of you
here today and your families. Ms. Jonas has been nominated to
be the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller; Mr. Aviles has
been nominated to be the Under Secretary of the Navy; and Mr.
Paul has been nominated to be the Principal Deputy
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA).
It is very important that the families have joined us this
morning. I have tucked away in my memorabilia records of when I
was before this committee in February 1969, during the war in
Vietnam, seeking at that time the post of Under Secretary of
the Navy. So, I take a special interest in that post. I
remember that I had my family in the room at that time and
three little squirming children. We have a couple of children
here this morning, but they are very quiet. Family support is
critical to the success and the ability of each of you to
perform your tasks. So we thank you for bringing them this
morning so they can witness a very significant day in your
life. Senator Nelson will soon be joining us, and he will be
introducing Mr. Paul.
Now, Ms. Jonas comes highly qualified for the position of
Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller. She is presently the
Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Director of the Finance
Division for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), where
she has served since August 2002. Prior to her FBI service she
worked in the Department of Defense (DOD) as the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Financial Management. In that capacity
she was a principal advisor to Dr. Zakheim and other senior DOD
officials in matters relating to accounting, financial reform,
and fiscal matters. Ms. Jonas also has significant experience
in Congress, having served from 1995 to 2001 as a staff member
for the Subcommittee on Defense for the House Committee on
Appropriations. We welcome you and your husband this morning.
Ms. Jonas. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Aviles has been nominated to be the
Under Secretary of the Navy; he is currently the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management and Comptroller.
As the committee noted at its earlier confirmation hearing, Mr.
Aviles brought legislative executive branch experience to this
position. He served from 1991 to 1995 with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) as a budget examiner, with
responsibility over Navy procurement and research and
development programs, and from 1995 to 2001 as a professional
staff member on the House Armed Services Committee. He is a
graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a qualified
surface warfare officer, holding the rank of Commander of the
United States Naval Reserve. We congratulate you on your
nomination.
Mr. Paul has been nominated for the position of Principal
Deputy Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). This is a position created by Congress,
and largely it was crafted here in this very room which you are
sitting in today. We put it together to assist the
Administrator in coordinating and overseeing day-to-day
operations and management. Mr. Paul is currently in his third
term as a member of the Florida House of Representatives where
he serves on the Committee on Appropriations, Energy, Natural
Resources, and Business Regulations and chairs the Subcommittee
on Environmental Regulation.
He was appointed by Secretary Abraham to serve on the
Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, an independent
panel that provides the Department of Energy (DOE) with advice
on the direction of the nuclear program. He is a graduate of
the Maine Maritime Academy and upon graduation, accepted a
commission in the Naval Reserve as a special engineering
officer where he served until his honorable discharge in 1997.
Our nominees have a wealth of experience and each of them
will excel in the position for which they have been nominated.
We thank them for their willingness to serve and their families
for their support.
I'd like to have you first introduce your family members.
Ms. Jonas if you'd introduce your husband.
Ms. Jonas. Mr. Chairman, I have with me today my husband,
David, who retired from the Marine Corps in 2001, and my
brother Todd and his son, Morgan.
Chairman Warner. We welcome all of you. Thank you. Mr.
Aviles.
Mr. Aviles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to introduce
my wife Kimberly, my son Thomas, and my mother-in-law Arlene
Chandler.
Chairman Warner. Welcome. Thank you. Mr. Paul.
Mr. Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me this morning is
my father, Tom Paul, and my mother, Pat Paul, to my right.
Immediately behind me to my left is my sister, Linda; my wife
Kristina, my sister Sharon, and my brother, Mike, and his wife
Pam with the second of the two young ones you mentioned
earlier, newly born, Josiah.
Chairman Warner. Did I miss one? Where is he? Could he
stand to be recognized? [Laughter.]
Senator Levin. First baby I've seen you miss, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Is it Josiah? We're going to count on him
to make a little bit of noise here this morning.
Mr. Paul. Why not?
Chairman Warner. Are you sure there is somebody in that
carrier? Oh, look, there he is.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me join you in
welcoming our witnesses and their families to the Armed
Services Committee. We all know that senior government
officials work long and hard hours often for less pay than they
can get in the private sector. We also know that none of our
nominees will be able to serve in these positions without the
support of their families. We thank their families, in advance,
for the support that they will provide to our nominees.
Our three nominees have already shown their dedication to
public service. They are well-qualified for these positions.
Ms. Jonas has worked in the executive and legislative branches
of the Federal Government for almost 20 years, most recently as
the Chief Financial Officer of the FBI and the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Financial Management.
Mr. Aviles has served the Federal Government as a military
officer and as a civilian since his graduation from the United
States Naval Academy in 1983. Most recently, Mr. Aviles has
served as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial
Management.
Both Ms. Jonas and Mr. Aviles served on the House staff
from 1995 until 2001, I believe. Ms. Jonas with the House
Appropriations Committee and Mr. Aviles with the House Armed
Services Committee. That should not disqualify them. Just don't
tell our House colleagues--we want them to worry a little bit
about this.
Finally, Mr. Paul has been member of the Florida House of
Representatives for the last 2 years and serves as a member of
Secretary Abraham's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee.
We look forward to their testimony and their responses to
our questions. I believe that Senator Nelson is on his way here
to introduce one of our nominees.
Chairman Warner. That is correct.
Senator Levin. Also, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka has to
leave fairly shortly. If we could take him out of order at the
appropriate time so he can ask his questions. I would
appreciate it.
Chairman Warner. We certainly will. Senator Inhofe, do you
have an opening statement?
Senator Inhofe. No, thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator Pryor, would you like to say a few
words?
Senator Pryor. No, thank you.
Chairman Warner. First, I would like to ask some standard
questions. Each of the witnesses has been asked the standard
questions propounded by this committe for some years, although,
in consultation with Mr. Levin, I think we quite properly
modified one of the questions, so we are going to change that
question, I wish to advise my colleagues. So I am going to ask
these questions, and if you will, acknowledge the answers. I
want them formally put in the record.
Have each of you adhered to the applicable laws and
regulations governing conflicts of interest?
Ms. Jonas. Yes.
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Paul. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Good. Thank you. Have you assumed any
duties or undertaken any actions which would appear to presume
the outcome of the confirmation process?
Ms. Jonas. No.
Mr. Aviles. No, sir.
Mr. Paul. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with the deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record in hearings?
Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Paul. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate and provide any
witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Paul. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses that you provide for
this committee be protected from reprisal for their testimony
before Congress?
Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Paul. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Do you agree, when asked before
any duly constituted committee of Congress, to give your
personal views even if those views were different from the
administration in power?
Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir. I would need to modify that slightly.
As an administration official, to the extent that my personal
views would differ from those of the President, I do not
believe that it would be appropriate for me to continue to
serve in that administration.
Chairman Warner. Well then, you would make that known prior
to coming before Congress?
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir. I understand that this is a standard
question for military officers, and the only appropriate
response from a military officer is yes. But as an
administration official, my personal views should be consistent
with the administration, or I should resign my position in the
administration.
Senator Levin. That's a pretty high standard you are
setting for yourself.
Chairman Warner. Very high, yes.
Senator Levin. Everybody has personal views from time to
time and may differ on some----
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir. I guess, Senator Levin, where I'm
going with that is that we have a longstanding tradition of a
military officer providing his personal views, his personal
professional opinion when solicited by the committee. There are
times in any administration when you would be expected to
represent the administration position above your own personal
views.
Chairman Warner. Well I see your point, and we will reflect
on it. Senator Levin and I have been here on this committee now
for 25 years and this is the first time----
Senator Levin. Can I ask the chairman to yield just on that
point?
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Senator Levin. That has been an issue which the chairman
and I have discussed as to whether this question indeed should
be asked of political appointees of the administration. I
admire you, Mr. Aviles, for your response, and I would think we
should continue our dialogue as to whether this particular
question is an appropriate one for political appointees. I
think you've dramatized and symbolized why that discussion
between the chairman and myself should continue. It does create
a problem for political appointees, I think we should take his
answer with respect.
Senator Inhofe. Can you ask the question one more time?
Chairman Warner. No, I think we've got it pretty well in
mind.
Senator Inhofe. No, I mean ask the question that they are
responding to if you don't mind.
Chairman Warner. Well I think each of them have responded
to it. I think the record is clear.
Senator Inhofe. No, that's not my point, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. What is your point? Kindly speak into the
mike.
Senator Inhofe. For my benefit, would you re-ask the
questions they are responding to?
Chairman Warner. All right.
Senator Inhofe. Never mind. Here it is. Okay.
Chairman Warner. 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?
Your response, Mr. Aviles, was duly noted. In my judgment, I do
not think it will impair in any way the review of the committee
of your qualifications to the office to which you've been
designated by the President. We will reflect on it further.
Mr. Aviles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I have one more question. We also have
added, Mr. Inhofe, this question. You might want to read it. I
wrote it last night. We have to review these situations on an
ad hoc basis. The final question is as follows: 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 issues that
arise in providing such document?
Now we have before us the Supreme Court case which is going
to look into some matters regarding executive privilege. This
is a subject that is being discussed widely here in Congress.
Our committee has several requests from the Department of
Defense. Senator Levin and I have been working on those
requests. I think at this point in time I will repeat the
question so that each of you understands it, and then hopefully
you can acknowledge that you will do as the question requests.
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 issues that arise in providing such documents?
Ms. Jonas. Senator, I would certainly do what I could to
cooperate fully with the committee.
Chairman Warner. Correct.
Ms. Jonas. Yes.
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir, to the best of my ability.
Chairman Warner. Fine.
Mr. Paul. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Good.
Senator Levin. Let me commend the chairman if I could for
the drafting of the question. It's an important issue in terms
of legislative/executive relations. There's a provision here
for good faith problems that exist. There's an executive
privilege that the President may want to assert, and that's his
right. But subject to that kind of an exception, I think any
committee of Congress would expect the documents that are
requested would be provided.
We appreciate their three answers, and I also appreciate
the chairman's taking on this task of phrasing a question in
this way, trying to protect the rights of the legislative
branch but in a way which also protects the executive privilege
assertion if the President seeks to make it.
Chairman Warner. All right. Thank you very much. We will
now receive any opening statements that the witnesses wish to
make. Ms. Jonas?
Ms. Jonas. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the
committee.
Chairman Warner. Oh, excuse me. I beg your pardon. Senator
Nelson, you wish to make an introduction, and also I think
Senator Akaka desires to ask a question or two because he has
to depart.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Senator Levin, for giving me this opportunity. I want to
add my welcome to the witnesses, also to the families and
friends of our witnesses who are here today, and it's good to
have young members of the families here with us this morning.
I have one question for Ms. Jonas. I want to thank you very
much for visiting with me and also Mr. Aviles. I'm wondering
Ms. Jonas about some of the technical aspects of the budgeting
process. Specifically, can you tell me what the impact is of
having a program or initiative in operation and maintenance
accounts that does not have a specific program element or other
funding mechanisms?
As I understand it, if funding for a particular program or
initiative is instead embedded in the Services own budgets, it
becomes extremely difficult to track. It's hard to tell how
much money is actually allocated for that initiative, what has
been spent, and what is programmed to be spent in the future.
My question to you is, is that the case as you understand it?
Ms. Jonas. Well, Senator, I've been away from the
Department almost a couple of years, so I'm not sure what their
current practice is. But I would certainly, should I be
confirmed, make sure there is transparency and clarity with the
purpose for which funds have been provided by Congress.
Senator Akaka. I thank you very much for your response. I
have for a number of years tried to get the Department to focus
on the critical issue of corrosion prevention and the need to
centralize corrosion policy oversight and information sharing
among all the many elements of the services that address pieces
of this issue.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003, we created an office responsible for this oversight, and
the new Office of Corrosion Policy has since been established.
As I understand it, however, the Office of the Comptroller has
resisted the Office's attempts to become institutionalized and
has rejected efforts to establish a clear consistent out-year
funding stream. I think this is inconsistent with the intent of
the law and the wrong message to send. It has been well
demonstrated that corrosion prevention can result not only in
significant cost avoidance, but also increase revenues and
lessen maintenance work for our service men and women.
I want to express my disappointment with the comptroller's
position on this issue. I intend to take action--in this year's
authorization act to ensure the DOD is fully compliant with the
letter and intent of our 2003 legislation. I want to ask you,
Ms. Jonas, to look into this issue specifically when you return
to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). I wish you
well, and you certainly have my support. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Jonas. Thank you, Senator. I will look into it.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Warner. Senator Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you for the courtesy of letting
me introduce a fellow Floridian, Jerry Paul.
Chairman Warner. Who has a very impressive record of
accomplishment, I note.
Senator Bill Nelson. Indeed. I will chronicle that in just
a moment. He clearly has the technical experience and the
background to make him well qualified for this position of
Principal Deputy Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration at DOE.
He has a very diverse background both in and outside of the
Navy, and that is a combination that suits this particular
position. Right now he serves in the Florida House of
Representatives, and he is well regarded as thoughtful and
capable. He is the only member of the Florida House right now
who simultaneously chairs two subcommittees. Because of his
naval and his nuclear background, Jerry is recognized for his
expertise in the Florida House of Representatives on public
security, focusing on those kind of policy issues having to do
with what the State looks at in critical infrastructure on
nuclear power plants, pipelines, electric grid systems, and
seaports, which is something that we have talked about quite a
bit in this committee, and you've heard it from me ad nauseam
because of Florida having 14 deep water seaports.
Well, it's my understanding that you have already
introduced the family; his wife Kristy, his mother and father,
Tom and Patricia, his sisters from Ohio and Texas, and his
brother from Ohio. So, Mr. Chairman it's been a pleasure for me
to come and bring to you a fellow Floridian. I think he's going
to be an outstanding public servant as Principal Deputy
Administrator. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I had the privilege of
meeting the nominee yesterday and, this morning, his lovely
wife. I must say as a citizen of the country, I am very
grateful to him and his family for giving up all they have in
Florida to come up here and to serve. So we take note of that.
Mr. Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you for joining us this morning,
Senator Nelson. You bring to this committee a number of wide
dimensions of thought and experience yourself, and your
humility most of the time conceals it, but not all the time.
Now, Ms. Jonas.
STATEMENT OF TINA WESTBY JONAS, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
Ms. Jonas. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the
committee, it is an honor to come before you as President
Bush's nominee to become Under Secretary of Defense,
Comptroller, and Chief Financial Officer of the Department of
Defense. I thank President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld for
their confidence in me. I also appreciate the opportunity to
present myself to the Committee and to address your questions
and concerns.
I do have a little bit more of a statement, I'd like to
submit that for the record, if you don't mind.
Chairman Warner. We will put it into the record.
Ms. Jonas. I have already had the pleasure of introducing
my family, so I just want to thank the committee for the
opportunity to appear this morning.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jonas follows:]
Prepared Statement by Tina Jonas
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the committee, it is an
honor to come before you as President Bush's nominee to become Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer of the
Department of Defense (DOD). I thank President Bush and Secretary
Rumsfeld for their confidence in me. I also appreciate this opportunity
to present myself before the committee and to address your questions
and concerns.
I am very aware of the importance of the responsibilities that I am
nominated to undertake. Fulfilling these budget and financial
management responsibilities requires a strong leadership team and
staff. I am honored to be nominated to head the Comptroller and Chief
Financial Officer staffs, and to lead them at this critical time for
America's defense establishment.
If confirmed as the Comptroller of the Department of Defense, I
will do everything possible to get our military men and women the
resources they need to fulfill the difficult missions assigned to them.
This requires rigorous priority-setting among competing military
requirements. The Department must sustain a strong process to identify
the requirements most needed for its military strategy and to develop
programs to meet those requirements. We must articulate and justify
these military requirements to Congress and cooperate fully to make the
wisest possible allocation of limited budget dollars.
Regarding Chief Financial Officer responsibilities, if confirmed I
will work hard to improve DOD financial management and keep the
Department on track to achieve a clean audit opinion on its financial
statements. I also will work to meet the goals of the DOD business
management overhaul that Secretary Rumsfeld has launched. I agree with
the Secretary that comprehensive reform is needed to overcome the
Department's decades-old legacy of stove-piped, incompatible business
management systems.
In closing, I again want to thank President Bush and Secretary
Rumsfeld for this honor. If confirmed I will do my utmost to fulfill
the trust and confidence placed in me.
I especially want to thank my husband, David, who is with me today.
David served honorably in the United States Marine Corps and retired in
2001. I am deeply grateful for his love and support.
This is a critical time for the Department of Defense and our
Nation. I hope I will have the opportunity to work with the
Department's leadership team and Congress in our common goal of
securing America's future and supporting the men and women of our Armed
Forces. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Mr. Aviles.
STATEMENT OF DIONEL M. AVILES, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY
Mr. Aviles. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the
committee, I'd also like to state what a personal privilege it
is to appear before you today as the President's nominee for
the position of Under Secretary of the Navy. I have a brief
opening statement, that, with your permission, I'd like to
submit for the record and then just make some short remarks.
Chairman Warner. Without objection.
Mr. Aviles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to
thanking the President for his confidence in me, I'd like to
thank Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Secretary of the Navy
England for their recommendation of me to the President for
this position. I would also like to thank my family, who were
introduced earlier, without whose understanding and support I
would not have been able to occupy the position I've had for
most of the last 3 years and appear before you today for
consideration for this position. I'd like to thank you for your
consideration and conclude my remarks there and stand ready to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aviles follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dionel M. Aviles
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, I am greatly honored to appear before
you as President Bush's nominee to be the next Under Secretary of the
Navy. I am grateful to the President, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary
England for the confidence that they have shown in me by nominating and
recommending me for this important position. If confirmed, I look
forward to working closely with the members of the committee and your
respective staffs to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the
Under Secretary of the Navy.
For most of the last 3 years it has been my privilege to serve with
Secretary England as the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management
and Comptroller. Under his leadership the Department of the Navy has
begun a transformation to become a more effective and efficient
enterprise. This transformation is all encompassing in breadth,
substantial in detail and critical to addressing the evolving threat
environment. This change is not confined to our combat forces. In
addition to fielding new and transformational capabilities and
operational concepts, we have begun to change how we conduct our
business operations. Secretary England, Admiral Clarke, and General
Hagee have fostered a culture that encourages people to challenge long
held assumptions about all aspects of our organization with the goal of
becoming more effective and driving out unnecessary costs with the goal
of reinvesting savings in enhancing combat capability.
Over the last 3 years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Financial Management and Comptroller I have worked with this committee
and other committees of Congress to properly resource the finest Navy
and Marine Corps the world has ever known. The tragic events of
September 11 and the subsequent global war on terrorism have focused
our efforts to ensure that our sailors and marines have what they need
to succeed in their mission. The successes they have had in this effort
would not have been possible without the support of Congress. Should I
be confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to
further support our marines and sailors. I thank you for your
consideration and ask for your support.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Mr. Paul.
STATEMENT OF JERALD S. PAUL, TO BE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Paul. Thank you. Good morning Mr. Chairman, Senator
Levin, members of the committee, I want to first thank you for
providing this opportunity to earn your advice and consent and
extend a sincere personal thank you, Senator Nelson, for that
very warm introduction.
It is an honor to be nominated by the President to serve as
the Principal Deputy Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration. As the chairman alluded to earlier,
and as this committee knows well, the NNSA was created by
Congress as a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of
Energy with the primary mission of strengthening the United
States' security through the military application of nuclear
energy and by the reduction of the threat of terrorism globally
and the spread and proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. If confirmed, I commit that I will dedicate a
tireless work ethic toward carrying out this key mission.
I fully recognize and accept the tremendous
responsibilities associated with the number two post over our
nuclear weapons complex, our Navy nuclear reactor program, and
our global nuclear nonproliferation programs. As a nuclear
engineer, an elected policymaker, an attorney, and a father, I
find no station in life where I can more passionately serve our
country than to help employ our understanding of the atom to
the safety and security of free people. As this committee knows
well, in these unique times, there is no task more critical to
future generations than nuclear security itself. I truly do
look at the programs of NNSA through the eyes of my children.
Finally, as a legislator let me state for the record that I
truly do understand your oversight role and the importance of
it to the very structure of a republic as well as the
accountability that comes with it that is its natural object. I
not only accept it and respect it, I welcome it, I embrace it,
and I look forward to working with you and your staff in a long
relationship that I believe will be marked by candor, openness,
and mutual respect.
It would truly be a great honor to earn your confidence and
support today. Thank you for your confidence and I look forward
to your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. I will proceed on the
first round of questions. I will lead off with Ms. Jonas. We
discussed yesterday the background and particularly your duties
in the Department of Defense Comptroller's office beforehand,
and I asked questions of you in the context of the possible
supplemental to be forwarded to Congress this year. It has been
the subject of a good deal of discussion. It would presumably,
and I say presumably, be up to the administration to put it
together, but presumably would cover the ongoing cost of the
level of activities that are taking place in both Afghanistan
and Iraq today, which require a higher tempo of operations
(OPTEMPO).
In the case of Iraq, it required the retention of certain
forces, approximately 20,000, which had heretofore been
scheduled to return, having completed their stipulated period
of time in Iraq. Understandably, you were very forthcoming in
saying to me that your previous responsibilities in that office
did not deal specifically with the supplements. Am I not
correct on that?
Ms. Jonas. That is correct, sir.
Chairman Warner. So at this point in time I would presume
you do not possess any particular knowledge with regard to the
status of the contemplated supplemental and whether it will be
forthcoming possibly some time this year or maybe even next
year.
Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Am I correct in that?
Ms. Jonas. That is correct, sir.
Chairman Warner. I just wanted to make that clear for the
record, and I accept those responses. I think that you just
have not had that experience, but you will soon learn about it.
Ms. Jonas. I've seen the public discussion on it, sir.
Chairman Warner. Because it's critically important to the
effort. It's extremely difficult in the budgeting process to
look forward, sometimes as far as 18 months, as to the OPTEMPO
of forward deployed forces particularly those engaged in actual
combat. You just can't anticipate with the certainty that is
necessary to put down in a normal presidential budget request
what is needed. So assuming you could do it and put out a
figure, then Congress would be highly critical of you if you
put the figure way up here and then the actual expenditures
were far less. So I support the process as it is today, and I
think we are going to continue it, and you will be very much
involved in the forthcoming supplemental.
Turning now to another subject, this committee has spent a
great deal of time on the question of leasing, particularly in
one instance, of aircraft. You would, if confirmed, serve as
the co-chair for the leasing review panel, a panel that reviews
significant lease proposals such as the one that was, but no
longer is, the 767 tanker lease proposal.
Could you expand on your prepared answers on this subject?
For example, describe what shortcomings you see in the leasing
review panel and explain how you would go about trying to
correct them in order to avoid problems that we have incurred,
say with the 767.
Ms. Jonas. Well, Senator, I'm aware of the issues. I'm not
familiar specifically with the operation of the leasing panel,
however, I believe that obviously it merits review, and I would
particularly pay attention to the issues of cost, balancing the
cost, doing the analysis on cost, and ensuring that whatever
proposals were put forward complied with all laws and
regulations.
Chairman Warner. I stress that because this has not been
one of the finer chapters in the history of the military
department. I am not here to pronounce judgment on the final
review of this 767 tanker situation, but we had testimony right
from the seat in which you currently occupy from the Inspector
General (IG) of the Department and his staff which was
extremely critical of how the leasing, and particularly the
review panel, handled this situation. I hope that you would not
in any way be reluctant to change the manner in which the
review panel does its business today to avoid such situations.
Would I be correct in that?
Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir. I would have to look at that, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Now, for Mr. Aviles, the fleet
response program is developed to allow the flexibility to surge
greater numbers of ships in time of crisis, and the central
theme being that the Navy would provide, ``presence and a
purpose,'' instead of the routine deployment cycles in the
past.
One of the advantages of the past system was that shipyards
and aircraft depots had a predictable deployment schedule from
which they could plan maintenance and availabilities. How will
this plan affect the ability of shipyards and aircraft depots
to anticipate such requirements and effectively accomplish
their mission?
Mr. Aviles. Mr. Chairman, under the fleet response plan it
is intended to provide a greater utilization of the assets that
we have particularly in times of crisis. The intent here would
be to build a new paradigm, if you will. Particularly carrier
battle groups followed a very set deployment pattern that was
very predictable over long periods of time. I can recall a time
when a serious discussion took place at this committee centered
around the inter-deployment training cycle, the so called
``readiness bathtub'' that returning forces would undergo. This
period of severely degraded readiness after which it took a lot
of time and money and training to get those forces back up on
the step to where they were ready to deploy again.
The intent of the fleet response plan is to mitigate that
readiness degradation, if you will, and we are paying very
close attention to the requirements for maintenance in this. In
some cases it's going to require more maintenance for certain
types of platforms that support this program. At least that's
what we anticipate. I know that the senior leadership of the
Navy is committed to work with the maintenance depots and
shipyards to ensure that we properly plan for the workload.
That is always a consideration with us in terms of work load
planning and management for those facilities in order to make
sure that they are operating efficiently. So, I'm confident
that we----
Chairman Warner. I'm encouraged by your response to that
question, because I know from considerable experience that
these yards have difficulty maintaining a constant skill level
of skilled employees in their yards because of the perturbation
in the schedules. So, to the extent that you can strike an even
balance there, I think it is going to be the better for the
Navy as well as the private sector.
I am quite interested in the Navy's new concept which has
been utilized in years past with the submarines. We had the
blue and gold crews, and now you're looking at surface vessels.
To what extent can you tell us about that program and it's
success?
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir. For the last couple of years the Navy
has been engaged in the Sea Swap program which forward-deploys
a ship into the theater where you would intend to operate it
and then rotates crews between that ship in order to avoid the
long transit times that are sometimes involved in moving forces
to and from their home ports to their operating areas.
In some cases, that transit time can be as long as 1 month
going each way. To the extent that we try to limit deployments,
except in special circumstances, to a 6-month period of time,
that results in effectively one-third of the time the ship is
not available for on-station deployment.
So the intent of these experiments was to find out if you
could do something innovative like this and still preserve the
readiness and material condition of the ship, and determine if
it would not degrade precipitously or suffer by that type of an
approach. It's one of the innovative concepts that Admiral
Clark is taking a look at in order to try and see if this makes
better sense and gets better utilization out of these assets.
Attendant with that is obviously you'd have to have more
crews per ship to support that effort.
Chairman Warner. Good. Well, I commend the Secretary and in
particular the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) on this, and I
hope it works because I think it has the potential for savings
of dollars and savings of time on station with individuals. I
intend to be very supportive as you move forward in this
program.
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Now, Mr. Paul, this question relates to a
subject that I've been working with for a very long time, and
that's the science-based Stockpile Stewardship and Management
Program, designed to use scientific tools to maintain the
existing nuclear weapons stockpile as reliable, safe, and
secure without the need to return to actual underground live
tests. You are quite familiar with the concept?
Mr. Paul. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I'm just going to ask the question, and I
caution you, unless you have a specific answer, that you wait,
until confirmed, getting into this. But I wanted to express my
concerns about it.
Congress has put an awful lot of money, taxpayers' money,
into this program. From time to time, it is rather
substantially questioned as to whether it is going to work. To
what extent have you had any opportunity to study this subject?
Mr. Paul. Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the Stockpile
Stewardship Program and its ongoing need as we certify the
reliability, safety, and security of that stockpile.
Chairman Warner. I think it's a laudable goal. I am not
suggesting that this Nation should not, for various reasons
relating to the international treaties, engage in the live
testing. I am not here pronouncing that that's not a wise thing
to do because the credibility of this stockpile is essential;
the safety of it is essential. People should pause to think
that these weapons are actually located in some instances in
their towns, villages, and cities, or in their proximity. We
have to know about safety, and particularly those who have
stepped forward and are willing to handle the weapons.
This Stockpile Stewardship Program is not complete yet. It
hasn't gotten to the point where it can do its job but I have
heard some disturbing reports of late about whether or not it
is going to be viable and so forth. I just ask you to say one
thing: You will look at this first thing if confirmed and if
you go to the Department. Is that correct?
Mr. Paul. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Early on, I would appreciate it if you
would offer yourself to come up to the committee when ready and
give us your own views on this.
Mr. Paul. I would welcome that opportunity.
Chairman Warner. I thank you very much.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Jonas, when
your predecessor, Dr. Zakheim's nomination, was before this
committee, he testified that, ``ad hoc supplementals
traditionally were employed to meet necessary but unforeseen
costs.'' He went on, ``It would be best to restrict
supplementals to this traditional model and provide funding for
ongoing operations, as much as possible, within the regular
budgeting process.''
Do you agree or disagree with Dr. Zakheim's statement about
that issue?
Ms. Jonas. Senator, I think that providing funds in an
annual budget to the extent that it's possible to predict, I
think that's a good thing.
Senator Levin. Now, the Senate budget resolution added $30
billion for the extra costs of Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal
year 2005. The House budget resolution adopted a larger number,
because they covered the whole year and our budget resolution
actually covered the additional costs for roughly the first 6
months.
We've had estimates from our military officers that the
approximate cost is $4 billion a month extra above the fiscal
year 2005 budget request. Do you personally support the Senate
budget resolution number for those extra costs? Do you know
what the administration position is on it?
Ms. Jonas. Sir, I'm not familiar with the administration's
position or the considerations that they might be taking into
account or the requirements that are being developed now by the
military. I would say that should I be confirmed, I would
obviously work very closely with Congress and with the military
to get them the resources they need when they need them.
Senator Levin. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we can
request the DOD to give us the answer to that question
promptly? I don't think we have the answer from the DOD yet on
this issue about whether or not they support the Senate add-on
in our fiscal year 2005 budget resolution of $30 billion for
the extra costs for Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not a
question for Ms. Jonas, but this is a question for the DOD. Can
we ask them for what their position is?
Senator Allard [presiding]. I'll have to check with the
chairman to be sure, but I don't see any problem with that.
Senator Levin. I didn't realize that he had to leave. I
would have asked him. Okay. Ms. Jonas, if the appropriation for
the extra costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is
delayed until several months into fiscal year 2005, the
Services are going to have to absorb, or what we call cash
flow, those expenses, which are currently running, as I
mentioned, at over $4 billion per month. In similar situations
in the past, the Services often have borrowed against their
fourth quarter or even their third quarter budgets, assuming
that a supplemental would pass at some point to make their
budgets whole again.
Now, the Army has to absorb most of these expenses in the
current situation, but this is also a problem for organizations
with smaller budgets and less room to absorb such costs--such
as the Marine Corps and the Special Operations Command. What
impact do you believe that cash flowing this level of
unbudgeted expenses would have on the Services' ability to
effectively manage their other worldwide responsibilities?
Ms. Jonas. Senator, I think it would require that I sit
down with the military Services to understand the impact. They
know best the impact. I can understand that they would have
concerns. I would have concerns. I think the only thing I can
say at this point is I'd be happy to, should I be confirmed,
sit down with them to understand the impact of this type of
budgeting.
Senator Levin. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
this is the way we should be doing business?
Ms. Jonas. Sir, I think it would preferable to have
sufficient funds available for them. I could understand that
that would cause us some hardship, but I don't have any
additional details, so I'd be reluctant to provide a formal
opinion on that right now. I'd be happy to provide it at some
later point.
Senator Levin. In your response to a pre-hearing policy
question, you stated that the first increment of the
Department's business system enterprise architecture would be
ready by the fall of 2004. The DOD originally promised to
deliver a completed enterprise architecture by no later than
the spring of 2003, and I believe you were at the Department
and participated in the formulation of that goal and its
initial implementation. Are you able to explain why it has
taken so much longer to develop that enterprise architecture
than the Department originally expected?
Ms. Jonas. Senator, I have been gone from the Department
for a couple of years now. I don't know precisely the
implementation that they are pursuing, but I'd be certainly
very glad to look into that and that would be one of the first
orders of business I do.
Senator Levin. Okay. Thank you. This committee has
consistently taken the position, supported by the General
Accounting Office (GAO), that the only appropriate way for the
Department to get a clean audit is to fix the business systems
that generate the underlying data, and any effort to address
the problem by simply adding audit resources without fixing the
underlying problems will, one, be extremely expensive; two,
lead to one-time results that can't be sustained on a long-term
basis; and three, even if it were by some chance to provide a
clean audit opinion, would not provide timely business
information that is needed for management purposes.
Now, you responded to our pre-hearing questions as follows:
That modernizing the Department's business systems is the only
long-term sustainable solution to its financial reporting
inadequacies, and that you, ``support the current complementary
measures that the Department is taking to obtain acceptable
financial statements by the year 2007.''
If new business systems are not available on time to meet
that 2007 goal and the only way that the Department can obtain
acceptable financial statements by that date is to spend a lot
of money throwing an army of auditors at the problem, what
then? What would you then do?
Ms. Jonas. Well, I tend to agree with the statement that
the business systems are really critical and key to getting to
clean audits. It is a very important goal, and it would be high
on my priority list. There may be some difficulty, as you
mention, with, ``throwing an army of auditors at it.'' I'd have
to look carefully at what Dr. Zakheim has proposed over the
last 2 years, and should I be confirmed, I would do that and
look at all practical means to get to a clean audit. I don't
agree with necessarily throwing a lot of money at the problem
if it's not the right way to go.
Senator Levin. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Thank you. I'm next, then we'll call on
Senator Pryor.
One of the things that I think is vitally important while
our men and women are actually being deployed is to not have
problems with their paycheck. There is a report that came out
in November of last year on National Guardsmen in which they
looked at 481 National Guardsmen and 450 had problems
associated with their pay. This hits home, particularly in
Colorado, because out of 62 members of the National Guard in
Colorado, all but one had problems with pay while they were
deployed.
So I'd like to have some assurance, Ms. Jonas, that you'll
get on top of this problem. It's a GAO report that pointed it
out, and see if we can't get these type of pay problems
corrected. If you have any ideas in how these can be corrected
currently, I'd like to hear them.
Ms. Jonas. Senator, I'm not familiar with all the details
of the problems at this point. I'd be very happy to look into
that. There's nothing more important than a paycheck for our
men and women in uniform.
Particularly with the Guard issues. I understand that there
are concerns, so I would very much be looking into that.
Senator Allard. Yes, I hope you take a close look at that
GAO report.
Ms. Jonas. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Allard. Maybe use some recommendations that they
had in there, and let's see if we can't get that problem
corrected. While we're discussing concerns, you might also
recall that we visited a little bit about credit card fraud. We
talked about this in some of our private conversations, but I
would just like to have you affirm here, in a public meeting,
just exactly what it is that you would like to do as far as
trying to deal with credit card fraud. If you have any ideas,
I'd like to hear them.
Ms. Jonas. Of course fraud of any type is unacceptable. I
know there were certain measures that were taken by the
Department to try to address that. I would work closely with
the IG's office and with our financial community including the
assistant secretaries for financial management in the Services,
to address these issues promptly.
Senator Allard. Thank you. Mr. Aviles, I have been a strong
proponent of missile defense systems and I do think the Navy
plays a key role in our missile defenses, specifically in
regard to the Aegis ships. Now, I also understand that the Navy
has the authority for experiments relating to missile defense
with the Standard Missile 2 and Block IV. I'm just curious to
know how the Navy is funding this requirement and if you could,
please elaborate on the testing of the SM-2 Block IV.
Mr. Aviles. Thank you, Senator. I cannot elaborate on the
testing for the SM-2 Block IV. With your permission I would
like to take that for the record.
Senator Allard. Okay.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Navy is planning to test a modified SM-2 Block IV missile
against an endo-atmospheric, ballistic missile-like target. The test
will attempt to determine if a SM-2 Block IV missile fired from an
Aegis equipped cruiser having a modified software program can provide a
limited terminal defense against short-range ballistic missiles.
Mr. Aviles. With respect to the funding issue, sir,
typically, based on the agreement between the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) and Navy, the expectation would be that some of
the developmental costs would be borne by the MDA and some of
the actual component acquisition cost then would principally be
borne by the Services. Not knowing the specifics of the SM-2
Block IV question with respect to what that looks like, I'll
commit to you, Senator, that I'll go back and take a look at
that, and with your permission would like to give you that
answer for the record. But my understanding of the arrangement
between MDA and Navy is that that's the way the cost sharing
normally works.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Navy is funding the SM-2 Block IV test. The Missile Defense
Agency is providing no funding for the test but is providing a target.
Senator Allard. One of the other areas that concerns me is
the safety of the ships and cruise missile defenses for our
ships and personnel ashore. Admiral Fargo, before this
committee, recently stressed the importance of cruise missile
defenses. Are we aggressive enough in pursuing a technological
response to this threat to Navy ships and personnel?
Mr. Aviles. Senator, I share your concerns about anti-ship
cruise missile threats. As a former surface warfare officer, I
know it's something you live with every day when you're out
aboard a ship in a threat environment. The proliferation of
advanced anti-ship cruise missile technology is troubling, and
the threat is growing.
It is a priority for the Department of the Navy, and you
will see improvements that we have programmed for, improvements
to the standard missile program to evolve that missile to
handle the more capable threats and to the Enhanced Sea Sparrow
Missile System, which will be outfitted for a closer-in
defensive system for our ships, as well as NULKA anti-ship
cruise missile decoys. A priority of Secretary England's is to
focus on the defensive aspects of this. We have a very good and
capable precision strike capability, as most people are aware
of, and we are also taking a hard look to make sure that we
balance our capability across both offensive capabilities and
defensive capabilities.
Senator Allard. Mr. Paul, I had an opportunity to visit all
our laboratories, I think it was last year or maybe the year
before that, and one of the things that struck me is that the
workforce is maturing and getting ready for retirement. I don't
see a lot of young people coming in with nuclear physicist
degrees and what not to sustain some of the programs like the
Stewardship Program that Senator Warner talked about and some
of our other nuclear technologies. It would be a shame to lose
that workforce without some sort of pass on. So I'm concerned
about losing some of the brain power and practical experience
that we have there.
Do you have any ideas about how we can bring in new talent
as far as our nuclear program is concerned?
Mr. Paul. It's an excellent point, Mr. Chairman. Succession
is an issue that I intend to focus on if confirmed. The average
age of our skilled workers within our nuclear weapons complex
now is at 48, 61 percent of whom are eligible for retirement by
2010. I think that the efficacy of any management team can, in
part, be measured by how well it deals with succession. This is
one of the issues that I've spoken about individually with each
of our site office managers and asked them where do they see
the next generation of skilled workers coming from for our
complex. It is an issue that is very important to me.
I think we're going to need to increase the resources that
we put into reaching out to academia and industry. We also need
a more focused accountable effort with respect to our managing
contractors to ensure that they are thinking about this and
thinking about where the next generation of skilled workers
within their side will come from as well.
Senator Allard. We just now talked about the personnel side
of it, and then there is also an aging issue as far as our
facilities and equipment is concerned. Can you share with the
committee your views on what we need to do to recapitalize our
nuclear weapons infrastructure?
Mr. Paul. Again, that's an issue that I'm going to focus
very heavily on, the Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program (FIRP) and reducing our backlog of
preventive maintenance. More than half of our entire complex is
over a half century old, and I think there was a recognition by
this committee that the backlog of maintenance was too great. I
think we are approaching by the end of fiscal year 2005 with
the administration's proposed budget to zero out that backlog.
It's going to be an issue that I'm going to have to focus on,
and I'm going to spend a lot of time asking each of our site
managers what their specific plan is for revitalizing and
recapitalizing the infrastructure and holding them accountable.
Senator Allard. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to follow-
up on the chairman's comment a few moments ago, Ms. Jonas, and
talk about this GAO report. It's GAO-04-89. It came out last
November, and it's on military pay. This is something that is
important to me personally because so many members of the
Arkansas National Guard are now activated. In fact, we've had
five killed in the last 3 or 4 days in and around Tajik and
Baghdad. I went down to Fort Hood, Texas, and Fort Polk,
Louisiana, and talked to our men and women in uniform. Some of
the things I came back with are very consistent with this
report. Let me just read a paragraph or so for you.
It says, ``The existing processes and controls used to
provide basic and special active-duty pays to mobilized Army
Guard personnel are so cumbersome and complex that the Army,
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and most
importantly, the mobilized Army Guard soldiers cannot be
reasonably assured of timely and accurate payroll payments.
Weaknesses in the current processes and controls resulted in a
substantial number of over and under payments and late active-
duty payments to mobilized Army Guard personnel in our case
study units.''
``For example,'' and Senator Allard pointed this out:
``Four hundred and fifty of the 481 soldiers from our 6 case
study units had at least one pay problem associated with their
mobilization, so 450 out of 481 had at least one pay problem.
These pay problems severely constrain the Army's and the
Department of Defense's ability to provide a most basic service
to these personnel many of whom were risking their lives in
combat. In addition, resulting inaccurate, late, and/or missing
pays and associated erroneous debts also had a profound
financial impact on the individual soldiers and their families.
Soldiers and their families were required to spend considerable
time, sometimes while the soldiers were deployed in remote
combat environments overseas, continually addressing concerns
over their pay and allowances.''
I could go on and on with this, but I think we all agree
that this is a real problem. It's a real life problem for our
Guard and Reserve soldiers. As we know we're relying on them
very heavily right now. So I hope that as you go into the DOD
that you will not just address the problem and be aware of it,
but really try to be a problem solver. I think when you have a
large agency like this, you have a very complex problem. I
think this is something that's evolved over time, but I'm sure
there's a lot of inertia.
So I want to encourage you to be a problem solver with it,
and get in there and really try to get to the bottom of this
and make it right. Unfortunately, for our guys in the Guard in
Arkansas, the 39th Infantry Brigade that is already over there,
they've kind of gone through a lot of these hiccups and had
problems and issues, but let's try to get it right for future
soldiers.
Ms. Jonas. Absolutely, Senator. I would be happy to look
into that. Should I be confirmed, that will be a first priority
for me.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.
Senator Allard. Okay. We will start another round of
questioning then. I'll start that off and then we'll go to
Senator Levin. I want to get back to the DOE. Mr. Paul, the
DOE's Environmental Management Office (EM) is going to go out
of business. That's the plan, and I'm concerned that NNSA does
not have sufficient budget resources in the future for the
clean-up of it's facilities. If confirmed, can you assure me
that you will work to ensure sufficient resources are allocated
for the clean-up of NNSA facilities?
Mr. Paul. Yes, Senator, I'm generally familiar with the
transfer from EM to NNSA of some of that activity, both as to
the ongoing and then later discussions with EM, regarding the
legacy waste. That is an issue that I assure you I will focus
on.
Senator Allard. One other question on the DOE is the
National Ignition Facility. It's one of the things that has
been somewhat controversial. In your view, is the National
Ignition Facility that important to the Stockpile Stewardship
Program?
Mr. Paul. I believe that it is, Senator Allard. I know of
no other technical mechanism that can be employed to
approximate the temperature, pressure, and radiological fields
that exist both at the center of a star and at the center of an
implosion. I believe that the ultimately built-out 192-beam
facility will create the environment that is necessary to the
Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Senator Allard. Now the fissile material disposition
program aims to dispose of surplus weapons grade fissile
material both in the United States and Russia. There have been
delays because of some inability to reach an agreement with the
Russians on liability to the U.S. contractors. What is the
prospect for a near term resolution of the liability issue? If
it's not resolved this year, what will be the impact on this
program?
Mr. Paul. Let me break that down into a couple of sub-parts
if I may, Senator Allard, with your indulgence.
Senator Allard. Yes, if you would.
Mr. Paul. First, the prospect of resolving the liability
issue. As I understand it, there are ongoing discussions at the
highest level at the Department of State to try to resolve the
liability concerns with our Russian counterparts. I believe we
are making good progress, and I don't think it would be
appropriate for me to comment further on a specific resolution
on that, but I think there is progress.
The next question, what is the impact on the fissile
disposition program? There is a commitment to dispose of the 34
metric tons of plutonium both here and the 34 metric tons in
Russia. Of course, the disposal of the 34 metric tons here is
indeed an incentive, a driver, for the disposition of the 34
metric tons in Russia. I do believe, however, that there is a
commitment to remove the 34 metric tons from the existing site.
Senator Allard. Mr. Paul, there is a whole maze of nuclear
programs. We've tapped on a few of them here in our questioning
both from Senator Warner and myself. We need to make sure that
we ensure the reliability, safety, and security of our nuclear
weapons stockpile. Now, I'm just curious, what experience do
you bring to the position of Principal Deputy Administrator
that has prepared you to help manage such a complex program?
Mr. Paul. Senator Allard, we have not engaged, in this
country, in testing since September 23, 1992. So, we have as a
backdrop for ensuring our safety, security, and reliability, a
science-based judgment system, an extrapolation, if you will,
using complex diagnostic tools most of which are inherent
within the nuclear science field, which is my background as a
nuclear engineer both in academia and in practice. As a reactor
engineer in nuclear power plants and as somebody who has
handled programs and managed programs relating to spent nuclear
fuel and the same type of isotopes in the actinide series that
we deal with at each of our facilities within the nuclear
weapons complex, the physics is the same. Of course, within our
complex, we have available some diagnostic tools that the
civilian nuclear side does not necessarily have, but there is a
significant amount of interface.
Senator Allard. This question is for Mr. Aviles. In your
answers to advance questions, you stated that the CNO has said
that the requirement of 375 ships is not a precise number, and
you also state that you support the Seapower 21 Vision. Now,
the 375 ship requirement was a derivative from the 37
independent strike groups briefed to committee members, and
this was just over 16 months ago. My question is, how has the
Seapower 21 Vision changed so as to alter the number of ships?
How many ships are envisioned by the current budget request in
future year defense programs?
Mr. Aviles. Senator, the 375 number that has been used is a
goal, and it is consistent with the 37 independent strike
groups as you've indicated. Where I'm focusing is on the
precision of that number as we look at different ship classes
and capabilities of ships and other things that we are
studying, such as, the joint forcible entry study and seabasing
concepts. That number may go up; it may go down. The intent of
my comment was just to suggest that that is not a static, fixed
target that will forever be written in stone at 375 ships. In
addition to the joint forcible entry study, there is going to
be an undersea warfare study that's been undertaken by the
Joint Staff as part of our programming and budgeting process as
we go forward.
So my simple point there was that there's no bumper sticker
number that's appropriate. To the extent that Seapower 21 still
envisions 37 independent strike groups, I believe that number
is about right, but I can't say with absolute certitude that
it's precisely 375 ships.
Senator Allard. Okay. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Jonas there has
been a lot of attention in the press in the last few days to
the question of whether or not the administration kept Congress
informed, as required, about the use of emergency funding
provided after the September 11, 2001, attack. I think you've
indicated that what you know comes from your reading of the
press.
Immediately after that attack, we appropriated the first
$20 billion. The first $10 billion of those required the
President to consult with the chairman and ranking members of
the Appropriations Committees. Senator Byrd and Representative
Obey, who were at the time the chairman and the ranking member
of the Senate and the House Appropriation Committees'
respectively, wrote the President yesterday saying that they
were unaware of any such consultations.
There were also, as part of that same emergency
appropriation, requirements that the second $10 billion be
provided 15 days after notification to the Appropriations
Committees as to how the funds would be used. There is another
provision in the law which requires quarterly reports relative
to the expenditure of those funds.
Now I'm wondering whether you have any comment about this
matter other than the fact that you've read about it in the
paper? I mean are you familiar, for instance, with the law?
Ms. Jonas. Senator, what I would say is that I think it's
important, and I understand having worked in Congress, and
worked with the Appropriations and Authorization Committees,
that it's very important that they receive clear documentation
and understand clearly what the requirements are and how the
Department would intend to use those funds. So I appreciate the
concerns of Congress in this matter. I don't have any details
with respect to the particular expenditure of those funds, but
I'm very keenly aware and believe in following the intent of
the law that's passed by Congress.
Senator Levin. Well, thank you for that, and I don't know
if there's a DOD representative here. But I would think this
committee, in addition to the request that went out from
Senator Byrd and Mr. Obey on this matter, since it is the
expenditure of defense funds we're talking about here, should
be notified as to whether or not the law that required
consultation notification, and quarterly reports, depending on
which part of the $20 billion we're talking about, that this
committee also be informed as to whether or not those
requirements of that law were complied with. Is there a
representative of the DOD here today, by the way?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Okay, good. I didn't see you sitting back
there. Perhaps you could pass that along then.
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir, I will.
Senator Levin. Thanks. Ms. Jonas on the incremental funding
issue, I believe the chairman had talked to you about this
issue briefly, and I'm wondering whether you have any general
feelings about the use of incremental funding. We have a board
that I think you will chair that looks at proposals to deviate
from the usual assumption against incremental funding. Do you
have any particular feelings about the use of incremental
funding?
Ms. Jonas. Well, Senator, I think the regulation and the
practice of the Department is to try to hold to the discipline
of full funding, I understand that there are times when other
considerations could be taken into account. I'd have to look
into that a little bit further with respect to some of the
programs that I know that Congress is interested in proposing
with respect to incremental funding.
Senator Levin. Do you share the assumption that we should
avoid incremental funding where we can?
Ms. Jonas. I think, sir, it's a good practice in general.
Senator Levin. Okay. Mr. Aviles, the littoral combat ship
is the subject of my question here. In the pre-hearing
question, the committee asked you about the Navy analysis that
led to the decision to buy the littoral combat ship, the LCS.
You said in your response, ``That analysis was performed to
evaluate material and non-material approaches to closing the
capability gaps.'' It's clear that the Navy has spent a lot of
effort analyzing how well an LCS might perform some of these
missions. However, neither the committee nor the Congressional
Research Service has been able to find any evidence that the
Navy fairly evaluated other alternatives before deciding to
proceed with LCS development.
Can you describe for us the ``material and non-material
alternatives,'' that you believe the Navy analyzed in coming to
the conclusion that the LCS is the best modernization effort to
implement the Navy's vision of future maritime operations?
Mr. Aviles. Sir, with reference to the term ``material and
non-material capabilities gaps,'' the expression there is
whether or not you needed to focus on a hardware solution or an
operational, perhaps a procedural, solution to address issues
such as shallow water mine warfare, shallow water antisubmarine
warfare (ASW) challenges that confront the force. With your
permission, sir, I'd like to get back to you on the specifics
with respect to analysis, because I can't speak to the
specifics in that analysis.
[The information referred to follows:]
The LCS program completed a tailored analysis of alternatives (AoA)
approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The tailored AoA
evaluated material and non-material solutions to mitigate the gaps in
the littorals. Non-material solutions included an analysis of the
capabilities of existing force structure including space-based sensors,
aviation platforms, surface combatants, submarines, and combinations of
the stated platforms. Other non-material options examined were changes
in Doctrine, Organization, Training, Management, Leadership and
Education, Personnel and Facilities (DOTMLPF).
Material alternatives evaluated included non-surface combatant
solutions with an emphasis on Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) in ASW, a
non-surface combatant solution with emphasis on submarines in ASW, a
DDG hull with three mission packages (MIW, ASW, and SUW), and LCS. Each
alternative was evaluated for desired capability, affordability,
technology risk, and supportability.
The Littoral Combat Ship, tailored for MIW, SUW, and ASW missions,
was determined to be the best approach for closing the capability gaps.
Senator Levin. Okay. Thank you. My time is up. Should I
just finish? I have one other question.
Senator Allard. Okay. You just have one or two questions?
Senator Levin. Yes.
Senator Allard. Why don't you finish up. I have one
question and we can adjourn the committee.
Senator Levin. Either way.
Senator Allard. No, go ahead and finish up that one
question and then we'll wrap it up.
Senator Levin. Mr. Paul, the position for which you're
nominated is a new position, created at the request of the
NNSA. At the time it was created, the NNSA Administrator wanted
the principal deputy to serve as a chief operating officer.
Currently there is a position of chief operating officer in the
NNSA. So how do you see the respective roles of the chief
operating officer and the principal deputy administrator?
Mr. Paul. Senator, my role as principal deputy would be to
work directly with the Administrator and in his stead when he
is not able to act. I will primarily work directly out in the
field as the front line supervisor for each one of our site
office managers as well as the front line supervisor for each
of the managers within the headquarters. The chief operating
officer will support me in those duties.
Senator Levin. Okay. Just one additional question on
project management. The DOE and NNSA have a history of
difficulty managing complex construction projects. As a result,
most projects have been over budget and behind schedule.
Several years ago the DOE and NNSA created project management
offices, but both are understaffed and underfunded. A committee
of the National Research Council branch of the National Academy
of Science has recently completed the third in a series of
three annual reports on DOE and NNSA project management. While
there is a series of findings and recommendations there are two
that I just want to highlight for you.
The first deals with people, and the second deals with
management attention. First, the report states that the DOE has
expended considerable effort developing a project management
career development program, but the report also says that,
``Whether the program will be funded and fully implemented
remains uncertain and in spite of the expense and complexity of
its projects, DOE invests little in human resource development
for project management compared with the efforts of other
Federal agencies or private corporations.''
So my first question is whether or not you would work to
ensure that the NNSA invests in project managers?
Mr. Paul. Yes, Senator, I will. I appreciate you raising my
attention to that issue. I will review the reports.
Senator Levin. Then the reports says that the committee can
offer little assistance that the improvements will be permanent
and goes on to find that, ``the advances in DOE project
management are fragile, and that the legacy DOE culture is
strong. Senior management attention and actions are essential
if past improvements are to be made permanent and ingrained in
the organization.''
If confirmed, Mr. Paul, would you provide strong and
consistent attention to project management, and would you
report back to us in 3 months on the progress that you made in
improving project management and developing project managers?
Mr. Paul. I will, sir.
Senator Levin. Thank you. I think that's it. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Senator Levin. I have just a
couple of questions, and one has to do with sexual assault. The
policy of this committee is zero tolerance as far as sexual
assault is concerned. We have continually, aggressively pushed
oversight on this particular issue as it applies to the
Secretaries of each one of the branches as well as the
Secretary of Defense. Mr. Aviles, please state for this
committee your intent with respect to reviewing and taking
action upon each reported instance of sexual assault in the
Navy and the Marine Corps.
Mr. Aviles. Senator, the Navy and Marine Corps have a zero
tolerance policy with respect to sexual assault. It is
intolerable that such activity goes on in a military
organization. However, the Navy and Marine Corps have both
taken aggressive actions with both the sexual assault victims
intervention program for the Navy and the victims advocacy
program for the Marine Corps to provide a reporting mechanism
for victims to ensure that victims are not subsequently harmed
either professionally or personally and to ensure that we
aggressively go after cases of alleged sexual assault.
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) is the
principal investigative body for all reported incidents of that
activity in the Department. The NCIS reports directly to the
senior leadership of the Secretary on all matters, and
obviously has the very close personal attention of the
Secretary. I would expect, should I be confirmed, that I would
play an active role in supervising the disposition of cases.
Senator Allard. And you support that policy?
Mr. Aviles. Absolutely, sir. I believe it needs the highest
attention within the Department. Having said that, I don't want
to give the impression that the Secretary would in any way try
to influence unfairly any sort of criminal proceedings that
might be brought against----
Senator Allard. Well, I don't think anybody expects that.
We just want to make sure that due process applies.
Mr. Aviles. Due process must be respected, but by the same
token this is something that the Secretary sent the message out
loud and clear that he will not tolerate and that is the only
appropriate response.
Senator Allard. Very good. That wraps up questions for me,
and I think that takes care as far as the committee is
concerned. I have always been a strong proponent of the idea of
the Government Results and Progress Act (GRPA), and where we
evaluate it. I just would hope that each one of you would do
your best to make sure that those provisions are implemented
under your supervision. I think that's key. I think we're only
about 60 percent there as far as meeting the requirements of
that particular act, and it's something that I continually
push. It's a personal thing with me, but I think it's important
for accountability. I think the President needs it. I think
this committee needs it. I think appropriators and budget
committee all need to have this report that comes out of the
GRPA.
So I just would like to have all of you commit to this
committee that you're going to do what you can to move that
issue forward, and I think that's important.
Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Paul. Yes.
Senator Allard. Okay. Thank you. That completes all our
questions. I want to thank all of you for taking the time to be
here today. We want to thank you personally for your service
and willingness to step forward in these new positions, and we
look forward to working with you. Thank you very much. I
declare the committee adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Tina Westby Jonas 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.
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 (DOD).
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes. Establishing the combatant commands, specifying
responsibilities, and focusing on ``jointness'' have enhanced the
readiness and warfighting capabilities of U.S. Armed Forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have strengthened the role of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, and have made
joint operations the norm. They have helped to improve the interaction
among the services in conducting military operations. These reforms
have significantly improved the ability of the Department to protect
America's security and further its vital interests.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I would consider each of the goals noted above to be an
important aspect of these defense reforms. Probably the most important
outcome of these reforms has been a more intense focus on joint
operations and joint requirements. If confirmed, I would work to help
Secretary Rumsfeld increase the emphasis on joint requirements during
the Department of Defense's new 2-year internal budget cycle.
relationships
Question. What do you see as the relationship between the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and each of the following?
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is the
principal assistant and advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary
of Defense on fiscal and budgetary matters. The Under Secretary
(Comptroller) also performs such other duties as the Secretary or
Deputy Secretary may prescribe.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Please see the answer to A above.
Question. The other Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. My relationship with all other senior officials of the
Department will, for the most part, be based on the role described
above. If confirmed, I will work closely with the other Under
Secretaries to carry out the policies and guidance of the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. My relationship with the Assistant Secretaries of Defense
and other senior officials of the Office of the Secretary of Defense
would be similar to that described above in relation to the other Under
Secretaries of Defense.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal
military advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and
the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with
the Chairman and Joint Staff on resource and financial management
issues.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The Secretaries of the Military Departments carry out the
policies of the President and the Secretary of Defense in their
respective Military Departments and formulate recommendations to the
Secretary and to the Congress relating to their Military Departments
and the Department of Defense. If confirmed, I intend to work closely
with the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and specifically,
their Assistant Secretaries for Financial Management. I will ensure
that they are aware of the President's and the Secretary of Defense's
policies and priorities and assist them in contributing to the
successful development and implementation of effective DOD policies and
programs.
Question. The heads of the defense agencies.
Answer. As the Department's Comptroller and Chief Financial
Officer, I will, if confirmed, work closely with the heads of the
defense agencies, and specifically, with our financial management
counterparts in those agencies. I will ensure that they are aware of
the President's and the Secretary of Defense's policies and priorities
and assist them in contributing to the successful development and
implementation of effective DOD policies and programs.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries for Financial Management of the
Services.
Answer. In the role of Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer for
the Department, I will, if confirmed, work closely with the Assistant
Secretaries of the Military Departments for Financial Management in the
development and execution of the budgetary and fiscal policies and
initiatives of the President and the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The General Counsel.
Answer. As the Department's Comptroller and Chief Financial
Officer, I will, if confirmed, rely on the General Counsel, who is the
Chief Legal Officer of the Department of Defense, on all legal matters,
and will consult and coordinate with the General Counsel on all matters
relating to programs, projects, and activities of Department of
Defense, as well as matters relating to financial management,
accounting policy and systems, management control systems, and contract
audit administration, that may have legal implications.
Question. The Inspector General.
Answer. As the Department's Comptroller and Chief Financial
Officer, I will, if confirmed, consider it my responsibility to support
the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) in carrying out his
or her duties as set forth in the Inspector General Act.
Question. The Director, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation.
Answer. As the Department's Comptroller and Chief Financial
Officer, I will, if confirmed, consider it my responsibility to support
the Director of the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) in
fulfilling his or her role of providing independent assessments for
acquisition systems. I will also work with the Director of PA&E to
ensure the success of the combined program/budget review.
duties of the comptroller
Question. The duties of the Comptroller of the Department of
Defense are set forth in section 135 of title 10, United States Code,
and in DOD Directive 5118.3. Among the duties prescribed in statute are
advising and assisting the Secretary of Defense in supervising and
directing the preparation of budget estimates of the Department of
Defense, establishing and supervising Department of Defense accounting
policies, and supervising the expenditure of Department of Defense
funds.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that
Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. I expect that he will charge me with duties that are
consistent with the statute.
This would include developing budget estimates that properly
support our military forces.
In addition, I believe that he will expect the Comptroller's office
to closely monitor the execution of funds to ensure that they are used
effectively, efficiently and in a manner consistent with legislative
requirements.
With respect to financial management, he will want me to continue
the progress the Department has made toward meeting its business
management modernization goals and ensure compliance with the
provisions of the Chief Information Officers Act and other relevant
legislative requirements.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform the duties of the Comptroller?
Answer. My previous assignments in the Department of Defense, on
the House Appropriations Committee, in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and most recently as Chief Financial Officer for the FBI
have required daily and extensive involvement in budget and financial
management issues.
I have led and managed offices with responsibilities similar to
those in the Comptroller organization.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. Through my previous assignments I have had extensive
experience with a wide range of the Department's budgeting and
financial management activities, which will enable me to successfully
carry out my duties as the Comptroller, if confirmed.
Question. Do you expect Secretary Rumsfeld to make any changes in
the duties of the Comptroller as set out in DOD Directive 5118.3?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to discuss such matters with
Secretary Rumsfeld. Therefore, it would be premature to offer any
thoughts on the question at this time.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial
Officer?
Answer. I believe that there are two primary challenges confronting
the next Comptroller:
First, the Comptroller must prepare and manage a
budget that supports the welfare and morale of our men and
women in uniform; finances the operational requirements
necessary to fight and win the global war on terrorism; and
supports the continued transformation of the Department's
forces and weapons systems.
Second, the Comptroller must continue the progress
made to modernize our business systems and meet the goals set
by the Secretary of Defense, particularly to reform the
Department's financial management systems.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Joint Staff, the
Services, and senior members of the Department, OMB, and Congress to
address the resource requirements of the military. Also, if confirmed,
I will move aggressively to meet the goals for the modernization of our
business systems.
authorization for national defense programs
Question. Do you believe that an authorization pursuant to section
114 of title 10, U.S. Code, is necessary before funds for operations
and maintenance, procurement, research and development, and military
construction may be made available for obligation by the Department of
Defense?
Answer. I understand that it has been the Department's practice to
work with all the oversight committees to resolve these matters. If
confirmed, I will respect the prerogatives of the Department's
oversight committees and will work closely with the committees to
achieve a consensus necessary to meet our defense needs.
supplemental funding for military operations
Question. At what point, if any, do you believe it will be
appropriate to include funding for military operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq in the Department's annual budget requests?
Answer. There are many factors that need to be considered in such a
decision, including the views of Congress. If confirmed, I will
carefully consider all these factors as we develop budgets to meet our
defense requirements.
Question. In your view, will the Services have sufficient funding
to cover current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the current
calendar year?
Answer. I do not know the precise status of funds and therefore
cannot make a judgment at this time. If confirmed, I will work closely
with the Services to assist in providing sufficient funding to meet the
operational requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan through the remainder
of the calendar year.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
chief financial officer
Question. DOD Directive 5118.3 designates the Comptroller as the
Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Defense.
Does Secretary Rumsfeld intend to continue to designate you, if
confirmed as the Comptroller, as the Chief Financial Officer of the
Department of Defense?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If so, what would be your major responsibilities as Chief
Financial Officer?
Answer. If confirmed as the Chief Financial Officer for DOD, I
would have the duties established in the Chief Financial Officers Act,
which include the responsibility to:
oversee all financial management activities relating
to the programs and operations of DOD;
develop and maintain integrated agency accounting and
financial management systems;
direct, manage, and provide policy guidance and
oversight of DOD's financial management personnel, activities,
and operations;
prepare audited financial statements; and
monitor the financial execution of budgets.
business management modernization program
Question. For the past 3 years, the administration has pursued a
Business Management Modernization Program (BMMP) aimed, in part, at
correcting deficiencies in the Department's financial management and
ability to receive an unqualified ``clean'' audit. Two years ago,
Secretary Zakheim testified before the Readiness Subcommittee that
DOD's financial management modernization would be complete by 2007. At
that time, he stated, DOD would be able to provide a full, repeatable
accounting of resources and funding.
Do you expect DOD to meet that 2007 time line for financial
modernization?
Answer. I have not been involved in the efforts ongoing at the
Department, but will certainly support the efforts to achieve the goal
of a clean audit opinion on the Department's 2007 financial statements.
I will reserve judgment on how long full financial management
modernization will take until I have had the opportunity to assess the
Department's plans and progress.
Question. If not, do you support continuing the BMMP?
Answer. I support the goals and objectives of the BMMP. If
confirmed, I plan to review its progress toward the achievement of the
2007 time line.
Question. The BMMP advocates top-down leadership in establishing an
enterprise architecture for business systems modernization. The
Services, however, appear to be taking the lead in establishing their
own pilot programs for modernizing business systems, despite the risk
that a Service-led approach could produce numerous incompatible
systems.
Do you advocate an OSD-led approach to business modernization?
Answer. Yes. I believe it is critical that we have top management
lead this effort.
Question. If so, what controls are in place to ensure such an
approach takes place?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department has in place an
extensive governance process to ensure strong OSD leadership of DOD
business modernization.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that OSD governance and
controls are sufficient to ensure consistency with BMMP across the
entire department. I will review the program to determine whether or
not additional controls are needed.
Question. A critical requirement of the BMMP is an ``enterprise
architecture'' that would establish standards and requirements for
modernization or new acquisition of business information technology
systems.
Why is establishing an effective enterprise architecture so
important?
Answer. An effective enterprise architecture will provide the road
map to ensure that future IT investments contribute to achieving an
integrated DOD network of business systems.
It will enable the Department to consolidate the essential business
rules with which all business IT systems must comply to ensure
efficient and effective processing of the Department's business
transactions.
In addition, it will allow the Department, for the first time, to
evaluate the impact of business decisions made in one functional area
on the other functional areas within the Department.
Question. When can Congress expect to see a fully developed
enterprise architecture?
Answer. I do not have all the details of the current plan. However,
I understand that because the Department of Defense is so large, an
incremental approach is the only practical option to develop the
architecture. I understand that the first increment of the architecture
will be ready by fall 2004 and will support an unqualified audit
opinion on the Department's consolidated fiscal year 2007 financial
statements. If confirmed, I will keep Congress informed of the
Department's progress to fully develop an enterprise structure.
Question. One of the key facets of the BMMP is the establishment of
functional domains.
Please describe the purpose of functional domains.
Answer. As I understand it, ``domain'' is the term the Department
uses for its major business functional areas, which are Logistics,
Acquisition, Installations and Environment, Human Resources Management,
Accounting and Financial Management, Strategic Planning and Budgeting,
and Technical Infrastructure.
The goal is to overhaul business systems in each of these areas.
Question. Are you supportive of the current construct, or do you
plan to revise these functional domains?
Answer. I am unable to make a judgment at this time without
additional detail. If I am confirmed, I will review the current
construct, the progress made to date, plans for moving the Department
forward and recommendations for improving the process.
required review of systems improvements
Question. Section 1004(d) of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 required the Department to
review all financial systems improvements to ensure they comply with
the newly defined enterprise architecture.
If confirmed, how would you comply with the requirements set forth
in section 1004(d)?
Answer. If confirmed, I would review the actions already underway
to fulfill this legal requirement, and work to make whatever changes or
additions that are needed to achieve full compliance.
gao recommendations for reform
Question. In recent testimony before the Readiness and Management
Support Subcommittee, the Comptroller General of the United States,
David M. Walker, offered two suggestions for legislative consideration
which, in his words, are intended ``to improve the likelihood of
meaningful, broad-based financial management and related business
reform at DOD.'' These included establishing a senior management
position in the Department to spearhead DOD-wide business
transformation efforts, and giving the leaders of DOD's functional
areas, or ``domains,'' control of systems investments.
What is your view of these suggestions?
Answer. I would need to carefully review the recommendations before
making a judgment. However, if confirmed, I would be happy to review
the suggestions in light of the Department's progress and plans for
future financial management reforms and provide those views to the
committee.
Question. Do you have any recommendations to ensure that reforms
currently underway continue for the foreseeable future?
Answer. I agree that sustained high-level leadership is critical to
success. If I am confirmed, I will work toward maintaining and
sustaining high-level support for these reforms.
Question. In his written testimony, Mr. Walker asserted that the
Services continue to make ``their own parochial decisions'' regarding
investments, without receiving the scrutiny of the DOD Comptroller. The
GAO suggestion that DOD's functional areas, or domains, receive and
control the Services' funding for systems investments is designed to
counter those parochial tendencies.
In your judgment, is the establishment of such controls within OSD
feasible? If so, should such controls be exercised within the
Comptroller's office?
Answer. I think these controls are important for success. If
confirmed I will work to ensure that the department will comply with
public law on business system investment decisions.
Question. Mr. Walker has also testified that the Department of
Defense should fix its financial management systems before it tries to
develop auditable financial statements. According to Mr. Walker,
``Given the size, complexity, and deeply ingrained nature of the
financial management problems facing DOD, heroic end-of-the-year
efforts relied on by some agencies to develop auditable financial
statement balances are not feasible at DOD. Instead, a sustained focus
on the underlying problems impeding the development of reliable
financial data throughout the Department will be necessary and is the
best course of action.''
Do you agree with this statement?
Answer. I agree that modernizing the Department's business systems
is the only long-term, sustainable solution to its financial reporting
inadequacies. In general, I support the current complementary measures
the department is taking to obtain acceptable financial statements by
2007. If confirmed, I will carefully review the Department's
initiatives in this area and make changes if necessary.
coordination with the networks and information integration (nii) office
Question. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for NII
plans to establish a systems engineering oversight board to ensure that
development and implementation of new systems adhere to the established
enterprise architecture.
What is your understanding of the progress to date in establishing
this board?
Answer. Successful transformation of the Department's business
practices depends in large part on how well people work together inside
the Pentagon. I need to learn more about the systems engineering
oversight board you referenced. However, if confirmed, I will
coordinate all business transformation efforts with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for NII.
Question. What is your understanding of whether the office of the
Assistant Secretary for NII will coordinate with the DOD Comptroller to
prevent duplication of effort?
Answer. It is my understanding that the BMMP is co-chaired by the
DOD Comptroller and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for NII. If
confirmed, I would continue my predecessor's efforts to coordinate
Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) initiatives and BMMP related
policies and directives with NII to avoid duplication.
improper use of first and business class travel
Question. The GAO recently reported that breakdowns in internal
controls resulted in improper first and business class travel by DOD
employees, and increased costs to taxpayers.
What actions has DOD taken in response to this report?
Answer. I am not current on all the measures that DOD has taken in
this regard. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department implements
policies and controls to correct problems in internal controls
identified by GAO, and to analyze data from the travel card program to
monitor compliance.
travel and government purchase cards
Question. The increased use of government travel and purchase cards
were significant financial and acquisition reform initiatives of the
past decade. Concerns, however, have been raised in the past several
years about the controls put in place for both the travel and purchase
cards.
What is the status of DOD efforts to ensure proper controls are in
place that will not jeopardize the benefits accrued from the proper use
of these cards?
Answer. I know from my previous experience at the Department that a
number of actions were taken to strengthen controls for both the travel
and purchase cards. If confirmed, I will work with the Services to
ensure that policies and controls are in place to identify problems and
to monitor the future performance of these programs.
reserve component military pay systems
Question. The GAO recently completed a report that identified
extensive problems with the National Guard's pay system. Modernizing
the military payroll system is part of the longer term Business
Management Modernization Program, however, it is essential that
corrections be made immediately in this system to minimize personal
hardships on deployed guardsmen, reservists, and their families.
What will you do to address these pay problems in both the short
and long term?
Answer. I believe it is of the utmost importance that all service
members are paid correctly and on time. If confirmed, I will review and
analyze current operations to ensure that we have implemented viable
processes and systems to ensure that all service members are paid
properly.
inventory management
Question. Do you believe DOD has adequate information about and
controls over its inventory?
Answer. I understand that the Department has had problems relating
to control over its inventories and audit of its financial statements.
Material weaknesses preclude DOD from providing reasonable assurance
that its assets are being adequately protected and that inventory is
not misstated on its financial statements.
Question. If not, what steps would you take, if confirmed, to
improve inventory management?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) to ensure that proper
physical controls, as well as acceptable valuations, of the
Department's inventory are incorporated into the new business processes
and systems. As the Department transforms its business processes and
transitions to new systems, these weaknesses should be resolved.
government performance and results act
Question. If confirmed as Comptroller, what would your
responsibilities be with respect to DOD implementation of the
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) to
set specific performance goals and measure progress toward meeting
them?
Answer. I would collaborate with the Director, Program Analysis &
Evaluation, to ensure that the Annual Defense Report includes realistic
annual performance goals and corresponding performance measures and
indicators. These executive-level goals and metrics should represent
the leading performance trends that the Secretary must monitor to
manage risk across the Department, and to maintain progress toward
accomplishing the long-term outcomes of the defense strategy.
Question. What additional steps can the Department take to fulfill
the goal of the GPRA to link budget inputs to measurable performance
outputs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the Director, Program
Analysis and Evaluation to encourage the Components to make sure that
the performance goals (and associated measures of performance) of their
individual strategic plans support the overall outcome goals of the
defense strategy.
Question. Do you believe the Department should not be required to
pay for environmental damage it causes?
Answer. I believe that the Department should mitigate environmental
damage caused by its actions, as required by law.
collection of contractor taxes
Question. The Comptroller General has reported that the 27,100 DOD
contractors owe more than $3.0 billion in back taxes, and that the
Department of Defense has not fulfilled its duty under the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996 to help recoup these back taxes.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to improve the Department's
performance in this area?
Answer. I am committed to doing what is necessary to help the
Department of Defense fulfill its duty under the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996--to include the collection of all monies owed
to the Federal Government from any contractor with whom we are doing
business. If confirmed, I will take the steps necessary to ensure the
Department has processes and systems in place to be fully compliant
with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. I look forward to
working with other government agencies to improve the tax collection
process.
Question. Do you believe that the Department needs additional
statutory authority to be effective in identifying and recovering back
taxes from contractors?
Answer. If confirmed, I will explore this issue with other
agencies, specifically the IRS and the Treasury, after which I can
better address the need for legislation.
leasing major weapon systems
Question. The recent DODIG report on the Air Force 767 tanker lease
proposal raises significant concerns over leasing versus purchasing
major military equipment. The Department created a ``Leasing Review
Panel,'' co-chaired by the Comptroller, to review all major leasing
agreements, but that panel did not discover the problems with the
tanker lease that the DODIG has identified.
What is your opinion of leasing versus buying major capital
equipment?
Answer. The potential benefits of leasing need to be carefully
balanced against total ownership costs. Leasing may have potential
benefits to the Department and to the Military Services such as greater
flexibility in dealing with transformation and changing requirements.
In some cases therefore, it may make sense to pursue leasing as an
acquisition alternative.
Question. Do you anticipate making significant changes to the
Leasing Review Panel to ensure that it is prepared to effectively
review future leasing proposals?
Answer. I am not familiar with the workings of the Leasing Review
Panel. However, if confirmed, I will review the operating guidelines of
the Leasing Review Panel to ensure that proposed leasing arrangements
are reasonable from a budgetary perspective, display good financial
stewardship, comply with all laws and regulations and obtain needed
defense capabilities in the most cost-effective manner possible.
Question. The DODIG report concludes that the proposed tanker lease
failed to meet three of the six criteria for an operating lease as
described in OMB Circular A-11. What is your view of this issue?
Answer. I am not familiar with specific details of the DODIG
Report. If confirmed, I intend to review the DODIG Report and the
specific recommendations of the Inspector General.
base closure savings
Question. The Department has asserted that additional base closures
are needed to bring the Department's base structure in line with its
force structure.
In your view, have the previous base closure rounds resulted in
significant reductions in DOD costs?
Answer. Yes. I understand that independent studies conducted by the
General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office have
consistently supported the view that realigning and closing unneeded
military installations produces savings.
Question. If similar savings result from future base closures or
realignments, do you believe there are unfunded needs within the
Department that could benefit by redirecting resources away from excess
infrastructure?
Answer. Yes, savings that may result from future base realignments
and closures would help transform the Department of Defense. Funds no
longer required to operate, sustain, and recapitalize eliminated excess
physical capacity could be used, among other things, to recruit quality
people, modernize equipment and infrastructure, and develop
capabilities needed to meet 21st century threats.
long-term environmental liability of the armed forces
Question. GAO has noted that DOD continues to lack a complete
inventory of contaminated real property sites, which affects DOD's
ability to assess potential environmental impact and to effectively
plan, estimate costs, and fund cleanup activities.
In determining the long-term budget for the Department of Defense,
what is the current estimated total cost of environmental restoration,
compliance, and conservation, and any other environmental costs,
including pollution prevention and technology R&D?
Answer. I understand that the Department's financial statements for
fiscal year 2003, show that total environmental liability for fiscal
year 2003 is approximately $61 billion.
Question. What is the Department's plan to refine this estimate to
meet GAO's concerns?
Answer. I have not been involved in the Department's discussions on
how it plans to refine the estimate. If confirmed as the Comptroller, I
will work with the Services to improve their estimating processes and
to maintain an up-to-date inventory of sites requiring environmental
cleanup.
______
[The nomination reference of Tina Westby Jonas follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 11, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Tina Westby Jonas, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), vice Dov S. Zakheim, resigning.
______
[The biographical sketch of Tina Westby Jonas, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biological Sketch of Tina W. Jonas
Ms. Jonas entered government service in 1986 and has served
in both the executive and congressional branches of government.
Her work includes over a decade of professional budget
experience in the national security field. From 1995 to 2001,
she served as a professional staff member for the United States
House of Representatives on the House Committee on
Appropriations, Defense Subcommittee. Other outstanding
assignments include serving as a senior budget examiner in the
Intelligence Branch of the National Security Division at the
Office of Management and Budget (1991-1995), Congressional
Affairs Specialist with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
(1990-1991), associate staff member with the Select Committee
to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (1987-1988),
and a legislative aid for Representative Bill McCollum (1986-
1990).
On April 30, 2001, Ms. Jonas was sworn in as the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Financial Management at the
Department of Defense. In that capacity, Ms. Jonas was the
principal adviser to the Department of Defense Chief Financial
Officer and other senior Department of Defense officials for
accounting, financial reform, and fiscal matters. Evaluating
over 1,100 financial and feeder systems, Ms. Jonas served as
the focal point for automated and process reform within the
Department of Defense, providing the financial and analytical
services necessary for effective and efficient use of the
Department of Defense's resources.
In August 2002, Ms. Jonas joined the Federal Burea of
Investigation (FBI). In her current position, she serves as the
FBI's Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Director of the
Finance Division.
Ms. Jonas earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political
Science from Arizona State University in 1982 and a Master in
Arts in Liberal Studies with a concentration in International
Affairs from Georgetown University in 1995.
------
[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 Tina Westby
Jonas in connection with her nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Tina Westby Jonas.
Tina Westby (Maiden name).
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
3. Date of nomination:
March 11, 2004.
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 4, 1960; Oak Park, Illinois.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to David Sall Jonas.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Arizona State University, 1978 to 1982, Bachelor of Arts, Political
Science, 1982.
Georgetown University, 1992 to 1995 Master of Arts, Liberal
Studies, 1995.
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.
Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Director (Finance Division),
Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Headquarters, Washington, DC,
August 2002 to Present.
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense (Financial
Management), The Pentagon, Washington, DC, April 2001 to August 2002.
Professional Staff, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on
Appropriations, Defense Subcommittee, The Capitol, Washington, DC,
April 1995 to April 2001.
Budget Examiner, Office of Management of Budget, New Executive
Office Building, January 1991 to April 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.
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.
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Member.
Army and Navy Club, Member.
Philmont Country Club, Family Membership.
Republican National Committee, Contributor/Donor.
Meridian International Center, Contributor/Donor.
Holocaust Museum, Contributor/Donor.
Mount Vernon, Contributor/Donor.
St. Mary's Parish, 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.
Arizona State University, College Republicans, 1982.
Intern, Sellers for U.S. Senate, 1982.
Volunteer, George Bush for President, 1988.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Republican National Committee, Contributor/Donor (see below).
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
I have attached a listing of contributions that represent a good
faith review of my financial records. If I find at a later date that I
have omitted any contributions, I will report them to the committee at
that time.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, 2002.
Office of Management and Budget, Professional Achievement Award,
1992; Division Award, 1994.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
I provided some informal opening remarks at the Department of
Defense Professional Development Institute in 2002. I do not have a
copy of the remarks. However, my memory is that I emphasized the
importance of the Department's financial workforce in improving
financial management. In addition, during my tenure I did testify
before the House Government Reform Committee on the status of the
Department's financial improvement efforts.
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.
Tina Westby Jonas.
This 15th day of March, 2004.
[The nomination of Tina Westby Jonas was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on May 12, 2004, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 22, 2004.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dionel M. Aviles 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 the Assistant Secretary of
the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller).
Have your views on the importance, feasibility, and implementation
of these reforms changed since you testified before the committee at
your confirmation hearing on June 27, 2001?
Answer. No, my views have not changed. As I stated at the time of
my first confirmation hearing, I truly believe that our military is now
stronger and more effective as a result of Goldwater-Nichols.
Question. Do you see the need for modifications of Goldwater-
Nichols Act provisions based on your experience as Assistant Secretary
of the Navy? If so, what areas do you believe it might be appropriate
to address in these modifications?
Answer. I am not aware of the need for any specific modifications
to Goldwater-Nichols. However, if confirmed, I am committed to working
with Secretary England to continue to evaluate this law and make what
recommendations I believe to be warranted.
duties
Question. Section 5015 of title 10, United States Code, states the
Under Secretary of the Navy shall perform such duties and exercise such
powers as the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and powers do you expect to
be assigned to you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect that Secretary England will rely on
me to support him in providing effective leadership for the Navy-Marine
Corps team. Based upon his earlier testimony, I also expect that the
Secretary will seek my assistance to focus on strategic business and
management areas within the department as well as traditional
leadership roles in areas such as personnel assignments and special
program oversight.
Question. Secretary England has expressed the view that
clarification of authority and responsibilities between the Service
Secretaries and the executive offices within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense is needed.
Do you agree with Secretary England's view, and, if so, please
state specifically what changes you recommend?
Answer. Yes, I agree with Secretary England's view. This area is
not clear in law and responsibilities between Service Secretaries and
the executive offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense
vary depending on the individuals in these positions. Secretary England
seeks clarification of roles and responsibilities between OSD and the
Services. I support that recommendation.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be
with:
The Secretary of the Navy,
The Chief of Naval Operations,
The Assistant Secretaries of the Navy,
The General Counsel of the Navy,
The Vice Chief of Naval Operations, and
The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.
Answer. During my tenure as Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Financial Management and Comptroller) I worked very closely with each
of these individuals as part of Secretary England's leadership team.
This team approach is highly effective in addressing issues and solving
problems important for the Department of the Navy and for the
Department of Defense. I would expect to continue to be a part of this
close knit team and would expect to take a larger role in orchestrating
the team process.
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you recommend
regarding the duties and functions of the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Financial Management and Comptroller, as set forth in sections
5016 and 5025 of title 10, United States Code, or in regulations of the
Department of Defense or Department of the Navy?
Answer. I would not recommend any changes.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your June 2001 responses to previous advance policy
questions from this committee in connection with your nomination to
serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management
and Comptroller, you indicated your belief that providing adequate
resources for the Navy's warfighting priorities and ensuring the
availability of accurate, reliable and timely financial management
information would be your most significant challenges.
What do you consider to be your most significant achievements in
meeting these challenges during your service as Assistant Secretary of
the Navy?
Answer. The most significant achievement has been the improvement
of our current readiness account. Since 2001 the Department of the Navy
has been able to resource current readiness accounts in order to
provide combat ready forces whenever required. For fiscal year 2004
funding for core readiness accounts have increased approximately $8
billion (nearly 22 percent), over the amount available for these
purposes in fiscal year 2001. While these increases supported current
readiness and warfighting capability, the Department was also able to
increase modernization funding by $9 billion (nearly 19 percent), over
the same period. This was possible not only because of the significant
amount additional resources provided by the Congress, but also because
of the commitment by senior leadership in the Department of the Navy to
change the way we do business. The Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of
Naval Operations (CNO), and the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC)
have fostered a culture of change where long held and cherished
assumptions are challenged and every opportunity to drive out cost is
explored in order to free up capital to invest in equipment
modernization and transformation.
An additional significant achievement comes in the area of
financial management. The Department of the Navy has developed a
financial management improvement plan consistent with the larger
Department of Defense goal of achieving an unqualified opinion on the
fiscal year 2007 financial statements. This effort requires a
significant commitment throughout Navy and Marine Corps commands in
order to realize the goal. A near term result of this overarching
effort has been the reduction in the time required to provide quarterly
financial statements to approximately 21 days from the close of the
reporting period. The Department of Defense did not previously provide
quarterly statements and the normal standard of performance was to
provide financial statements 4 months after the close of the fiscal
year. While the overall effort to improve financial reporting is
extremely important, it has not and will not come easily. It will
require the sustained attention and commitment of the senior leadership
of the Department and the support of Congress to succeed.
Question. How would you assess your accomplishments during your
service as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in improving the readiness
of the Department of the Navy and eliminating deficiencies?
Answer. I cannot claim any specific credit or individual
accomplishment related to the improved readiness of the Department of
the Navy. The improvements made in this area are principally a result
of the changed culture brought about by the leadership of the Secretary
of the Navy, the CNO and the CMC. Their unflagging drive to ensure that
critical readiness functions were funded without sacrificing
modernization priorities is what has properly motivated the leadership
team to achieve the positive results we have enjoyed.
Question. What do you view as the major readiness challenges that
remain to be addressed and, if confirmed, how would you approach these
issues?
Answer. First, I would like to note the tremendous emphasis on
readiness that has characterized the last 3 years. This commitment by
Congress and the administration enabled the Navy and Marine Corps to
respond so quickly and perform so well to Operation Enduring Freedom
and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The challenges that remain will be in
resetting our forces upon return from operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq and support for future global war on terrorism activities.
Combined with your strong support, and our pursuit of effectiveness and
efficiency, we have been able to meet readiness challenges. If
confirmed, I would expect to continue to play a significant role in
addressing future readiness challenges.
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
face the Under Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. The major challenge that will face the Under Secretary of
the Navy will be the continued modernization and transformation of the
finest Navy and Marine Corps in the world while assisting the Secretary
of the Navy in addressing complex day-to-day issues associated with the
follow-on phases of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi
Freedom, and the over-arching global war on terrorism.
end strength
Question. The Navy's proposed budget for fiscal year 2005 includes
reductions of 7,500 personnel in the active duty ranks and 2,500 in the
Naval Reserve. The Chief of Naval Operations has publicly stated that
his goal is to reduce the Navy's Active-Duty Force to 350,000 sailors
from the current authorized level of 373,800.
What is your understanding of the justification for these
significant reductions in active duty and Naval Reserve Forces?
Answer. The Navy's end strength goals represent a long-term policy
to right size the manning levels on our ships as new technology and
streamlined processes and procedures are introduced to the Fleet. The
Navy also plans to reduce the number of sailors serving on shore duty
and replace them, where needed, with civilian employees or contracted
services from the private sector.
Question. How will the Navy achieve the reductions in active duty
and Reserve Forces proposed for fiscal year 2005 and when will the end
strength of 350,000 be realized?
Answer. To achieve the end strength reduction needed to match the
Navy's manpower requirements, it will be necessary to use a number of
different force shaping tools. Currently, there are a number of tools
available to the Navy, such as the Perform to Serve Program and
Assignment Incentive Pay. Historically, involuntary methods of force
shaping have had a negative effect upon morale or retention. As such,
we continue to explore voluntary methods that would allow us to
effectively, and more precisely, shape the force without perturbing
continued success in recruiting, retention, and the quality of service.
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. Secretary England has stated
that the naval services will continue on the path of transformation to
better tailor naval forces to meet new threats to America and to
continue to emphasize combat capability, personnel, and technology and
business practices.
Please describe your understanding and assessment of the Navy's
transformation plans.
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy's transformational roadmap for
this department unequivocally shares the same high priority and desired
end-state that the Secretary of Defense envisions for all of Defense.
Navy's transformation plans though demanding and far-reaching, are
already beginning to create the Navy of the future. Our
transformational roadmap challenges the practices and assumptions of
the past and seeks changes in concepts, processes, and capabilities to
achieve not just more jointness, but true integration and
interoperability. The Global Concept of Operations and Fleet Response
Plan are just two examples of how new thinking can improve the
geographic dispersion of naval power and time of response during
crises, respectively. These concepts take advantage of focused manpower
and our recent readiness investments, but do not involve buying `new
things.' New acquisition programs, however, such as CVN-21, DD(X), LCS,
and the JSF as well as reconfigured platforms such as SSGN and DDG-51
improvements, all electronically netted together, incorporate the
advanced technologies and intelligent industry initiatives that
dramatically improve capabilities and reduce operating risk of joint
forces.
Question. What is your vision for Navy and Marine Corps
Transformation?
Answer. I believe Sea Power 21, the Navy--Marine Corps team's
transformation vision, encompasses and integrates powerful extensions
to current joint capabilities, as well as a range of innovative new
capabilities. Seabasing is the overarching expression of this vision,
incorporating the initiatives that will allow the joint force to fully
exploit our Nation's command of the sea and unfettered access to the
far corners of the globe, to project (Sea Strike), to protect (Sea
Shield), and to sustain integrated warfighting capabilities (FORCEnet).
The emerging challenges of the 21st century demand we have a Joint,
netted, power projection force that offers flexible and persistent
combat capability. I believe the Naval Transformation Roadmap briefly
outlined above helps take us there.
Question. In your view, what will be the role of the Naval Reserve
in the transformed Navy?
Answer. The role of the Naval Reserve is and will be to provide
ready, relevant forces to augment or reinforce the active component.
The Fleet Forces Command is reviewing all Reserve programs to ensure
the optimum integration of Active and Reserve Forces in the future.
Naval Reserves must be seamlessly integrated with the active Force
whenever and wherever needed.
low density/high demand forces
Question. If confirmed, how would you address the Department of the
Navy's challenge in manning low density/high demand units, ratings, and
occupational specialties?
Answer. As Secretary England noted in his confirmation testimony
last year, the challenge in manning low density/high demand units and
occupational specialties will become greater in the future as
technology becomes more sophisticated and fewer, but more skilled and
more multi-functional sailors and marines are needed. Moreover, the
challenge in this personnel area today is particularly important for
the Navy and Marine Corps since the unique skills and specialties
possessed by our people in some of these units are critical to our
capability to prosecute the global war on terrorism. Therefore,
sustaining the right quality and quantity of personnel is essential to
maintaining optimum capability.
The Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps have a number of transformational initiatives underway in this
arena, commonly referred to as the ``war for people.'' If confirmed I
would assist the Secretary and his senior military leadership in
fostering these ongoing programs and initiatives.
morale, welfare, and recreation cuts
Question. The Navy's budget for fiscal year 2005 reduces
appropriated funding for morale, welfare, and recreation programs from
$397 million in 2004 to $342 million in 2005.
What is the rationale for cuts of this magnitude and how will they
be distributed throughout the Navy?
Answer. In keeping with the Department of Defense's strategy of
transformation in the 21st century, Navy is engaged in an aggressive
search for efficiencies in all facets of shore installation management,
including MWR programs. The effort is linked to the CNO's Sea Power 21
initiative to identify shore installation management savings that can
be realigned to recapitalize the Navy's combat platforms.
While the overall MWR budget request is down for fiscal year 2005,
we intend to support fully core MWR programs.
Question. What impact will these reductions have on sailors and
their families and on specific programs supporting Navy dependents such
as community centers and child care centers?
Answer. The Navy is currently engaged in a complete review of
fiscal year 2005 MWR funding and the potential impacts of reductions.
The Navy intends to ensure that the outside of the continental United
States and afloat programs are funded to meet the unique requirements
of those populations. Additionally, the Navy does not intend to
discontinue any MWR programs within the continental United States that
are well supported by patrons, to include childcare centers.
national security personnel system
Question. Secretary England has indicated that the Navy will be the
first Service to implement the provisions of the National Security
Personnel System (NSPS), which was adopted last year as part of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The NSPS
authorities are intended to increase the flexibility of Departmental
leaders in managing the civilian workforce. As many as 300,000
positions within the Department of Defense are scheduled to be
converted to the NSPS by October 1, 2004.
If confirmed, what role will you play in implementation of the NSPS
for civilian personnel in the Navy?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) has recently reviewed its
process to design and implement NSPS and is adopting a comprehensive,
collaborative approach that will take the time necessary to design it
right and not be driven by a pre-determined implementation date. Thus
the October 1, 2004, date no longer applies. If confirmed, I will
assist Secretary England in the design and implementation of NSPS.
Currently, the primary responsibility for implementation of NSPS within
the Department of the Navy is the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs. It is my understanding that these responsibilities
will not change if I am confirmed.
Question. What are the fundamental principles that you will apply
in managing personnel reform of this magnitude?
Answer. Secretary England has identified a number of fundamental
principles that, if confirmed, I would apply. These include
comprehensive communications, personnel training, and a phased process
to ensure that we can capture lessons learned and correct problems
early.
Question. How will you involve unions and the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) in the implementation of the NSPS within the Navy?
Answer. Both Secretary England and Dr. Chu, Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness) have emphasized the need for a
collaborative approach with all NSPS stakeholders, including OPM and
our union representatives. The solicitation of union input on the
design of the system and regular communication during deployment are
important for NSPS's success.
Question. What steps will you take to fully inform civilian
employees of the changes which are being planned?
Answer. The Department is developing a comprehensive communications
plan to ensure effective communication with employees. I expect that we
will use a variety of tools including e-mails, web sites, town hall
meetings and articles in DOD papers to reach all of our employees.
navy and marine corps personnel retention
Question. The retention of quality sailors and marines, officer and
enlisted, active-duty and Reserve, is vital to the Department of the
Navy.
What initiatives would you take, if confirmed, to further improve
the attractiveness of active and Reserve component service?
Answer. Our retention rates remain high. However, in order to
continue this success, it is essential to rely upon existing tools as
well as new, innovative approaches. Secretary England has previously
identified a number of innovative techniques that should be studied
further. These techniques include, performance based compensation,
employment portability for spouses, and better integration of active
and Reserve personnel. If confirmed, I will assist Secretary England in
the further evaluation, and if appropriate, utilization of these
techniques.
navy expeditionary warfare
Question. Section 5038 of title 10, United States Code, establishes
a requirement to maintain a position of Director of Expeditionary
Warfare on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations. This officer's
duties, as described in that section, are to provide staff support for
issues relating to ``amphibious lift, mine warfare, naval fire support,
and other missions essential to supporting expeditionary warfare.''
Congress established this requirement after the 1991 Persian Gulf War
in an effort to address critical shortfalls in these areas,
particularly in the area of mine countermeasures capabilities. There
have been recent press reports that the Department of the Navy intends
to abolish this office.
What is your understanding of the Department of the Navy's plans,
if any, for changing the current status of the Director of
Expeditionary Warfare and the functions for which the Director is
responsible?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department has no plans at
this time to either change the status of the Director of Expeditionary
Warfare (N75) or his responsible functions. Last fall several
initiatives for reorganizing portions of the Office of the CNO staff
were explored to include potential impacts on N75. The final
reorganization plan, however, did not impact the status of N75 under
section 5038, title 10, United States Code.
Question. Do you believe that a change to the legislation would be
required to implement such a change?
Answer. Yes, and I would expect that Congress would be briefed
before any proposed change was advanced.
ballistic missile defense
Question. Do you regard ballistic missile defense as a core mission
of the Navy?
Answer. Ballistic Missile Defense is an important capability for
the Nation. Navy systems and tests have shown great promise in recent
years. I fully support the recent agreement between Navy and the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) that provides full time commitment of an
Aegis equipped cruiser to MDA, as well as a plan to modify other Aegis
equipped ships to conduct MDA missions when required.
Question. Do you support the current division of responsibility in
which the MDA is responsible for ballistic missile defense research and
development and the services are responsible for procurement of
ballistic missile defense systems?
Answer. Navy and MDA are working together to develop and field the
systems that will deploy on board ships. I believe that both
organizations are doing what they do best to support the delivery of a
range of capabilities over the entire ballistic missile defense system.
In the future, as MDA continues to improve the ballistic missile
defense system through spiral development, a collaborative process is
being refined to ensure that shipboard systems are upgraded
accordingly.
Question. What steps do you believe the Navy needs to take to
ensure that Aegis ships are available to provide radar coverage against
potential missile attacks?
Answer. The Navy will have an important role in the ballistic
missile defense mission. We have worked collaboratively with MDA, as
well as with the combatant commanders, to deliver the Navy component of
an integrated defense system. The ships that will initially perform the
ballistic missile defense mission are modified and MDA is currently
producing the computer programs that they will require to perform the
mission. The operational chain of command continues to develop the
tactics, techniques, and procedures that will be used when initial
defensive operations commence this fall. Detailed training for our
sailors has been underway for over a year now.
cruise missile defense
Question. In your view, how serious is the cruise missile threat to
the Navy?
Answer. The emerging generation of advanced cruise missiles is one
of the primary threats to Navy ships. Cruise missiles are widely
proliferated and the Office of Naval Intelligence estimates that over
75 countries will be capable of deploying cruise missiles. The vast
majority are older sub-sonic missiles such as Styx, Exocet BLK I and
Harpoon. However, several nations including Russia, China, India as
well as western nations are expected to field, in the near term, more
capable cruise missiles. The attributes of anti-ship missiles that
challenge US Navy air defenses include higher speed, greater
maneuverability, and reduced signature.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
the Navy is adequately addressing this threat?
Answer. There are a number of programs currently being developed to
address the anti-ship cruise missile threat. For example, the Navy is
introducing sensor and combat systems improvements that enhance
detection particularly in challenging littoral environments. To counter
faster, more maneuverable threats, the Navy is developing improvements
to Standard Missile variants, introducing the Evolved Sea Sparrow
Missile and making upgrades to the Rolling Airframe Missile. Decoys and
electronic countermeasures like NULKA and the Shipboard Electronic
Warfare Improvement Program are also being fielded. If confirmed, I
will assist the Secretary of the Navy in the continuation of these
projects, as well as in any other programs he identifies that may
better address the anti-ship cruise missile threat.
nuclear-powered cruise missile attack submarine (ssgn) missile tubes
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Navy needs to take
to ensure that non-nuclear launches from SSGN missile tubes are not
mistaken for nuclear launches?
Answer. No additional steps need to be taken. SSGNs will carry non-
nuclear Tomahawk cruise missiles. A non-nuclear cruise missile launch
cannot be easily mistaken for a nuclear submarine launched ballistic
missile due to differences in launch, trajectory, and flight
characteristics.
navy force structure
Question. The Chief of Naval Operations has publicly stated that
the Navy has a requirement for 375 ships.
Do you agree with this requirement?
Answer. The Chief of Naval Operations has stated that 375 is not an
precise number, but one that is about the right number to analyze the
types of scenarios and the kind of forward presence commitments that
this nation needs. I concur with the assessment that there is not a
precise number. I concur with the Secretary of the Navy's Department of
the Navy (DON) Objectives for 2004, which require the transformation of
our naval military capabilities to achieve the objectives of Sea Power
21 and Marine Corps Strategy 21. Implementation of Sea Power 21 will
require a strategy that will provide our Nation with widely dispersed
combat power from platforms possessing unprecedented warfighting
capabilities. The Navy's Global Concept of Operations was created to
meet the requirements demanded of the global environment. This naval
defense strategy calls for a fleet with the ability to respond swiftly
to a broad range of scenarios and defend the vital interests of the
United States.
Question. How will the Navy meet that goal?
Answer. As the Secretary of the Navy has stated in his DON
Objectives for 2004 it is vital the Navy and Marine Corps fully
understand and work toward developing, in concert with DOD and
Congress, a financing strategy for shipbuilding.
The Navy's 30-year plan accurately documents the funding
requirements and the Navy's budget submissions support the requirements
with a balanced funding approach that meets the needs of the
shipbuilding budget as well as the other funding challenges ahead. The
Navy's fiscal year 2004 budget requested approximately $12 billion for
seven new ships, and fiscal year 2005 requests funding for $10 billion
for construction of nine new ships, a significant commitment toward
achieving our needs. Over the long term, the shipbuilding funding level
must continue to grow, and the Navy's budget plans accurately reflect
that need. The Navy's shipbuilding plan is realistic in stating an
average of $14 billion will be required for an average build rate of
approximately 11 ships per year. In addition to new construction, an
average of $2 billion per year is required for conversion and
overhauls.
Question. In your view, what is the required number of ships for
the Navy?
Answer. Per the Defense Planning Guidance, the required number of
ships must be able to support an operationally agile fleet that is
dispersed, netted, and part of the joint force, that will deliver the
combat power needed to sustain homeland defense, provide forward
deterrence in four theaters, swiftly defeat two aggressors at the same
time, and deliver decisive victory in one of those conflicts. Currently
the Navy's Global Concept of Operations will have the capability to
increase striking power, enhance flexibility, and improve
responsiveness. I support the Navy's objective force of about 375 ships
using current crewing concepts and force rotational requirements. This
number is subject to change based upon the types of ships that comprise
the fleet and the evolution of the National security challenges facing
the Nation.
Question. How will the Navy meet that goal?
Answer. In addition to a healthy and robust ship building funding
profile, the Navy intends to use a combination of investments in new
technologies, changes in crewing concepts, a surgeable fleet response
plan and modernization of certain critical legacy systems and platforms
to facilitate the fleet transition to the numbers, type and mix of
ships required to execute the range of missions anticipated in the 21st
century.
science and technology (s&t) program
Question. The fiscal year 2005 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?
Answer. Dedicating 3 percent of the overall defense budget for the
S&T account is a worthy goal, but it may need additional structure to
take into consideration other measures of S&T output. We are currently
participating in an effort led by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense in determining meaningful S&T efficiency and effectiveness
output metrics. If confirmed, my recommendations to the Secretary of
the Navy and the leadership team would be to invest wisely in
technologies important to the Naval Services with clearly stated
objectives, measurable milestones or progress advances and defined exit
criteria.
military space
Question. Do you believe that the current Department of Defense
management structure for space programs sufficiently protects Navy
space equities?
Answer. Yes, the Department of the Navy (DON) is a full partner in
the Department of Defense management structure for space programs and
is actively engaged with national and joint space organizations on
matters pertaining to space capabilities, development, space science
and technology, research and development, acquisition, operations, and
assessments.
Question. In your view, how actively should the Navy be engaged in
the management of space programs?
Answer. The DON must remain heavily engaged in the management of
space programs because of our critical dependencies on national and
joint space systems. Our cadre of naval space experts play a critical
role in ensuring space systems, such as transformational
communications, are appropriately prioritized and realized within
larger national and joint capabilities.
Question. In your view, is the Navy adequately involved in the
requirements process for space programs?
Answer. Yes, the DON is actively involved in the space system
capabilities development process. Our space experts are involved in the
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the
National Security Space acquisition process.
Question. What is the Navy's appropriate long-term role in space
systems, other than as a user of space information and products?
Answer. Space has long been and will remain critical to naval
warfighting. DON has been in and will remain in the forefront of
operationalizing space, and currently leads the next generation
narrowband system acquisition, Mobile User Objective System. DON also
contributes with joint space S&T/research and development (R&D)
initiatives, Naval Observatory enabling efforts as the provider of
precise time and positional data to global positioning system (GPS) and
other space assets, and direct participation in the National
Reconnaissance Office.
joint operations
Question. If confirmed, what recommendations, if any, would you
have for improving joint force integration?
Answer. Joint force integration remains a challenge, but steps have
been taken to improve the process. If confirmed, I would advance
continuing the initiative started with the JCIDS and Enhanced Planning
Process. These approaches will help ensure that from inception, future
systems take into account joint integration needs. Additionally, as if
confirmed as Undersecretary, I would support the Secretary of the
Navy's call for a high priority to be placed upon commonality and
interoperability across all Services.
littoral combat ship
Question. The Navy has selected three teams of contractors to
develop concepts for the Littoral Combat Ship. There is much effort
going into the development of the sea-frame for this ship.
Do you believe that there is enough emphasis on the focused mission
modules, both from a funding and technical maturity standpoints?
Answer. Yes. The mission packages comprised of mission modules for
the Flight 0 ships have been clearly defined and adequately funded. The
Flight 0 mission modules are being selected from mature technologies
that can be deployed in the near term. We have an extensive
experimentation plan and fielding plan to ensure we balance technology
risk with the ability to deliver capability.
Question. The Congressional Research Service (CRS), among others,
says that the Navy's requirements derivation process for the Littoral
Combat Ship was flawed and that as a result, the Littoral Combat Ship
may not be the best approach to meet the needs identified by the Navy.
What is your view of this issue?
Answer. The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is derived from a solid
foundation of analysis. The National Security Strategy and the
Strategic Planning Guidance established the framework for addressing
the gaps in the littorals. LCS was derived through analysis and
experimentation to address mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare, and
small surface boat threats in the littoral region. Analysis was
performed to evaluate material and non-material approaches to close the
capabilities gaps. The results of this analysis showed a relatively
small, shallow draft, and high-speed ship (i.e., the LCS) was the best
alternative. Industry proposals are being reviewed in a down-select
process for the sea frame with award in May 2004.
My view of the issue is that the U.S. must address the gaps in
littoral warfare capabilities today, not tomorrow. Analysis validates
that LCS is the right solution to close those gaps and industry is
ready to deliver those capabilities in new and innovative ways.
Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to
address the concerns raised by CRS?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the senior
leadership of the Department of the Navy to address these concerns.
surface combatants
Question. With the early retirement of Spruance class destroyers,
the Navy surface combatant fleet is declining significantly below the
levels recommended by the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. While
Arleigh Burke destroyers are still being built, the current Future
Years Defense Program has Arleigh Burke construction stopping well
before any DD(X)-class destroyers are near completion.
Do you believe it is wise to end construction of one class of
destroyers before the next class is further along in design and
construction? If so, why? What is the level of risk associated with
such an approach?
Answer. The President's budget submission reflects the balance
between force structure, industrial base, and the relative maturity of
follow-on designs. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary of the
Navy to keep that balance as a central consideration in future
budgetary submissions. In this case, the end-year of the DDG-class
production line corresponds with the start-year of procurement for both
LCS and DD(X). We have an acceptable level of tactical and strategic
risk at this point, but we now need to move forward with the new
platforms required for the future.
Without question, both Navy and industry are committed to the
success of the DD(X) program. It is the centerpiece of our future Navy,
and we cannot afford to wait to get these ships to sea. We decided to
assume a manageable level of risk to achieve important capability gains
in our future surface combatants. The Engineering Development Modules
for DD(X) are moving forward, LCS is moving forward as well, and at
this point that the risk associated with both the DD(X) and LCS
programs are acceptable.
officer promotion system
Question. The Navy has had problems in the past with antiquated
information systems supporting promotion selection boards and lengthy
delays in forwarding reports of selection boards consistent with the
requirements stated in the Senate report accompanying S. 2060 (S. Rept.
105-189).
What is your understanding of the adequacy of the information
systems at Navy Personnel Command that support the Navy's promotion
selection board processing?
Answer. Through a number of system upgrades since 2000, the Navy
has steadily improved the processing of board records. This has
furthered our goal of ensuring a fair, accurate, and unbiased process.
Further information system upgrades to streamline the reporting process
are under development. Navy has addressed reporting requirements to
ensure commanding officers make potentially adverse information about
an officer selected for promotion known before promotion takes place.
If confirmed, I will assist Secretary England in his ongoing efforts to
improve the selection board process.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that
complete and accurate reports of selection boards are forwarded to the
Senate in a timely manner?
Answer. Secretary England reported earlier that Navy has undergone
an exhaustive review of the processing of selection board reports
within the Department of Defense and other reviewing authorities to
ensure timely submission to the Senate. Problems previously experienced
by the Navy in processing reports of selection boards were attributed
to delays in the receipt of adverse information on officers selected
for promotion. Efforts by Secretary England and uniformed leadership
have greatly improved the receipt of this information for boards held
this fiscal year. I am confident that these efforts will further
expedite the process and ensure the timely submission of reports of
selection boards. If confirmed, I will assist Secretary England by
seeking further efficiencies to this process.
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 installations has led to increasing backlogs of facility
maintenance needs, substandard living and working conditions, and has
made it harder for the Services to take advantage of new technologies
that could increase productivity.
Do you believe the Department of the Navy is investing enough in
its infrastructure? Please explain.
Answer. Yes, much more so than in the past, today's facility
investment strategy focuses on decisions that enhance shore readiness
and quality of service, effectively maintain infrastructure assets to
sustain operations in support of our deployed Naval Forces, and strive
to recapitalize our facility inventory more consistent with private
industry standards. The Navy's fiscal year 2005 budget request is a
balanced product of this investment strategy. This is a major issue
that we evaluate annually and will continue to review as part of our
program and budget development process.
An important initiative to ensure proper and adequate
infrastructure and installation funding, is the establishment of
Commander, Navy Installations Command, a single office with the
responsibility of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Shore
Installation Management (SIM). The consolidation of those functions
from divesting claimants facilitated the establishment of common
standards of operation, promoted new efficiencies through promulgation
of best practices, and implemented Navy-wide SIM policies.
implementation of changes for disabled retirees
Question. What is your understanding of the Navy's progress in
implementing a system for payment of combat related disability pay and
changes in law authorizing disabled retirees to receive both retired
pay and veterans' disability compensation?
Answer. The Navy is making good progress in the implementation of
Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC). In April of 2003, the Naval
Council of Personnel Boards was identified as the organization within
the Department of the Navy to review all CRSC applications. The CRSC
Branch stood up, and began reviewing applications on 1 June 2003. Since
that time, the Navy has received over 8,700 applications.
Question. How many applications for special compensation for
combat-related disability pay has the Navy processed since
implementation in 2003 year, and how many will be processed before the
end of 2004?
Answer. The Navy has received over 8,700 applications, processed
over 5,300, and continues to process aggressively those outstanding
applications. The total number of applications that will be received is
unknown. In light of the new eligibility criteria established in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, we now
estimate that we will receive approximately 77,000 applications during
the first 2 years of the program.
navy marine corps intranet
Question. It has been reported that the attack of the Welchia Worm
on August 18, 2003, infected over 75 percent of the Navy Marine Corps
Intranet (NMCI) workstations.
Can you describe what has been done to secure the NMCI network
since then?
Answer. The Department has implemented both technological and
process related improvements in an attempt to secure the NMCI network.
We recognize that those who intend to practice cyber maliciousness will
continue to evolve the viruses they use and that no system is 100
percent impervious against all viruses. However, we are committed to
constantly improving the level of security in the system. Our current
improvements served us well in January of this year during the major
outbreak of the MyDoom.A virus. The private sector struggled with
infection rates that ranged anywhere between 1-in-12 to 1-in-3 emails.
NMCI recorded only 7 total infections out of more than 160,000 seats
and all of these were quickly quarantined and cleaned before the
infection got a foothold.
Question. What is the current status of the implementation of the
NMCI program?
Answer. NMCI is operational. As of April 1st, 2004, EDS has
``assumed operations'' for over 303,000 DON seats and approximately
170,000 have been ``cut-over'', or transitioned, to the NMCI network.
navy travel card program
Question. The Navy has been criticized by the General Accounting
Office for its management of its purchase and travel card programs.
What actions have been taken by the Department to implement GAO's
recommendations and provide more effective oversight of these programs?
Answer. The Department of the Navy has taken a number of aggressive
actions to address recommendations to both the travel card and purchase
programs. For the travel card these include critical review of major
commands with high delinquencies to identify actions they will take to
reduce delinquency and prevent misuse, mandating the use of use of
split disbursements whenever possible to ensure recoupment of funds,
closing unused accounts and accounts of personnel who have separated,
and increased training with the new instruction for all program
personnel. These actions have dramatically reduced travel card
delinquencies for both the Navy and the Marine Corps. The department
will continue to monitor and review the travel card program to prevent
and detect future fraud and misuse.
For the purchase card these steps also include a critical review of
commands with high delinquency rates, increased training and requiring
a 100-percent review by activity level managers of all transactions on
a semi-annual basis. These direct actions have resulted in historically
low levels of purchase card delinquencies for both the Navy and the
Marine Corps and substantially reduced the number of improper purchase
card transactions.
acquisition workforce
Question. The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA)
established specific requirements for managing the Defense Acquisition
Workforce and authorized a series of benefits for the workforce.
What is your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the
Department of the Navy's implementation, to date, of DAWIA?
Answer. The Department of the Navy has actively embraced the DAWIA
at all levels of its acquisition workforce. Our strengths include well
established programs that provide periodic training, staff mentoring
and professional development for this very valuable workforce, actively
updating them with the latest Federal Acquisition Regulation changes
and new, best-value contracting methods and procedures. Moreover,
senior leadership continues to partner with industry and advance
innovative acquisition strategies like Economic Order Quantity
acquisition and multi-year funding procurement that lower risk, lower
cost, and/or reduce scheduled completions.
Question. In your judgment, does the Department of the Navy's
current acquisition workforce have the quality and training needed to
adapt to new acquisition reforms, as well as to the increased workload
and responsibility for managing privatization efforts?
Answer. Yes. I believe the Department of the Navy's current
acquisition workforce has all the requisite tools, core competencies
and periodic training requirements to responsibly manage all our
acquisition workload. This includes the newest efforts in both
privatization and outsourcing. DAWIA expertise certification process
and continued learning requirements are keystones for that program's
success across all of Navy and DOD alike.
competitive sourcing
Question. Over the past several years, DOD has increased its
reliance on the private sector to perform certain activities including
equipment maintenance and facility operations. Some have supported this
effort while others have expressed concern that core activities are
being jeopardized by reducing our reliance on military personnel and
civilian employees of the Federal Government.
Answer. I am committed to ensuring the DON applies its resources in
an effective and responsible way. Part of finding the right way to do
that involves making sure we have the right functions performed by the
right people. In some cases that should be our military and civilian
personnel; in others, the private sector possesses the best capability
to provide support and services. There is not a ``one size fits all''
answer. We need to focus on those core functions that we must do to
accomplish our mission and then determine what the best source is to
accomplish those functions that support the core competencies.
Question. What impact will the recent changes to OMB Circular A-76
have on the Department's plan for public-private competitions?
Answer. The recent changes to OMB Circular A-76 will facilitate our
public-private competitions. The changes reinforce our commitment to
apply a competitive environment to sourcing decisions. We are also
renewing our emphasis on the development of performance-based
specifications to obtain the goods or services we need without
unwarranted restrictions.
Question. Are there other effective alternatives that the Navy is
pursuing to achieve the benefits of public-private competition?
Answer. We are examining functions performed by military personnel
in particular to determine whether the work can be done by civilian
employees or contractors, as well as a critical analysis of whether the
work needs to be done at all.
Question. Do you believe that outsourcing can yield substantial
savings for the Department of that Navy?
Answer. Studies have shown we consistently produce savings when we
make sourcing decisions in a competitive environment, whether the
outcome is continued use of government employees or contractor
performance. The process causes us to look closely at what needs to be
done and to find the best way to do it.
major weapon system acquisition
Question. Please describe the approach and progress made by the
Navy to reduce cycle time for major acquisition programs.
Answer. The Navy has embraced evolutionary acquisition and spiral
development as the cornerstones on which the naval acquisition
community will accelerate the delivery of affordable warfighting
capability to meet Naval Power 21 and Marine Corps Strategy 21
objectives.
The Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion program is an excellent example
of evolutionary acquisition. The Navy is actively disseminating the
lessons learned from these successes to facilitate full implementation
of the evolutionary acquisition philosophy.
Question. What specific steps has the Department of Navy taken to
adopt incremental or phased acquisition approaches, such as spiral
development?
Answer. The new DOD Instruction 5000.2, ``Operation of the Defense
Acquisition System'', establishes a strong preference for evolutionary
acquisition and spiral development. The Navy assisted in the
development of this instruction. Both evolutionary acquisition and
spiral development can reduce major acquisition program cycle time. The
new Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5000.2C, which is currently being
routed within Navy for approval, will provide further implementation
guidance and institutionalize the new philosophy. If confirmed, I will
strongly support and advance this acquisition approach. Navy
acquisition managers will be expected to exploit fully the flexibility
of the new acquisition policies in structuring evolutionary acquisition
plans appropriate to the capability needs and the pace of advancing
technology for their systems.
Question. How will the requirements process, budget process, and
testing regime change to accommodate spiral development?
Answer. The Navy has encouraged and supported programs in dealing
with the key enablers for spiral development, such as time phasing of
capabilities, full funding for spirals/increments, operational testing,
and evolutionary sustainment strategies. Discussions have been held
with the capability assessment, resources, test, and logistics
communities to enhance support within these communities for
evolutionary acquisition and spiral development. Program managers have
been directed to structure plans and coordinate activities with
relevant stakeholders as early as possible within each program
acquisition cycle. Acquisition plans and documents should reflect these
agreements.
services contracting
Question. DOD spends over $60 billion a year on services. Concerns
raised by the DOD Inspector General about the management of these
contracts led Congress to pass section 801 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, which requires each of the
military departments to establish a management structure for the
procurement of services comparable to the structure already in place
for the procurement of products by the Department of Defense. Section
801 also requires each department to designate an official to be
responsible for the management of the procurement of services.
By way of comparison, the Air Force has established a Program
Executive Officer for Services, with responsibility for handling all
services acquisitions in excess of $100 million. The committee also
understands that the Air Force has established a management structure
for smaller acquisitions.
What is the Department of Navy doing to better manage its services
contracts, and, specifically, to implement the requirements contained
in section 801?
Answer. On March 10, 2003, the Department of the Navy issued its
``Department of the Navy Management Oversight Process for Acquisition
of Services (MOPAS)'' guidance. In conjunction with existing Navy
guidance on the procurement of products the MOPAS guidance establishes
criteria, review/approval thresholds and metrics requirements for
services contracts. The guidance utilizes existing strengths and
organizational structure to evaluate needs. Assistant Secretary of the
Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition) (ASN(RDA)) will review
services acquisitions designated as Special Interest by the Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) and will
review and approve services acquisitions with a total planned dollar
value of $1 billion or more, as well as services acquisitions
identified by ASN(RDA) as special interest. Review and approval
authority for lower dollar value contracts are delegated to the
appropriate Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Additionally,
acquisition workforce training is being conducted to foster
understanding of and compliance with these procedures, and compliance
is being reviewed during procurement assessments of acquisition
activities.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Dionel M. Aviles follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
February 6, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dionel M. Aviles, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of the Navy,
vice Susan Morrisey Livingstone, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dionel M. Aviles, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dionel M. Aviles
Dionel M. Aviles was nominated on June 12, 2001 by President George
W. Bush to serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial
Management and Comptroller) and was sworn in on July 17, 2001.
From 1995 to 2001, Mr. Aviles served as a professional staff member
on the staff of the House Armed Services Committee and was responsible
for defense budgeting and finance issues, as well as Navy shipbuilding
and other procurement issues.
Prior to working at the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Aviles
served for 4 years in the National Security Division of the OMB in the
Executive Office of the President. He began his service at OMB as the
budget examiner for Navy procurement and research and development
programs and ended as the assistant to the division director
responsible for the development of the defense accounts for the
President's Budget.
Before joining OMB, Mr. Aviles served as a program engineer at the
Naval Air Systems Command. He worked on various Tomahawk missile
projects in the Cruise Missile Project. Prior to his government service
at the Naval Air Systems Command, he worked as a production support
engineer for the Standard Missile and Phalanx Gun programs.
A native of Bryan, Texas, he graduated from the United States Naval
Academy in 1983 with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. In
1993 he earned a master's degree in business administration from the
School of Business and Public Management at George Washington
University.
Mr. Aviles served on active duty in the United States Navy from
1983 to 1988 as a surface warfare officer and is an officer in the
Naval Reserve.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dionel M.
Aviles in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Dionel M. Aviles.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of the Navy.
3. Date of nomination:
February 6, 2004.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
January 23, 1961; Bryan, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to the former Kimberly Lee Corbin.
7. Names and ages of children:
Thomas William Aviles (7 years old).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
George Washington University, 1991 to 1993, Master of Business
Administration, December 1993.
University of Maryland, 1989 to 1990, No degree granted.
U.S. Naval Academy, 1979 to 1983, Bachelor of Science, Mechanical
Engineering, May 1983.
Texas A&M University, 1978 to 1979, No degree granted.
Satellite High School, Satellite Beach, Florida, 1975 to 1978, High
School Diploma, June 1978.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management &
Comptroller), 1000 Navy, Pentagon (Room 4E569), Washington, DC, July
2001 to Present.
Professional Staff Member, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee
on Armed Services, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, March
1995 to July 2001.
Budget Examiner, Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC, April 1991
to February 1995.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Engineer, Department of the Navy, Program Executive Officer for
Cruise Missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Naval Air Systems
Command, Arlington, VA, January 1990 to April 1991.
Naval Officer, U.S. Navy, 1983 to 1988, U.S. Naval Reserve, 1988 to
present.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association (1983-present), 247 King
Street, Annapolis, MD, Life Member, no offices held.
Our Lady of the Fields Catholic Church (1995-present), 1070 Cecil
Avenue, Millersville, Parishoner, no offices held.
Republican Party (1979-present), c/o Republican National Committee,
310 First Street, SE, Washington, DC, Member, no offices held.
National Rifle Association (1993 to present), 11250 Waples Mill
Road, Fairfax, VA, Life Member, no offices held.
Navy Federal Credit Union (1979-present), P.O. Box 3000,
Merrifield, VA, Member, no offices held.
Anne Arundel Fish and Game Conservation Association (1993-present),
P.O. Box 150, Arnold, MD, Member, no offices held.
United Services Automobile Association (1982-present), 9800
Fredericksburg Road, San Antonio, TX, Member, no offices held.
Society of American Military Engineers (1988-present), 607 Prince
Street, Alexandria, VA, Member, no offices held.
Reserve Officers Association (1995-present), One Constitution
Avenue, NE, Washington, DC, Life member, no offices held.
Ducks Unlimited (2003-present), One Waterfowl Way, Memphis, TN,
Member, no offices held.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Member of the Republican party. No offices held or services
rendered during the last 5 years.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Ehrlich Gubernatorial Campaign (2002), $700.
Bush for President Campaign (1999), $1,000.
Bush Gubernatorial Reelection Campaign (1998), $500.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Navy Commendation Medal (2 awards).
Navy Achievement Medal (2 awards).
National Defense Service Medal.
Navy Expert Pistol Medal.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
Commissioning speaker for U.S.S. McCampbell (DOG 85) on August 17,
2002.
Commissioning speaker for U.S.S. Mason (DOG 87) on April 12, 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?
If confirmed, I agree to appear and testify upon request before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Dionel M. Aviles.
This 9th day of February, 2004.
[The nomination of Dionel M. Aviles was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on May 12, 2004, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on September 24, 2004.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Jerald S. Paul by Chairman
Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. Section 3141 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002 stated that the Principal Deputy Administrator
shall be appointed ``from among persons who have extensive background
in organizational management and are well qualified to manage the
nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and materials disposition programs
of the administration in a manner that advances and protects the
National security of the United States.''
What background and experience do you possess that you believe
qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. The diversity of my background and experience will likely
provide the most effective tool for coordinating the activities of the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This diversity
includes perspective from education and experience as Nuclear Engineer
and Marine Engineer; Operating Systems of power plants, both nuclear
and fossil; experience coordinating nuclear fuel operations; practicing
as an attorney; and serving as an elected official in the Florida State
Legislature.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Principal Deputy
Administrator?
Answer. My ability to perform my duties will be greatly enhanced by
maintaining a visible proactive presence at our laboratories, plants,
and offices within the complex where I can establish a close meaningful
relationship with our front line managers and their teams.
Question. Section 3141 goes on to state that the Principal Deputy
Administrator ``shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as
the Administrator may prescribe, including the coordination of
activities among the elements of the administration.''
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do you expect
that the Administrator of the NNSA would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, the Administrator would likely assign me the
following responsibilities:
Partner with the Administrator in leading the NNSA.
Serve as the ``common superior'' for the resolution of
management issues arising between/among headquarters and field
offices.
Serve as first line supervisor for NNSA senior
managers in headquarters and the field.
Lead the Management Council (senior headquarters
managers) and the Leadership Coalition (Management Council plus
Site Managers and Director of the Service Center).
Lead the NNSA on DOE Management Challenges and 2004
priorities.
Senior NNSA focal point for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) on management issues.
Chair NNSA's Diversity Council and champion diversity
in the NNSA workplace.
major challenges and problems
Question. The Principal Deputy Administrator is a new position.
What is your understanding of the role that the individual
appointed to this position will play in the overall administration of
the NNSA?
Answer. The role of the Principal is to partner with the
Administrator in providing leadership to and management of NNSA. In the
short run, the Principal Deputy will focus on being the driving force
in completing the re-engineering of NNSA.
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Principal Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs?
Answer. Consistent with my responsibilities to ensure full
implementation of re-engineering, one major challenge will be
consolidating our business and technical services, together with the
people who performs them, from Oakland and Nevada, to the NNSA Service
Center in Albuquerque by the end of this fiscal year.
Additionally, identifying and remedying gaps and skill mix
mismatches throughout the organization will be a continuing challenge
that I will address.
We must be certain that the most qualified vendors available are
selected to carry out the complex scientific and technical work needed
by the Stockpile Stewardship Program and Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. In each case cited above, I would work closely with the
NNSA senior leadership team at headquarters and at our site offices and
service center to ensure that each activity is being managed in an
efficient and cost effective manner. The NNSA Chief Operating Officer
has established teams to oversee the specific challenges discussed
above and he is working closely with the headquarters and field
managers to address areas of concern. He has developed milestones for
each phase of implementation and is holding managers accountable for
adherence to these schedules. If confirmed, I will ensure the
responsibility for guiding these efforts and accomplishing these key
objectives.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Principal Deputy Administrator?
Answer.
The most serious problems involve the design and
implementation of an appropriate line oversight and contractor
assurance policy for the NNSA complex.
A lesser problem is the number of delinquencies in the
technical qualifications program. NNSA has a significant number
of individuals, in some instances because of job changes due to
re-engineering, who have not completed the technical
qualifications for their positions.
Finally, the role of headquarters offices in
overseeing the performance of the Site Offices and the Service
Center needs to be more clearly defined.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer.
If confirmed I would look at immediately assigning an
individual from the Service Center to assess the status of each
site and contractor. As Principal Deputy I will enforce a
deadline to have the line oversight and contractor assurance
system designed and the first steps of implementation underway.
The completion of the design of a system will include a
resources loaded schedule that I will monitor.
Each manager will be required to plan for completing
the qualification of each individual in the program who works
for that manager. The manager's performance appraisal plan will
include this item. Through the Chief Operating Officer, I will
monitor progress.
In my role of leading the Leadership Coalition, I
expect to drive the resolution of issues regarding roles and
responsibilities. I will monitor and effect how the roles and
responsibilities are carried out. The Principal Deputy should
initiate this effort at the first Leadership Coalition, should
he be confirmed.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Principal Deputy
Administrator?
Answer. The first priority for the Principal Deputy will be
completing NNSA's re-engineering so that we have a fully functioning
Service Center supporting our Site Offices and Headquarters.
Finalizing the roles and responsibilities among Headquarters, Site
Offices, and the Service Center will be another priority.
Accelerating and completing NNSA's workload reduction initiatives
is a third priority.
relationships
Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of
the Principal Deputy Administrator with the following officials:
The Secretary of Energy
Answer. Under the NNSA Act the Secretary, acting through the
Administrator, can direct the activities of NNSA. In addition, the
Secretary sets policy for NNSA and NNSA implements it.
Question. The Administrator of the NNSA
Answer. The Administrator is the direct supervisor of the Principal
Deputy. He sets priorities for the Deputy and serves as the common
superior to resolve any disputes between the Principal Deputy and the
other Deputy Administrators.
Question. Other Deputies in the NNSA
Answer. The other Deputies are direct reports to the Principal
Deputy who is their first line supervisor providing coordination,
integration, and oversight of their performance.
Question. The Assistant Secretary for Environment Management
Answer. The Principal Deputy will oversee the transition of legacy
waste cleanup from the responsibility of EM to NNSA. As the common
superior for both the headquarters cleanup element and the Site Office
managers, the Principal Deputy resolves any issues between headquarters
and the field.
Question. The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear,
Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs and the Nuclear Weapons
Council
Answer. The current incumbent is Dr. Dale Klein. In addition to his
other duties within the Department of Defense, Dr. Dale Klein serves as
the Executive Secretariat for the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC). NNSA
legal representative to the NWC is the Administrator and, if confirmed,
I will, along with the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs,
provide support to the Administrator in this critical role.
Question. Commander, Strategic Command
Answer. The current incumbent is Adm. James O. Ellis, Jr., USN. The
Commander of Strategic Command is the central customer at the
Department of Defense for the work of the NNSA. Along with the 3
laboratory directors, he provides his judgment annually on the
certification of the stockpile along with the Nuclear Weapons Council
to the Secretary of Defense. I expect that continual interactions with
the Commander in Chief of Strategic Command regarding military
requirements and stockpile size and composition will remain the primary
responsibility for the Deputy Administrator for DP.
Question. The Nuclear Directorate of the Air Force and Navy
Answer. (1) The current incumbent is Major General Robert L.
Smolen, USAF. The Directorate is responsible for establishing Air Force
policy and strategy for nuclear weapon systems, has oversight of
nuclear operations and requirements and manages all aspects of the Air
Force arms control activities ranging from treaty negotiation support
to implementation and compliance.
(2) The nuclear weapon Directorate of the Navy is broken into
policy and technical organizations. The policy organization is the
Strategy and Policy Branch within the Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations. Rear Admiral Carl V. Mauney is the current incumbent. The
Navy's nuclear weapon technical organization is Strategic Systems
Programs. The current incumbent is Rear Admiral Charles Young. The
Director of Strategic Systems Programs is responsible for all research,
development, production, logistics, storage, repair, and support of the
Navy's Fleet Ballistic Missile Weapon Systems.
Interactions with both of these important offices are and should
continue to be handled by the Principal Assistant Deputy Administrator
for Military Application.
Question. Associate Administrator of NNSA for Facilities and
Operations
Answer. The Principal Deputy is the first line supervisor for this
Senior Executive who is responsible for the corporate management and
oversight of NNSA's facilities management policies and programs,
project management systems, and safeguards and security programs. There
will be daily interaction with this Associate Administrator to provide
oversight and resolve any issues that may arise among Headquarters and/
or field managers, and to ensure the vitality and security of the
industrial and laboratory infrastructure of NNSA. The Principal Deputy
performs the annual performance appraisal of this Senior Executive,
including the establishment of the performance plans and
recommendations for compensation and awards.
Question. Associate Administrator of NNSA for Management and
Administration
Answer. The Principal Deputy is the first line supervisor for this
Senior Executive who is responsible for the overall business management
aspects of the NNSA enterprise by providing for the financial,
procurement and acquisition, human resources, information technology
and day-to-day business operations of NNSA. There will be daily
interaction with this Associate Administrator to provide oversight and
resolve any issues that may arise among Headquarters and/or field
managers, and to ensure the overall vitality of the NNSA business
programs. The Principal Deputy performs the annual performance
appraisal of this Senior Executive, including the establishment of the
performance plans and recommendations for compensation and awards.
management of nnsa
Question. What is the role of NNSA's Management Council and, if
confirmed, what would be your relationship with the Council?
Answer. Broadly speaking, the role of the NNSA Management Council
(Senior Headquarter Managers) is to address and make decisions on
matters which, for the most part, impact the entire NNSA complex. For
example:
Personnel appointments for key Headquarters and field
senior leadership positions that affect major NNSA activities/
operations;
Major organizational changes--such as re-engineering,
etc;
Business practices and systems (implementing E-Gov and
other administration data management systems, such as IMANAGE);
Budget matters such as the functioning of the NNSA
Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation (PPBE)
activities;
Issues of interest to the NNSA Leadership Coalition
(Managers of the Site Offices, and the Director of the Service
Center together with the NNSA Management Council) such as,
contract management, budget, and Site Office interfaces with
the Service Center.
Role of the Principal Deputy
I have discussed my potential role on the Management Council with
Ambassador Brooks. I would provide management oversight of all Council
activities for Ambassador Brooks. I would set the agenda for the weekly
meetings and ensure that subject matter experts scheduled to brief the
Council are fully prepared. I would ensure that the Management
Council's focus is on decisionmaking and implementation. My goal would
be to help ensure that NNSA is being managed and operated consistent
with the spirit and intent of the NNSA Act.
weapons program work force
Question. If confirmed, what specific steps would you recommend for
the NNSA to retain critical nuclear weapons expertise, particularly
design capabilities, in the NNSA workforce?
Answer. Monitoring the status of our critical nuclear weapons
expertise will be one of my highest priorities if confirmed. NNSA's
nuclear weapons expertise resides in the workforces of our Management
and Operating (M&O) contractors who manage the weapons laboratories,
production plants and test site. NNSA relies on these contractors to
maintain that expertise, but carefully monitors their status. We
include performance metrics in each of our eight M&O contracts to
ensure our contractors give this their highest priority. I will ensure
that senior management and our contractors watch for negative trends in
advance so that we can take appropriate corrective measures.
Question. If confirmed, what specific steps would you recommend for
the NNSA to ensure that new weapons designers are appropriately
trained?
Answer. Activities that exercise weapons design skills are the most
important action NNSA can take to appropriately train new designers. As
time passes, NNSA continues to lose experienced designers from our
laboratory workforces, and within the next decade we will have very few
who have hands-on experience from designing new warheads, or planning
and conducting underground nuclear tests. I believe we must continually
seek worthwhile program activities that can exercise these skills as
well as ensure that the expertise in our workforce is properly archived
and that the next generation of designers learns from the current
designers before they retire.
Question. In your view, what are the critical skills that are
needed in the NNSA?
Answer. I believe the Chiles Commission review was on target
regarding the critical skills needed for the future. As I understand
it, the NNSA worked with its contractors following the review and has
established processes for contractors to ensure that those skills are
maintained, and establish processes for NNSA to ensure that we have
appropriate operational awareness and oversight of the status. I would
encourage each contractor to maintain its own list of critical skills
and periodically reports metrics on recruitment, development, and
retention of those skills.
safeguards and security
Question. One of the biggest initiatives of the Department of
Energy and the NNSA over the past year was to establish a new design
basis threat (DBT) standard.
If confirmed, what recommendations would you make to help ensure
the NNSA meets the new DBT?
Answer. I would ensure that detailed schedules are in place along
with milestones and timelines to adequately assess progress by the
sites in implementing site safeguards and security upgrades included in
approved plans. Further, I would ensure that sites maintain this
schedule, assess any delays that may occur, and champion requests for
additional resources as needed.
Question. How should the NNSA maintain an appropriate balance
between adding security personnel and investing in force multiplying
technologies and infrastructure in this area?
Answer. Utilizing additional manpower to provide necessary upgrades
in the level of security protection is generally the most expensive
approach. Therefore, I believe it is important the NNSA invest in
technologies that are available, reliable and cost effective to
effectively complement the need for additional protective personnel.
Question. In your opinion, what are the biggest threats to the
nuclear weapons program?
Answer. In my opinion the biggest threats to the nuclear weapons
program is its aging facilities, systems and equipment compounds by the
lack of necessary resources to upgrade these facilities to today's
security standards for protection and storage.
stockpile stewardship program
Question. What is your view of the Stockpile Stewardship Program's
progress towards its goal of being able to continuously certify the
U.S. enduring nuclear weapons stockpile as safe, secure and reliable
without the need for underground testing?
Answer. While I have not yet received classified briefs about the
Stockpile Stewardship Program, I understand that it has been able for
almost a decade to certify that the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile
is safe, secure, and reliable. I also understand that it has solved
problems in the stockpile that in the past would have been resolved
using nuclear testing.
Question. In your opinion, what are the greatest challenges
confronting the Stockpile Stewardship Program?
Answer. Again, I have yet to received a detailed briefing, but from
my understanding the greatest challenge confronting the Stockpile
Stewardship Program is maintaining confidence in the judgments in the
absence of full scale testing data. The analysis must be rigorous and
reviewed to ensure that we avoid a false sense of confidence in the
safety, security and reliability of the stockpile. If the data suggests
that there is a problem in the stockpile we must be prepared to
initiate testing if necessary for comprehensive, accurate analysis or
withdraw the weapon from the stockpile until it is repaired, if that
was possible.
Question. Do you fully support the goals of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program?
Answer. Yes, the Stockpile Stewardship Program is one of this
country's most important national security programs. If confirmed, I
will work with the administration to ensure that this program receives
the resources necessary to continue to its success.
nuclear posture review
Question. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was released in
January 2002, contained the administration's plan to reduce the number
of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700
and 2,200 by the year 2012. These reductions were included in the
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2003.
Will any dismantlements occur as a result of the NPR and the Moscow
Treaty?
Answer. It is my understanding that the answer is yes and that by
2012, the size of the nuclear weapons stockpile will be substantially
reduced from today's levels.
Question. With the large number of refurbishment and other life
extension program activities planned over the next 8 years, is there
enough facility capacity and are there sufficiently qualified personnel
in the NNSA workforce to also take on a large increase in dismantlement
during the same time period?
Answer. As I understand it, the NNSA will continue to be able to
dismantle warheads, but the rate of dismantlement will depend on the
workload needed to support other priority activities including life
extension programs, warhead surveillance, and stockpile maintenance
modifications and alterations.
Question. The NPR stated as one of its priority goals achievement
of a reinvigorated infrastructure across the nuclear weapons complex.
With competing budget priorities for the Stockpile Stewardship
Program, directed stockpile work, safeguards and security, and
maintenance and recapitalization, what steps would you take, if
confirmed to ensure the infrastructure continues to be revitalized and
well maintained?
Answer. I believe it is essential that our country has a modern and
responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure as called for in the Nuclear
Posture Review to maintain deterrence with a much smaller stockpile. I
believe NNSA is on the right track with its FIRP program that will
ensure that the current weapons complex is brought back up to modern
standards, as well as looking at what the complex of the future will
need to ensure the security of future generations to come, such as
building a Modern Pit Facility.
Question. What recommendations, if any, would you make to improve
management of the facilities in the nuclear weapons complex?
Answer. NNSA reengineering efforts are aimed at improving
efficiency and effectiveness. Based on my experience, management can
best be improved by establishing clear performance objectives and the
means for fairly judging contractor performance. I have been impressed
with the work NNSA has been doing to clearly define and measure
performance through its PPBE process. I also support NNSA's efforts to
establish model contracts that streamline the interface between the
government and its contractors by establishing assurance and evaluation
systems based on external validation. If confirmed, I will focus my
efforts on fully implementing NNSA's Contractor Assurance Systems.
facilities and infrastructure
Question. Upon its creation, NNSA inherited an infrastructure in
need of significant work, particularly at the nuclear weapons plants,
but throughout the aging nuclear weapons complex. At the request of the
Department of Energy, Congress, in section 3133 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, established the Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP).
Although FIRP appears to be making good progress in revitalizing
the infrastructure through elimination of maintenance backlogs, what
recommendations would you make to ensure that current and future
maintenance needs under the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
program are met so that the nuclear weapons complex is revitalized when
FIRP is terminated in 2011, as originally planned?
Answer. Based on my current understanding of facility conditions, I
would recommend that NNSA develop a corporate strategy to ensure smooth
and appropriate transition that will avoid falling back into an
unacceptable deferred maintenance backlog. I understand a complex-wide
coordinated plan to achieve required space reductions, modernize the
facilities and shift to a preventative maintenance approach rather than
relying on corrective maintenance. I believe these programs are taking
appropriate steps to define and manage maintenance requirements. We
need to make sure both group's efforts are appropriately integrated as
we approach the end of FIRP in 2011.
pit production capability and modern pit facility
Question. In his testimony before the Strategic Forces
Subcommittee, on March 24, 2004, Admiral Ellis, USN, Commander, United
States Strategic Command, while discussing the aging effects on
plutonium, stated that ``[w]e assume that there's some risk in any
significant delay to the current design of the Modern Pit Facility.
Some would argue that we are accepting unacceptable risk by not having
it in operation until the end of the next decade.''
Please describe the progress being made on the environmental impact
statement and design work for a Modern Pit Facility.
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reporting back to the
committee as I have not been fully briefed on this matter. However, I
do know that on January 28, 2004, the NNSA announced a delay of
unspecified duration in the release of the MPF-EIS and selection of a
preferred host site location.
Question. Please describe what process should be used to
communicate military requirements on the Modern Pit Facility from DOD
to DOE.
Answer. While I have not been briefed on these issues, nuclear
weapons requirements are coordinated through the joint DOE/DOD Nuclear
Weapons Council (NWC). Primary duties of the NWC are to prepare nuclear
weapons stockpile plans, to include the size and composition of the
stockpile in the out years, and to recommend these plans for approval
by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and ultimately,
the President. As I understand it the NWC regularly receives and acts
on information concerning the Modern Pit Facility. This includes
information on its appropriate size, timing, and capabilities.
environmental restoration and waste management
Question. What responsibility does NNSA have for managing and
disposing of its current and future hazardous waste streams and
environmental restoration?
Answer. NNSA is responsible for environmental operations at NNSA
facilities, including managing waste streams from its activities and
decontamination/decommission of surplus facilities. It is my
understanding that NNSA assumed responsibility for five of its sites
from the Office of Environmental Management during the late 1990s for
disposing of waste from the ongoing operations. In fiscal year 2006, an
additional two NNSA sites will take over that responsibility.
Question. What specific steps is NNSA taking to phase these
activities into its planning budgets in view of the cap DOE has placed
on the activities of its Environmental Management (EM) program?
Answer. It is my understanding that part of the fiscal year 2006
DOE budget planning process, NNSA is working with DOE's Office of
Environmental Management to develop a plan to transition all EM
responsibilities at NNSA sites to the NNSA. A new office within NNSA's
Office of Infrastructure and Security (NA-50) has been assigned
responsibility for evaluating NNSA's liability and coordinating the
transition. If confirmed I will fully engage in this process and report
back to the committee that progress.
Question. What is the current plan, including milestones, to ensure
that this responsibility is clearly identified and integrated into NNSA
planning?
Answer. Again, it is my understanding that NNSA's Office of
Infrastructure and Security has developed a field data call for fiscal
year 2006 EM activities consistent with NNSA's PPBE process. NNSA will
independently analyze environmental management requirements at its
sites and integrate these new budget responsibilities into the fiscal
year 2006 budget request and Future Years Nuclear Security Plan.
defense nuclear nonproliferation programs
Question. In your view, are any policy or management improvements
needed in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs? If so, what
improvements would you recommend?
Answer. Uncosted balances remain a management challenge that all
programs face. The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN)
needs to continue to address its uncosted balances and implement and
revise the practices it has created to reduce them.
Question. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002, the Department of Energy (DOE) was authorized to use
international nuclear materials protection and cooperation program
funds outside the borders of the former Soviet Union (FSU).
Do you anticipate DOE will use this authority? If so, in what
countries and for what purposes?
Answer. The NNSA Act of fiscal year 2000 directed the DNN to reduce
the global threat of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, it is my
understanding that DNN's mission is global. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 further strengthens DNN's
ability to continue working on Material Protection, Cooperation, and
Accounting (MPC&A) activities throughout the world. Pursuant to the
President's fiscal year 2005 budget, DNN plans to support MPC&A work in
countries of concern worldwide.
national ignition facility
Question. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is scheduled to
reach ignition by 2010 using a new cryogenics target technology.
In your opinion, is this technology feasible, and if confirmed,
would you support restructuring the NIF budget to reduce the overall
cost of the project with the goal of completing the project sooner than
the current schedule would allow?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed by the Defense Programs staff
on all technical details of the program for achieving ignition on the
NIF. However, it is my understanding that NNSA scientists regard
ignition as a great scientific challenge, and they are confident that
they will ultimately be successful. Based upon preliminary briefings
with the Defense Program's staff, I have not been presented with a
reason at present to restructure the NIF Project. The current budget
plan for stockpile stewardship strikes a proper balance in schedule and
resources for addressing this challenge.
Question. In your view, does the scientific information offered by
the NIF program provide enough value to justify its cost as part of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program, even if the NIF does not reach ignition?
Answer. Yes, at present NIF is the only facility that can
reasonably be expected to approach the conditions of temperature and
pressure attained in a nuclear weapon, and that makes it essential for
stockpile stewardship even though it costs several billion dollars to
construct. I understand from our scientists that there are many
important stockpile areas that can be investigated without requiring
ignition. One such area that provides value is the physical properties
of weapons-related materials. There are similar needs in the field of
nuclear engineering, with which I am familiar, but here the conditions
of temperature and pressure are much higher.
Question. Would you agree that the NIF is a key Stockpile
Stewardship facility?
Answer. Yes, as a nuclear engineer, I realize how important it is
to have a facility like NIF to investigate issues in a regime
approaching that found in a weapon. It will also be an important
facility for training and maintaining the expertise of weapons
designers.
Question. In your view, if the NIF fails to reach ignition, does
that preclude us from being able to certify a nuclear weapon, without
underground testing in the future?
Answer. While I believe the ability to certify a nuclear weapon
without underground testing in the future depends on many factors
including NNSA's plans to achieve ignition on NIF. I have not been
fully briefing on all of the issues associated with the scientific
impacts if NIF fails to achieve ignition. However, I do understand that
NIF is already providing good scientific data for the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. Our future ability to certify the safety,
security, and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile using
science based judgments, without underground testing will depend on our
ability to continue to conduct a program of these types of activities,
including NIF. We must maintain confidence that the program is
providing us all the information needed to certify the ability of the
weapon to perform its assigned mission.
Question. In your opinion, could the NIF meet its goal of ignition
with a number of lasers below the 192-laser design?
Answer. I understand from NNSA scientists that the full 192 beam
NIF is needed to reach ignition. It is not so much a matter of the
laser energy as it is the configuration of the laser beams that
requires the full set of 192 beams. All the beams are needed so that
the NIF target can be illuminated as planned.
nuclear weapons testing
Question. Do you support the current moratorium on testing?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the current moratorium on testing.
Based on the briefings I have received, the Stockpile Stewardship
Program is working today to ensure the continued safety, security and
reliability of this Nation's nuclear deterrent without returning to
full scale testing.
Question. Do you believe that there is a need at the present time
to resume underground nuclear weapons testing to support the current
stockpile or to support new or modified nuclear weapons?
Answer. At the present time there is no need to resume underground
nuclear weapons testing to support the current stockpile. As I
understand it, there are no requirements from the Department of Defense
for any new nuclear weapons and that the ongoing Life Extension
Programs (W87, B61, W80, W76) and the work associated with the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator do not require a resumption of underground
nuclear testing.
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 Principal Deputy
Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Jerald S. Paul follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
February 3, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Jerald S. Paul, of Florida, to be Principal Deputy Administrator,
National Nuclear Security Administration. (New Position)
______
[The biographical sketch of Jerald S. Paul, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Jerald S. Paul
Representative Paul was elected to the Florida House of
Representatives in 2000. During his first 2 years in the Legislature,
Representative Paul served as Deputy Majority Whip.
He chairs the House Subcommittee on Agriculture and Environment
Appropriations and chairs the House Subcommittee on Environmental
Regulation. He also serves on the following committees: Energy,
Appropriations, Business Regulation, Natural Resources, Procedures,
Rules and Public Security.
Representative Paul holds a Bachelor's Degree in Marine Engineering
from Maine Maritime Academy, a Merchant Marine Academy in Castine,
Maine, where he also completed a minor in Nuclear Power Operations. He
later earned a post baccalaureate degree in Nuclear Engineering from
the University of Florida where he graduated with high honors and
completed his thesis titled ``Neutronics Analysis of A Liquid Bonded
Nuclear Fuel.'' He formerly worked as a Reactor Engineer at power plant
reactor units where he was responsible for nuclear fuel operations
activities and reactor core operations activities. He is a practicing
attorney having received his Juris Doctor of Law from Stetson
University College of Law.
He represents Florida on the Southern States Energy Board.
Representative Paul has been appointed to represent Florida on the
National Conference of State Legislators Committees on Environment and
Natural Resources and was most recently appointed by the U.S.
Department of Energy to serve as a member of Secretary Abraham's
Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee.
In his first year as a State Representative, Florida Trend magazine
recognized Representative Paul as one of the top eight newly elected
legislators in the Florida House of Representatives ``who could shape
government until 2008.'' That same year the Florida Chamber also
recognized Representative Paul as one of the Top 20 newly elected
legislators.
Representative Paul's wife, Kristy, is an elementary school teacher
and they have two children.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Jerald S. Paul
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.)
Jerald Scott (``Jerry'') Paul.
2. Position to which nominated:
Principal Deputy Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration.
3. Date of nomination:
February 3, 2004.
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 26, 1966; Lancaster, Ohio.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married since 1988 to Kristina Lee Paul; Maiden name of wife:
Kristina Lee Holmbeck.
7. Names and ages of children:
Son, Jared Duane Paul, 9 years old.
Daughter, Lauren Elizabeth Paul, 6 years old.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
04/1992-12/1994--Stetson University College of Law, St. Petersburg,
Florida, Degree: Juris Doctor of Law (12/1994).
08/1989-12/1990--University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida,
Degree: Post Baccalaureate Degree Nuclear Engineering (12/1990).
08/1985-04/1989--Maine Maritime Academy, Castine, Maine, Degree:
B.S. Marine Engineering (04/1989), Minor 1: Nuclear Power Operations,
Minor 2: Power Control Engineering.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
11/2000-Present, Employer: Florida Legislature, Location:
Tallahassee, Florida, Title/Description: Elected State Representative.
05/1996-Present, Employer: Mckinley, Ittersagen, Gunderson and
Berntsson, P.A., Location: Port Charlotte, Florida, Title/Description:
Law Partner (Civil Practice, Government, Administrative Law).
12/1994-05/1996, Employer: Charlotte County Attorney Office,
Location: Port Charlotte, Florida, Title/Description: Attorney
(Government, Administrative, Environmental, Land Use Law).
05/1994-07/1994, Employer: Sarasota County Attorney
Office,Location: Sarasota, Florida, Title/Description: Law Clerk
(Government, Administrative, Environmental, Land Use Law).
01/1994-05/1994, Employer: Fowler, White, et al. Law Firm,
Location: Tampa, Florida, Title/Description: Law Clerk (Admiralty/
Maritime Law).
01/1991-04/1992, Employer: Georgia Power Company, Location: E.I.
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Baxley, Georgia, Title/Description: Reactor
Engineer.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
Committee (NERAC).
Member, Select Committee on Public Security--Florida House of
Representatives.
Represent Florida on the Southern States Energy Board (Since 2000).
Chair Subcommittee on Environmental Regulation, Florida House of
Rep.
Chair Subcommittee on Environmental Appropriations, Florida House
of Rep.
Represent Florida on the National Conference of State Legislators,
Committees on Environment and Natural Resources.
Serve on following committees in Florida House of Representatives:
Energy, Natural Resources, Rules, Procedures, Appropriations, Business
Regulation.
Served on Public Utilities Advisory Committee, Sarasota County,
Florida.
Served as legal counsel and provided legal counsel to the following
governments: including Charlotte County, Florida; City of Punta Gorda,
Florida; Gasparilla Island Bridge Authority; Charlotte County School
Board; Englewood Water District.
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: Law firm of Mckinley, Ittersagen, Gunderson & Berntsson,
P.A.
Managing Member: J&K Paul Family, Limited Liability Company (LLC).
Managing Member: Capitol Energy, LLC.
Member: Sibling Rivalry, LLC.
Member: Advisory Committee for University of Florida Department of
Nuclear and Radiological Sciences
Member: Advisory Committee for University of Florida College of
Engineering
Clients whom I represent or provide legal consultation: Charlotte
County Government, Charlotte County Tax Collector, Gasparilla Island
Bridge Authority, Placida Church of God, J&J Homes, Cape Haze Marina
Bay, Hollis Kachler, Jr., Pamela Johnston and Family, and Bocilla
Utilities.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Current:
Florida Bar.
Florida Blue Key.
Rotary International Service Organization.
Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center Board of Directors.
Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Southwest Florida Board of Directors.
Former:
Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society.
Alpha Nu Sigma Nuclear Engineering Honor Society.
Phi Delta Phi, International Legal Honor Society.
Law Review, Stetson University College of Law.
American Society of Naval Engineers (ASNE).
American Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (ASME).
American Nuclear Society (ANS).
Charlotte County United Way, Board of Directors.
Englewood Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors.
Charlotte County Chamber of Commerce, Government Affairs
Committee.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
I am serving my second term as an elected State Representative,
Florida House of Representatives. I have not been a candidate for other
public office(s).
I served as Deputy Majority Whip (2000-2002) in the Florida House
of Representatives.
Committeeman: Sarasota County Republican Executive Committee (1991-
1994).
Committeeman: Charlotte County Republican Executive Committee
(1994-Present).
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None, other than listed in section 13(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.
N/A.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Alpha Nu Sigma, Nuclear Engineering Honor Society.
Dr. Glenn Schoessow Nuclear Engineering Honorary Scholarship.
Tau Beta Pi, Engineering Honorary Society.
Order of The Engineer, Engineering Honorary Society.
Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (INPO) Scholarship.
John Hancock Engineering Honorary Scholarship.
American Society of Naval Engineers (ASNE) Scholarship.
Albian S. Coffin Math Achievement Scholarship.
Maine Maritime Academy Academic Scholarship.
Phi Delta Phi, International Legal Honorary Society.
Navy Expert pistol qualification award
Certifications/Licenses:
U.S. Coast Guard 3A/E Engineer License.
3rd Class Engineer License--State of Maine.
Certified Nuclear Fuel Inspector.
Nuclear Power Plant Root Cause Analysis.
Licensed Boiler Operator License.
Florida Bar License (Federal and State Court).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Neutronics Analysis of Liquid Bonded Nuclear Fuels (1990):
Research for High Honors Thesis at University of Florida,
compiled and published as part of a topical report with James S.
Tulenko, Richard Wright, Glenn J. Schoessow, Jerald Paul, University of
Florida Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, presented at The
American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting on LWR Fuel
Performance in Avignon, France April 21-24, 1991.
Stetson Law Review Local Government Symposium, Published at Vol.
23, Spring 1994, No.2:
1. Environmental Law: Davey Compressor Co. v. City of Delray
Beach, 613 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
2. Land Use Planning & Zoning: Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes,
997 F. 2d 1369 (11th Cir. 1993).
3. Land Use Planning & Zoning: Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities,
II, LTD. Partnership, 619 So.2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
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.
Submitted herewith.
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.
Jerald S. Paul.
This 13th day of February, 2004.
______
[The nomination of Jerald S. Paul was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on May 12, 2004, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 22, 2004.]
TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF TINA WESTBY JONAS TO BE UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER); DIONEL M. AVILES TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY; JERALD S. PAUL TO BE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; WILLIAM A. CHATFIELD TO BE
DIRECTOR OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE; AND MARK FALCOFF TO BE A MEMBER OF
THE NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION BOARD
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe,
Roberts, Allard, Sessions, Collins, Ensign, Talent, Chambliss,
Graham, Cornyn, Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka,
Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Dayton, Bayh, and Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Before I turn to the matters at hand, and
a quorum being present, I ask the committee to consider five
civilian nominations: Tina Jonas, to be Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller); Dionel Aviles, to be Under Secretary of
the Navy; Jerald Paul, to be Principal Deputy Administrator of
the National Nuclear Security Administration; William
Chatfield, to be Director of the Selective Service; and Mark
Falcoff, to be a member of the National Security Education
Board. All of these nominations have been before the committee
the required length of time.
Is there a motion to favorably report the nominations?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Chairman Warner. So moved. Second?
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to
object, and will not object except to say that I will hold
these nominations until we get the requested information that
has been outstanding for a long period of time now concerning
communications on the Boeing issue. I won't waste the time of
the committee much longer, but we're approaching a time where I
will be asking a vote of the committee to see whether we
subpoena these documents or not.
Chairman Warner. Senator, you have been straightforward in
that. I've done my best to date, and will continue to help you
gain that material. But you have kept the chairman and the
ranking member informed continuously of your views.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. The issue of the nomination is before the
committee. All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed? [No response.]
Ayes have it. The nominations are now proceeding to the
floor.
[The nomination reference of Tina Westby Jonas follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 11, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Tina Westby Jonas, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), vice Dov S. Zakheim, resigning.
______
[The nomination reference of Dionel M. Aviles follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
February 6, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dionel M. Aviles, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of the Navy,
vice Susan Morrisey Livingstone, resigned.
______
[The nomination reference of Jerald S. Paul follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
February 3, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Jerald S. Paul, of Florida, to be Principal Deputy Administrator,
National Nuclear Security Administration. (New Position).
______
[The nomination reference of William A. Chatfield follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 3, 2003.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
William A. Chatfield, of Texas, to be Director of Selective
Service, vice Alfred Rascon, resigned.
______
[The nomination reference of Mark Falcoff follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
February 5, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Mark Falcoff, of California, to be a Member of the National
Security Education Board for a term of 4 years, vice Cornelius P.
O'Leary, term expired.
[Whereupon, at 9:38 a.m., this executive session was
adjourned in order to take up the matter of allegations of
Iraqi prisoner abuse.]
NOMINATION OF GEN GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., USA, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE
GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John
Warner (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain,
Roberts, Allard, Sessions, Collins, Talent, Chambliss, Dole,
Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson,
Dayton, 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; Elaine A.
McCusker, professional staff member; Paula J. Philbin,
professional staff member; Lynn R. Rusten, 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; and Michael J. McCord, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Bridget E. Ward and Pendred K.
Wilson.
Committee members' assistants present: Darren M. Dick,
assistant to Senator Roberts; Arch Galloway II, assistant to
Senator Sessions; James P. Dohoney, Jr., assistant to Senator
Collins; Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to Senator Talent; Clyde A.
Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Christine O. Hill,
assistant to Senator Dole; Russell J. Thomasson, assistant to
Senator Cornyn; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator
Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Davelyn
Noelani Kalipi, assistant to Senator Akaka; William K. Sutey,
assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; William Todd Houchins,
assistant to Senator Dayton; and Andrew Shapiro, assistant to
Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good morning all. I first want to join
with the ranking member and all members of the committee in
thanking our respective staffs for the extraordinary work that
they performed in assisting each of us individually and
collectively such that we were able to achieve, after 16 days
of hearings, a bill last night representing the Senate's 2005
authorization for the men and women of the Armed Forces. It was
quite a feat.
I have one other issue to address this morning, and I have
discussed this with the ranking member. I went back over
several transcripts of earlier hearings, and there are clear
passages where, in the course of the questions being propounded
by Members of the Senate, the witnesses are literally
struggling to provide the answer, but time was insufficient
within which to put into the record the full breadth of the
witness's response before the Senator went on to a successive
question. The ranking member and I are going to ask our
colleagues to be a bit more cautious as we question our
witnesses to give them the full opportunity to respond.
In any event, we have had a wonderful start to today's
hearing. We have had the privilege of meeting with the General
and his wonderful family. I think the best way to start here,
General, is simply to say that we are meeting to consider your
nomination to be the first--and I underline ``the very
first''--Commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), an
important new position established to oversee U.S. and
coalition military activities in Iraq. These military
activities, as a part of the Multi-National Force, were first
authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council
resolution 1511 in October 2003 and reinforced and extended by
the U.N. Security Council resolution 1546, which was passed
unanimously on June 8, 2004.
The Commander of MNF-I will also be responsible for
coordinating military and security activities with the new
interim Iraqi government following the transfer of sovereignty
on June 30.
So we welcome you, General, again back before the
committee, given that you have just been before us for your
important position which you presently hold. I would like to
ask if you would kindly introduce your family who have joined
you at this important hearing today.
General Casey. Thank you very much, Senator. I would like
to start by introducing my wife of 34 years, Sheila. Since
Sunday is our anniversary, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank her publicly for all the love and support
that she has given our family and me over the last 34 years and
for all she has done for Army soldiers and families over that
period of time. She has managed to do all that and have a
career at the same time.
Chairman Warner. That is wonderful.
General Casey. My son Sean and his wife Jennifer, and my
son Ryan. They are the parents of our five grandchildren who
are the apples of our eyes, and I am very proud of both of
them. Sheila's sister, Clare O'Brien, and her husband Dick.
They have the distinction of being both family and friends. So
it's great to have everybody here with us.
Yesterday Ambassador Negroponte at his swearing in said
that he was going to Baghdad, but he was not going alone
because of the support his family gave him, and I feel the same
way.
Chairman Warner. I think that is wonderful. This committee
is very family-oriented, and we appreciate each of you finding
the time to join us today. This is an important milestone not
only in the career of General Casey, but an important milestone
in the efforts of our Nation towards providing freedom for the
Iraqi people.
I understand, Senator Roberts, that your son is a close
friend of the family and has joined with us today.
Senator Roberts. Yes, sir, he is. I am looking over the
room. I am not quite sure where he is right now, but that has
not changed much in about 31 years. [Laughter.]
But at any rate, he just got married a couple of weeks ago,
and we were delighted to have the General's son down to
Shreveport for a small wedding of 750 people.
I am delighted to see you here, General.
General Casey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Roberts. Welcome to your family and to David's
fraternity brother.
Chairman Warner. Well, I thank you, colleague.
Our nominee today is especially well qualified for his
challenging position. He currently serves as Vice Chief of
Staff of the United States Army. He has been extensively
involved in preparing Army troops for deployment to Iraq. He
just returned from a trip to the region with Deputy Secretary
Wolfowitz over the weekend.
Prior to his current assignment, the nominee was the
Director of the Joint Staff and has also served as the Director
for Strategic Planning, J-5, on the Joint Staff, and as
Commander of the Joint Warfighting Center in Suffolk, Virginia,
developing joint concepts and doctrine for joint and combined
warfare.
Additionally, General Casey served as Commander, 1st
Armored Division, garrisoned in Germany during the operations
in the Balkan region.
At this time next week, the sovereignty of Iraq will have
formally passed to an interim Iraqi government as Iraq
continues its path to elections and a hopeful democratic
future. The past few months have been particularly challenging
from the continuing violence against the coalition military
forces, against the new interim government, against innocent
civilians, and most importantly, against our own coalition
forces.
We are reminded that the security situation in Iraq remains
tenuous and that Iraq continues to be a very dangerous place
for our American forces, as well as coalition forces and,
indeed, for the civilians, the contractors, and many others,
which is an essential infrastructure for the overall military
operations.
We are fortunate to have a nominee, as I said, with all of
these qualifications.
I am going to ask Senator Levin at this point in time if he
would provide us with his opening comments.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you also for
your leadership in shepherding through our annual defense
authorization bill which was passed last night by a unanimous
vote. That is a real tribute to you. It is also a tribute to
our staffs. They have done a superb job, and you made that
clear last night on the floor as well. I know all the members
of our committee who worked so hard on this bill, and who also
made it possible for the bill to have unanimous support, join
us in thanking our staffs for their work on this bill last
night and in the months before.
Chairman Warner. It was team effort, Senator, and you were
my partner in it. I am very proud of the manner in which so
many of our committee members came over and actively
participated in that process.
Senator Levin. Let me join you also in welcoming and
congratulating General Casey and his wife, Sheila, their
family, and their friends on his nomination for such a vital
position. It is vital to the future of our country, of the
world, and to the future of Iraq.
I join you, Mr. Chairman, in thanking particularly his
family for their support of General Casey. Without their
support, as we know, nobody can take on the responsibilities
that General Casey has and will take on.
I believe that General Casey is the right person to be the
Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. He has the
tactical skills, having commanded at all levels from platoon to
division. He has the staff skills, as he knows the Pentagon
well, having served as the Director of Political Military
Affairs on the Joint Staff and later as the Director of the
Joint Staff. He has the educational background in international
affairs. He has had international exposure, including in the
Middle East with the United Nations. He understands the
importance of coalitions, and the nuances of coalition command
and coalition building. He understands the complexity of
dealing with the diverse Iraqi factions.
A major challenge for you, General Casey, will be
establishing the relationship between the coalition forces and
a newly sovereign but interim government. The letters from
Secretary Powell and Prime Minister Allawi annexed to the U.N.
Security Council resolution speak of coordinating bodies at the
national, regional, and local levels. How will they function?
Who will adjudicate disputes? What will be the command
relationships? What will be the legal status of the coalition
military forces and of American civilian security contractors?
Will you, General Casey, have authority over those contractors?
How will you and Ambassador Negroponte divide responsibilities?
Who adjudicates differences there?
Military commanders have been ordered to reorient
priorities from offensive operations against the insurgents to
training of Iraqi security forces. Allegedly some of our
commanders feel that their forces are stretched thin and
insurgents are taking advantage of that fact. There are many
concerns which arise as a result.
Those challenges are identified here just simply to
demonstrate the complexity and the broad range of problems that
you are going to leap right into as soon as you are there. I
have great confidence that you are going to do an outstanding
job as Commander of the Multi-National Force. I have confidence
that you will tell us whether the force levels are high enough,
that you will be frank and direct on this issue with us at all
times. You will tell us when you need more, and what you need
more of, and who you need more of and what missions perhaps
cannot be carried out as they should be because you do not have
enough people or equipment. We are going to rely on you heavily
to give us that in an unvarnished fashion.
Again, I congratulate you. I look forward to joining our
chairman promptly in bringing your nomination to the floor and
in seeing you confirmed.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin.
This morning a group of us, Senator Levin and others, met
with the President, and I raised the question of the status of
forces agreement (SOFA). The very candid response by the White
House was that while they had not achieved the conventional
type of status of forces agreement, they felt that the
extension of certain other documentary things relating to this
issue would be sufficient.
I hope that you put your own personal attention to that
because it is terribly serious. Our forces are following the
orders of their commanders, and they might well participate in
some operation which eventually could come under the scrutiny
of the future Iraqi judicial system, and we have got to provide
the protection for our forces, as well as the coalition
members.
I would like now to propound the series of advance
questions. You have answered those questions and provided for
the record the responses. So we need not go over each of those
questions.
But we do have the other questions which we always ask our
nominees, and I shall now tend to that.
Have you adhered to the applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
General Casey. I have, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
General Casey. I have not, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record and hearings?
General Casey. I will, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
General Casey. I will.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
possible reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
General Casey. They will.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree when asked before any duly
constituted committee of the United States Congress to give
your personal views, even if those views differ from the
administration in power and which you are serving?
General Casey. I will, Senator.
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
the United States Congress or to consult with the committee
regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in
providing such documents?
General Casey. I do.
Chairman Warner. Now, General Casey, we are pleased to
offer you the opportunity to make an opening statement, if you
so desire.
STATEMENT OF GEN GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., USA, FOR REAPPOINTMENT
TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, MULTI-NATIONAL
FORCE-IRAQ
General Casey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Levin, distinguished members of the committee. I would like
just to make a short opening statement here.
I must say, though, it is much more comforting having the
other Service Vice Chiefs on my flanks here. [Laughter.]
First of all, I am honored by the confidence of the
President and the Secretary of Defense in forwarding my
nomination to the committee to serve as the first Commander of
the Multi-National Force-Iraq. I appreciate your thoughtful
consideration of the nomination.
If confirmed, I look forward to our continued close
consultation in the time ahead and I will strive to work in
concert with you as I have in my current job as the Vice Chief
of Staff of the Army.
In that regard, I would like to thank you for your
continued support of the men and women of the United States
Army. In my duties as the Vice Chief of Staff, I recently had
the opportunity to travel to Iraq to meet with our soldiers and
leaders. I can assure you that these great young Americans are
fully and faithfully discharging their duties in both Iraq and
across the globe in prosecuting the war on terrorism in large
part due to the unwavering support that you, this committee,
have provided to them and to their loved ones back home. Thank
you very much.
There is no greater honor for a serving officer in the
Armed Forces of the United States than to command. If I am
given the privilege of commanding Multi-National Force-Iraq,
the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines from all coalition
countries will have my unwavering and my untiring support. I
fully appreciate the depth of their sacrifices, particularly
those service men and women who have given their lives in the
effort to create a free, secure, and stable Iraq.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to taking
your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. We will proceed with
a 6-minute round.
Might I say, with the greatest of respect, given that this
is a new position and the swiftness with which the
administration understandably had to proceed to fill this post
and, I think, the somewhat limited time for you to prepare, if
you in any instance feel the need, you might wish to elect to
amplify your responses for the record after you have gone back
and referred to such documents and other sources as to help you
complete your answer to the question.
General Casey. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that.
Chairman Warner. Now, please describe your command
relationship with the Commander of Central Command (CENTCOM),
currently General Abizaid.
General Casey. Sir, I am his direct subordinate. I work
directly for General Abizaid.
Chairman Warner. Direct?
General Casey. Direct subordinate.
Chairman Warner. So it is one four-star reporting to
another four-star.
General Casey. That is correct.
Chairman Warner. That has been ironed out and established?
General Casey. It has been, and we have talked face-to-
face.
Chairman Warner. No diminution in the command and control
of the Commander in Chief (CINC) in this particular situation.
General Casey. None at all. None at all, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Then describe what you understand your
relationship will be to the newly appointed U.S. Ambassador,
Ambassador Negroponte?
General Casey. Senator, I will be the principal military
advisor to Ambassador Negroponte. I have it, as one of my main
priorities, to build a close and cordial relationship with the
Ambassador so that not only myself, but also myself and my
staff will work closely with the Ambassador and his staff to
achieve unity of effort for the United States mission.
Chairman Warner. How will you interface with the interim
Iraqi government that will become the legal authority in Iraq
on 30 June or 1 July?
General Casey. Sir, that relationship will be one of
partnership, and as General Abizaid has directed, we will
transition the relationship from one of occupation to one of
partnership. As you mentioned earlier, we will build the
coordination mechanisms that will allow the close cooperation
and coordination for all policy and operational matters that we
will have to deal with. But I think your statement is correct.
We will build that relationship over time here as we go
forward.
Chairman Warner. What role, if any, will you have with the
overall contracting community, those that are performing
numerous contracts in support of our overall goals of the
coalition in that region?
General Casey. Senator, I will have oversight of the force
protection requirements of the contractors that are there
fulfilling the military contracts. I would like to take you up
on your offer there to give you some more specifics for the
record about what my precise relationship is.
[The information referred to follows:]
As the Commander of MNF-I, I supervise all contracting activities
in support of MNF-I operations throughout Iraq and ensure a secure
environment for contractors to provide their contractual services to
the personnel in this command. I set the priorities for contracting
requirements and activities and ensure that resources are available to
accomplish contracting goals. It is my responsibility to ensure that
systems are in place to ensure efficient contract formation, execution,
supervision, completion, and termination. When necessary, I have the
authority to initiate disciplinary actions for violations of U.S., host
nation, and international law. Contractors and the MNF-I share force
protection information. Contractors are required to continuously
gather, interpret, and expeditiously disseminate information on the
security situation throughout Iraq. MNF-I provides threat information
to contractors, including information on routes, specific threats, and
general threats. When contractors perform duties on military
installations, the military provides their perimeter security. When
contractors are not on military installations they must provide their
own security.
Chairman Warner. Now, the respective military commanders of
their respective units of other nations, will they all report
through you up to CENTCOM?
General Casey. They will report through Lieutenant General
Metz who is the Multi-National Corps Commander. He is directly
responsible for supervising the tactical and operational level
operations in the country. So he is the Commander of the multi-
national divisions. He reports to me. I report to General
Abizaid.
Chairman Warner. That is very clear.
I mentioned in the opening statement the status of forces
agreement, which will not be achievable in the normal--I should
say the historic framework, although it was sought by this
country. I can see obvious reasons why this government, newly
established, is somewhat hesitant to get out too far in front
on that. There has to be left a period of time within which the
new government takes root and so forth. But every day is
critical to that trooper over there under your command.
So what is your current understanding of the framework of
agreements that give protection to our troops, and what is your
understanding of the successive framework that will be
established, as I have been told this morning by the National
Security Advisor?
General Casey. By the successive framework, you mean?
Chairman Warner. We are currently going to operate on an
extension.
General Casey. Right.
Chairman Warner. I think we have taken some initiatives
before the United Nations, but thus far they have not been
fruitful is my understanding to tie that down more firmly. So
you will be operating on an extension of the existing framework
of agreements with the coalition council which will be phased
out fully by June 30. Is that your understanding?
General Casey. That is correct, Senator. I talked to
General Sanchez about this subject this morning, because I am,
as you are, very concerned that we have the appropriate
protections in place for our armed service members.
The understanding I have now is that Ambassador Bremer has
modified his order number 17 to take out the provisions that
directly drew its authority from occupation law, but still
provides us with the same protections that we had under the
original provision. It is his intent to complete the
negotiation of that prior to his departure on the 30th. Once I
get there, my intent is to review that document and begin
working toward a follow-on agreement.
Chairman Warner. I would urge you, if you have any concerns
about the adequacy of the protection for the forces under your
command, that you would communicate those concerns to this
committee very promptly.
General Casey. I will do that, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Lastly, the subject of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO has a footprint there largely
through the member nations in NATO as a part of the coalition
forces, but what role do you envision in addition to its
current participation?
General Casey. Senator, I believe we, the United States,
will make suggestions to NATO that they potentially consider a
role in training Iraqi security forces, and that would be a big
help to us if we could get them to do that.
Chairman Warner. Well, we have a magnificent commander, as
you well know, in General Jones. I know that he wishes to be
cooperative, but I might tell you I think member nations have
not given him quite the degree of support to which he is
entitled, and I hope that improves in the future.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. This morning, one of the things we did talk
to the President about was precisely that topic--seeking that
kind of greater support from NATO as an organization.
Hopefully, that will be forthcoming.
In addition, we raised the issue of trying to get support
from some Muslim nations to try to get some troops or police or
other forms of support on the ground there to take away the
propaganda that the terrorists and the insurgents use that this
is just a western deal rather than an international,
multilateral, multi-national deal that involves the Islamic
world as well. Hopefully that is going to be forthcoming one of
these days, weeks, or months as well.
General, let me ask you if you are going to be the
commander of the Special Operating Forces and the Iraq Survey
Group as part of your command.
General Casey. I have been told by General Abizaid that I
will have tactical control (TACON) of the national forces, the
national Special Operating Forces that are operating in Iraq,
and that the Iraq Survey Group will be directly under my
command.
Senator Levin. In your prehearing questions, you stated
that you are going to command General Petraeus in his efforts
in training and equipping Iraqi security forces. Will the
resources for the train and equip effort be under your control?
General Casey. Senator, to the best of my knowledge, not
all of them. There are police resources that come through the
Department of State that we will require close coordination
with them to get those.
Senator Levin. You made reference in your answers to the
chairman to the coordinating bodies that are referred to in the
Powell and Allawi letters that were annexed to the U.N.
Security Council resolution 1546. Will U.S. forces at any level
be under the command of any other commander but a U.S.
commander?
General Casey. No, Senator, they will not.
Senator Levin. Will Iraqi forces be under your command?
General Casey. The Iraqi forces will generally be under the
command of the Iraqis. They will operate with us. In some
cases, should the Iraqis choose, they may give us operational
control over them for a specific mission.
Senator Levin. There has been a press report that General
Metz, who is the tactical commander currently under General
Sanchez, has said that military commanders have been ordered to
shift their emphasis from offensive operations and raids
against insurgents to training Iraqi security forces more
quickly and to protecting and improving infrastructure. Some
are very much concerned about that move because it could create
safe havens, for instance, in places like Fallujah.
Do you know if there has been such a shift? Is that an
accurate report?
General Casey. I have not seen that specific report. When
we were there, we went around and visited each of the
divisions. There was talk about a lower U.S. profile after the
1st of July. But at no time did I hear anyone talk about
shifting from an offensive mind set to a defensive mind set. In
fact, that would be my main concern here. This is something
that I am trying to work through in my own mind, and I will
work through with my commanders, once I get on the ground. But
we have to maintain an offensive mind set here.
Senator Levin. Training and equipping is, of course,
critical. We have got to get those Iraqi security forces
trained and equipped. That is an essential move. We are hopeful
that other nations will provide more of those trainers and more
support for that. That is one of the things which we talked to
the President about this morning. I am sure you would support
that effort as well.
General Casey. Absolutely.
Senator Levin. Prime Minister Allawi has stated his
intention to recall several divisions of the Iraqi army. As a
matter of fact, he had previously opposed the disbanding
decision of Ambassador Bremer of the Iraqi army. A number of us
have expressed concerns about that decision to disband the
Iraqi army also.
Do you support Mr. Allawi's intention to recall units of
the Iraqi army after appropriate vetting? Were you involved in
the decision or aware of the decision to disband that army
after the war?
General Casey. I was not involved in the decision, Senator.
I, like everyone else, was aware of it.
The discussion of the structure of the Iraqi military was
one of the main topics of Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz's mission
to Iraq last week. The outcome of that session or those
sessions that we had there was conveyed in Prime Minister
Allawi's press conference of a few days ago.
It is my understanding that he has basically backed off of
the idea of recalling full divisions. He has agreed to convert
the Iraq Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) forces that we have built,
into national guard divisions. The way they will do that is
they will put brigade and division headquarters on top of them
which gives the Prime Minister the opportunity to bring some
mid-level officers that are vetted back in to fill those
headquarters.
Senator Levin. They will have internal security functions I
assume. Is that not correct?
General Casey. They will have regional internal security
functions. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Levin. You support that?
General Casey. I do.
Senator Levin. General Casey, you are going to be
responsible for the operation of Abu Ghraib and other prison
facilities in Iraq. That is going to include the responsibility
for interrogation techniques used by our forces. In your
capacity as Vice Chief of Staff, were you familiar with those
abuse reports, and if so, when did you become familiar with
them? Did you have an opportunity to review the reports of the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) relative to Abu
Ghraib and other facilities in Iraq?
General Casey. I was aware of the reports, Senator. I was
made aware of them in mid-January, about the same time everyone
else----
Senator Levin. That was the first time?
General Casey. First time, when everyone else was made
aware.
I have seen copies of the ICRC reports, but after I
actually came up and testified before this committee. So I was
not privy to those prior to that time.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin.
Senator McCain, indulge me a minute. We are going to, as a
committee, be briefed this afternoon by the Department of
Defense on stages of the Red Cross participation. We are going
to start with the security systems at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO),
and then in subsequent hearings, we will be covering both the
Iraq and Afghanistan situations. Those will be closed briefings
today.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, General
Casey, for your outstanding service. We are very grateful that
you are assuming your new position of incredible
responsibility, and we are very proud of you.
We have had a pretty rough last 24 hours in Iraq, have we
not, General?
General Casey. Yes, we have, Senator.
Senator McCain. The situation in Iraq is not exactly as we
envisioned it to be after our spectacular military victory, is
it?
General Casey. It is not how I envisioned it to be,
Senator.
Senator McCain. What do you think has gone wrong?
General Casey. I think the insurgency is much stronger than
I certainly would have anticipated. I think they have got
support from external sources. But that is the main difference
that I see, Senator.
Senator McCain. There were some of us who felt very
strongly that we needed more troops in Iraq. I note now that we
are up to about 140,000. Is that not correct?
General Casey. That is correct.
Senator McCain. There are media reports that there is
contemplation of even more troops, as many as five additional
brigades. Have you heard that speculation?
General Casey. I have. I saw that press report yesterday.
Senator McCain. But you have not been engaged in those
discussions?
General Casey. I was actually, Senator. That is not a
request for forces, as was portrayed in that article. That is
CENTCOM doing some prudent planning in the event the security
situation changes, but it is not a request for forces or even
an informal request for forces that the report portrayed.
Senator McCain. Do you think we need more forces there?
General Casey. Senator, I have been on the ground for all
of 3 days. I do not have a good enough appreciation to give you
an answer for that. I can tell you that if I get there and
think I need more, I will ask for more.
Senator McCain. I would like to go back to Fallujah a
second. Napoleon had a line. He said, ``If you say you are
going to take Vienna, take Vienna.'' Right? A couple of months
ago, the command in Baghdad said that we were going to either
capture or kill al-Sadr and put out a warrant for his arrest.
After four American citizens were killed and dismembered in
Fallujah, the command in Baghdad announced that we were going
to go in and do whatever was necessary to bring to justice
those who were responsible for these murders and atrocities,
and we were going to have Fallujah under control.
I do not believe, General, that we can make statements and
then act in an opposite way.
Apparently this unrest and series of terrorist activities
are primarily in the Sunni Triangle, at least in the last 24
hours or so, and all reports I see are that Fallujah is now a
sanctuary for these people. I believe the agreement was that
they would turn over their weapons and disband. No weapons have
been turned over, and militias have control of the city of
Fallujah.
How do you explain statements that are made in one way and
now a situation where, at least in the view of some experts,
the attacks are being orchestrated from Fallujah?
General Casey. Senator, I do not have insights into the
decisionmaking process that led to the current situation. I
will take your insight, though, not to over-promise what I
cannot deliver, and I think that is something that I made a
note of.
Senator McCain. I am very concerned, as I know you are,
about this increasing sophistication of the insurgency. I think
everyone is also aware that we have been unable to secure the
borders, which, as you mentioned, is one of the contributing
factors in this influx of foreign fighters. It seems to me,
General, that we need to make decisions pretty quickly as to
whether we are going to be able to secure that border or not,
and if we want that border secured, what it is going to take to
secure it.
I have great admiration for everyone who is serving in Iraq
from General Abizaid on down, but I think you would agree that
we are in a very critical time as regards the situation in
Iraq. Success or failure may be dictated by what happens in the
next few months. Would you agree with that?
General Casey. I absolutely agree with that, Senator.
Senator McCain. If you need more help, then I think that
you ought to ask as quickly as possible. The most disingenuous
answer I have ever heard in my life was that the commanders on
the ground did not ask for them. It is not the decision of the
commanders on the ground. I do not think I have ever met a one-
star General who wanted to be a two-star General that would say
that he needed more help. So I hope that you will make an
assessment as quickly as possible as to what your needs are in
order to successfully bring about this evolution of bringing
freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. I do not see how you
have an environment right now that does not make that
transition extremely difficult. I would be very interested in
your thoughts.
I thank you again for your service and your willingness to
take on the challenging and daunting task that lies ahead of
you.
General Casey. Senator, thank you. That is, from my view,
two good pieces of advice. Do not promise what you cannot
deliver, and make a quick assessment and act on it, and I will
do those.
Senator McCain. You agree with my assessment about the
problem on the borders? Is that correct?
General Casey. I do, Senator. In fact, that was a point of
discussion during the security discussions we had with Deputy
Secretary Wolfowitz and the Iraqi security officials. There is
a clear recognition that we, the Iraqis, and the coalition need
to do something on the borders.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey, thank you and your family for being willing
to accept this command. At the outset of your statement, you
said there was no greater honor for a soldier than to accept a
command of this kind. In my opinion there have been few
soldiers who have accepted a command of this kind that is more
important to the security of the United States than the one
that you are accepting now. So I am extremely grateful to you
for doing that.
I say that because Iraq has now become a major
battleground--the major battleground--on the war against
terrorism. As Senator McCain has just said and you have agreed,
the next 2, 3, 4 months as this interim Iraqi government
attempts to assume leadership and is threatened by the Saddam
loyalists and foreign terrorists, our ability to maintain the
security that will allow this new Iraqi government to take hold
is critically important. If the terrorists should gain
victories here and in the worst case make it impossible for the
elections to take place and Iraqi self-government to go
forward, it would be a terrible setback in our war against
terrorism and in our general pursuit of a stable and peaceful
world. So I thank you for taking on this critical command at
this critical moment.
I want to ask you in that regard to speak about your own
vision of a strategy for U.S. and coalition forces to achieve
the improved security environment that we all want throughout
Iraq. I want to pick up on some of your answers to Senator
Levin and Senator McCain and particularly to tell you that I
was encouraged to hear you say that you believe the offensive
mindset must be continued, because there are stories always
coming up that we intend to go back to garrisons and the like.
What does an offensive mindset mean in this case,
particularly as the Iraqis take over and we have a new
relationship with the Iraqi security forces themselves?
General Casey. Senator, for me an offensive mindset means
that the leaders of the Multi-National Force are constantly
focused on the enemy and constantly assessing his
vulnerabilities and what they can do to take advantage of those
vulnerabilities. That is a continuous process. While we may be
less visible with our helicopter flights or less visible with
our patrols, the leaders need to stay focused on the enemy so
that we can push to get the intelligence we need to conduct
precise operations with the Iraqi security forces. That is the
mindset that we cannot lose.
Senator Lieberman. A few months ago, General Abizaid was
here with General Sanchez. We asked them what some of their
main needs were at that point in Iraq, and the answer, I think
General Abizaid gave, was better intelligence. What is your
sense of how we are doing there?
In that regard, I was heartened to see in the last couple
of weeks, going back to Fallujah, that presumably intelligence
identified some houses where leaders of the enemy perhaps were
located, and we hit them from the air.
So, one, what is your assessment of our intelligence at
this point? Two, can we expect more offensive actions of that
kind against the enemy?
General Casey. It is hard for me to say specifically,
because I do not have direct visibility of what is going on in
theater right now, but I think the short answer is General
Abizaid's and General Sanchez's intent is to continue to seek
out the foreign fighters and the former regime loyalists and
attack them where they are. So in general terms I think you
will continue to see that.
[The information referred to follows:]
We are confident in our intelligence assessment that current levels
of offensive actions by foreign fighters, terrorists, and/or former
regime elements will remain the same in the near term with spikes in
the run up to the National Conference, the U.S. Presidential elections,
and the Iraqi elections. Violence should begin to decline once Iraqi
security forces become more expansive and proficient and are able to
increase their control over troubled areas. We expect foreign fighters
and terrorists to continue their attacks against soft targets such as
Iraqi Police, the Iraqi Interim Government, and supporters of the
government. These groups will also continue to conduct attacks against
coalition forces. We will continue to conduct offensive actions as
necessary to neutralize, destroy, and eliminate foreign fighters
terrorists and former regime elements that threaten the security and
stability of Iraq.
Senator Lieberman. As you now begin to head over to assume
your command, are there specific regions within Iraq, based on
what you know and the visit you made last week, where you have
greater concerns about security, and if so, what plans do you
have to improve security in those specific regions?
General Casey. Certainly the Sunni Triangle, Senator, is
the area that I believe is my greatest concern. As to specific
measures to conduct operations within the Sunni Triangle, I
will have to work those once I get on the ground there.
I will tell you I have a general idea that if you want
security, you have to have intelligence, and if you want to
have intelligence in a counter-insurgency environment, you have
to change the perceptions of the people, first, toward the
insurgency and, second, toward the coalition forces. You do
that through a variety of means where you apply all the
elements of national power. Then you get the intelligence. Then
you get the security.
Senator Lieberman. Well said.
How about your top operational priorities as you head over
to assume command of the Multi-National Force-Iraq?
General Casey. Working with the Iraqi forces to defeat the
insurgency and training Iraqi security forces are my top two
priorities. The third priority, in conjunction with the United
Nations and the embassy, as you said, is the elections.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Casey. I believe, as you suggested, we are going to
have to fight to get to the elections. But 80 percent of the
Iraqi people want to have those elections. They want to elect
their own government, and we need to help them get there.
Senator Lieberman. I agree. I have been encouraged by the
news reports that the Iraqi people are encouraged by the new
government, Prime Minister Allawi, President Yawer, and we have
to give them an opportunity to take hold.
Let me ask you a final question about NATO. I know we have
a NATO summit coming up. We have made some progress, obviously,
through the U.N. Security Council resolution in, if you will,
internationalizing the commitment to a self-governing, stable
Iraq. But unfortunately, as Chairman Warner indicated earlier,
our allies still have not been very forthcoming with support.
Ideally, what would you like from our NATO allies? Troops
on the ground, money for civilian reconstruction, a more
fulsome involvement in the training of Iraqi security forces?
What would be your priority list?
General Casey. Those all sound good to me, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Really, my number one priority for international forces
would be a brigade for the security of the U.N. mission.
Senator Lieberman. That is very interesting.
General Casey. Whether it is a NATO force or if it comes
from other countries with the U.N., that would be my----
Senator Lieberman. Right, to create the confidence that
will bring the U.N. back in and keep them there.
General Casey. Allows them to set up the elections.
Senator Lieberman. To do what they do.
General Casey. Yes.
Senator Lieberman. General Casey, thanks a lot. I wish you
the best. To say the least, I know that you and your family are
in the prayers of all members of this committee and I would say
of all Americans. Godspeed.
General Casey. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Roberts. Excuse me, General Casey. All of a sudden,
it looks like I am presiding.
General Casey. I am just trying to find out if Dave came
back. [Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. What do you need? I can get the gavel, and
we can get this done. [Laughter.]
Just let me start by thanking you for being here today and,
as my colleagues have indicated, for your service to our
country.
I do not think anybody has to tell you that you have got a
very tough job under very difficult circumstances. I do not
know of a tougher job in regards to our national security than
the one you are assuming. It is in the midst of the prisoner
abuse scandals, tough resistance from the insurgents and
foreign fighters, what I think now is a virtual terrorist
assault in this next 6-day period, and quite frankly, some
questions here at home about the mission at hand in terms of
our resolve, and with the 24-hour news cycle, maintaining that
resolve may be one of our biggest challenges. That is up to us,
not to you. But at any rate, it certainly exists.
We have talked about security being the foundation for
victory in Iraq. You have just been over there. You came back
and gave me the benefit of a courtesy call. You were optimistic
about the caliber of people in regards to the transitional
government, and we get that from most people who are familiar
with that situation.
But I am interested in your assessment of the challenges in
training and the current effectiveness--and I really want to
emphasize the current effectiveness--of the Iraqi security
forces who are going to have to shoulder this burden along with
us. I know there is a 1,000-member intelligence force and that
the intelligence head of that force has been conducting public
hearings with the Iraqi people saying I have no prison, please
feel free to come to the intelligence security forces, and get
down on that family and that clan level so they feel free, from
a security standpoint, to share the intelligence that we need
so we can better predict the situation on the ground.
There is a 5,000 member outfit now called the Iraqi
Intervention Force.
How far along are we in terms of the current effectiveness
of these two organizations so that we can, at least, meet the
challenges of the next 6 days and, as many Senators have
pointed out, the next 2 or 3 months? I know we are in the midst
of training. I know we need the NATO training, and I know we
need more training. But right now, how effective are we in this
crucial next 6-day period?
General Casey. Senator, I do not know right now the status
of that intelligence force. I think, as I mentioned to you, I
am going out to the agency tomorrow to talk about precisely
that subject.
Senator Roberts. Well, they are working overtime on it, I
can assure you of that, but I think it is absolutely essential.
Let me touch on something that Senator McCain and Senator
Lieberman also brought up. I am not sure, as the Iraqi forces
try to take on more responsibility--and I certainly hope they
can--in regards to how the practices and the procedures that
our force operate under change. I am not sure how we do that
yet. I know pretty much what the plan is or what we would like
to do. But we are in the midst of a terrorist assault right
now, and my guess is that will continue for the next 6 days and
in the 6 months leading up to the election.
Now, Fallujah is the classic case in terms of being a
unique challenge. If you go out to Walter Reed and you talk to
the marines involved who were there, the heroes of the day,
they indicate we should have the green light. We should have
been offensive to the point that we took care of that situation
as opposed to simply pulling back. That echoes the concern that
was stated by Senator McCain.
How do you anticipate dealing with such challenges after
June 30? I know Fallujah is going to be there, and there are
several other areas in the Sunni Triangle. How are we going to
do that?
General Casey. They are currently working now, Senator, to
set up the consultation mechanisms to allow us to do that. When
I talked to General Sanchez this morning, he said that he was
quite comfortable that he has the access that he needs to
discuss and work through sensitive offensive operations, which
is what we would call the situation in Fallujah. So they are
going to have to be discussed, and they are going to have to be
done in conjunction with the Iraqi security forces, which I
think will be a great asset to us.
Senator Roberts. I hope they will be a great asset to us. I
just think the Iraqi Intervention Force--I hope we can get to
the training, but I have my doubts in terms of their battle
effectiveness as of right now.
General Casey. I think your doubts are justified right now,
Senator.
Senator Roberts. I have to say that I am a great fan of
General Jim Jones, and I am a great fan of what he has tried to
do and what NATO has done and is trying to do in Afghanistan. I
think there were 31 nations involved in that. But in terms of
their commitment, even in Afghanistan, we now find it is short
of what we need.
So I am not as sanguine about this in terms of the training
by NATO. I hope we get that, but I think there ought to be a
message at the NATO summit that either NATO fulfills its
obligations--all this talk about out of country operations, et
cetera. I think we are at a crossroads here, and if we cannot
get their help in terms of training, I think some pretty
straight talk is due at that summit. Obviously, you are not
going to be a participant in that, but that is just my view.
Thank you for what you are about to undertake, and it is in
outstanding hands. I wish you godspeed.
General Casey. Thank you very much, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts and I had the privilege last night of
speaking together at a dinner in honor of General Tommy Franks.
I must say Senator Roberts' speech brought the house down. Mine
barely propped it up. [Laughter.]
Senator Ben Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey, thank you for your service to our country,
and I thank your family for continuing to support you as you
work to help us achieve freedom across the world and make a
safer world for all of us.
In previous times when you have testified, I have always
thought you have been direct and candid. I think you have been
today and I think you will be in the future, because you are
going to be asked to give us your honest impression, your
honest opinion about where we are and where we are going,
that's what it is going to take to get us there.
In the face of the changing nature from occupation to
partnership, my first question is, do you have any thought
about what kind of a partnership we have here? Is this an equal
partnership? Is everybody a senior partner? Or is there a
senior partner and a junior partner? Are we associates in the
process, or will that emerge over a period of time?
General Casey. Senator, I would say that is going to emerge
over a period of time. We will establish the consultation
mechanisms and the more we interact, the more sharply the
relationship will become defined.
Senator Ben Nelson. But it is probably safe to say that as
it relates to our military and control of our military, that we
are not going to be the junior partner in that particular
respect.
General Casey. Yes, Senator. All of the U.S. coalition
forces will be under my command, the command of the Multi-
National Force.
Senator Ben Nelson. In that regard, it seems to me that as
we look forward to the transition and getting you international
support, going to NATO and as part of the NATO summit and
request for NATO support, that we may have the wrong party
asking for NATO support. I do not think that our government is
in a position to get yes for an answer. We have, thus far, have
not even gotten a maybe.
It seems to me--and I would like your candid impression of
this--if the new government of Iraq, following on July 1, were
to ask NATO for support, that NATO would be more inclined to
look at it and try to find a way to be supportive as opposed to
presently being disinclined to respond to our requests or our
suggestions, if not a formal request. What are your thoughts
about that?
General Casey. I think you are exactly right, Senator. That
specific idea was discussed with the Iraqi leadership, and I
would not be at all surprised to see a request like you suggest
prior to the summit.
Senator Ben Nelson. General Casey, I am pleased you think
it is a good idea because I wrote Secretary Powell suggesting
that some time ago, and so it is nice to have some confirmation
of that.
In that regard, do you think that it is a possibility that
NATO could come in and provide the security for United Nations,
recognizing that we think about NATO support and we talk about
NATO troops, when the truth of the matter is there are not as
many NATO troops as people might imagine. How many NATO troops
do you think could be available if NATO said we will give you
all that we have?
General Casey. Senator, I do not have any view on that. I
would have to check.
Senator Ben Nelson. But do you think that they could give
enough at least to provide security, if they were so inclined,
to do so at the request of the new Iraqi government?
General Casey. I certainly would hope that even with what
they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq that there would be a
brigade left.
Senator Ben Nelson. As it relates to the number that we
have there right now, 140,000 American troops, you have already
indicated if you think you need more troops, you will ask for
more. If we had more, would the time frame for the troops being
there be reduced? Is there some correlation between how many
troops we have and how fast we can get the job done?
General Casey. Intuitively you would say yes, but I am not
sure, having not been on the ground.
Senator Ben Nelson. But if you find out that is the case,
you are not going to be reluctant, I take it, to ask for more
support of troops on the ground.
General Casey. No, I will not, Senator. I would say that it
is the training of the Iraqi security forces, as Senator
Roberts suggested, that is the key.
Senator Ben Nelson. I think you are right, but what bothers
me a little bit is that Ambassador Bremer said some time ago
that that was sort of a hollow support system, that it is
almost there but not there. Therefore, it is going to take some
time. Any thoughts about how long it might take to get a
sufficient Iraq security force so we can begin to reduce our
presence there?
General Casey. Actually, as we traveled around to the
divisions and had our meetings, the division commanders were
fairly positive in the fact that the equipment that they had
been needing for so long----
Senator Ben Nelson. Our division commanders?
General Casey. Our division commanders--is actually
starting to flow to the Iraqi security forces in good quantity.
Senator Ben Nelson. It is fast enough? I was of the
impression that maybe it is not coming quite as fast as they
would like it to.
General Casey. I am sure it is not.
Senator Ben Nelson. Okay.
General Casey. But it is coming in good quantity and at a
good clip.
I think you will see that we will start getting some
quality forces. There are some quality forces there in
different parts of the country now, but I think you will start
seeing quality forces across the country by late fall.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, again, I thank you very much,
look forward to your service and to work together to find a way
to support what we are doing in Iraq. We know that we cannot
afford to lose it, and we do not want to have to keep
redefining what winning it is. So I thank you very much, look
forward to working with you. Thank you.
General Casey. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
The distinguished Senator from Alabama.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey, it is great to have you with us, and I am
delighted that you will be taking charge in Iraq. You are a
senior officer, a four-star General. I was looking at your
educational background of Georgetown University and a masters
in international relations at the University of Denver. You
were a platoon leader in the 509th Infantry Airborne, a ranger,
a military observer for a year with the United Nations Truce
Supervision in Jerusalem, which gave you some insight into the
Middle East problems. You were a fellow with the Atlantic
Council for a year. You commanded the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cav
Division and spent time in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Then the
Commanding General, 1st Armored Division, and the Joint
Warfighting Center Commander. Of course, now you are the Vice
Chief of Staff of the Army. I think it will enable you to be
more effective in dealing with Washington, more effective
dealing with our NATO allies, and even our friends in Iraq.
Your experience and your rank will just be an asset there, and
I think it is a good decision that you will be going.
It seems to me that the security situation in Iraq is
emblematic, or part and parcel, of a group of very tough,
violent people who, in the past, particularly Saddam Hussein,
have achieved power by intimidating good people, by killing
good people, and intimidating them from standing up for
themselves or being able to maintain a decent government. The
thugs, through their violence and terror and intimidation, have
been successful, and Saddam Hussein was a master of that.
Do you sense that is sort of what we are about, that there
is a group of good people that would like to see a stable,
prosperous, free Iraq, and then there is a group of people who
want to seize power there for whatever reason, whether it is
religious or secular, money or just power, and somehow we have
to encourage and embolden the good people to stand firm and
defeat these people?
General Casey. I do agree with you, Senator. That is
exactly the strategy that we need to pursue.
Senator Sessions. So that does call on us to deal with the
Iraqi military and Iraqi security police and security forces. I
was there in August of last year. We emphasized that and went
out to Kirkuk where they have a remarkable center that is quite
effective I believe for training military. I thought at the
time we had too few people moving through and moving too
slowly.
Do you see the center as something that we can utilize to
train? Are you optimistic about being able to train increasing
numbers of people to a high degree? Do you consider that part
of your responsibility?
General Casey. It is clearly my responsibility to assist
the Iraqis and organize training and equipping of security
forces. I am sorry, sir. I missed the place, the training
center.
Senator Sessions. I believe it is Kirkuk out in the desert
there about 80-90 miles from Baghdad. It is really an
extraordinary place. The buildings were, for the most part,
never completed, but brand new buildings with streets. Saddam
Hussein never really occupied it, but it is an extraordinary
facility I thought.
What about General Petraeus and his relationship there? How
do you expect to interface with him?
General Casey. He is my direct subordinate, and he will
work for me as my principal subordinate for organizing,
training, and equipping the Iraqi security forces.
Senator Sessions. I know we are stepping up our efforts to
train Iraqi police, but they are under brutal attack, because
if the Iraqi police succeed, the bad guys lose. If the Iraqi
army succeeds, the bad guys lose. What thoughts do you have
about how we can go from forces that are capable under certain
circumstances, but under hostile military attack have not
performed well? How can we make that transition to move them
from being capable under certain circumstances, as they are
today, to a higher level capable of defending themselves and
bringing fire power against significant hostile forces?
General Casey. Senator, I would say, first, it will be a
phased approach. It is not going to happen all at one time
across the country. It is going to happen in different places
faster than it is going to happen in others.
The second point I think I would make, Senator, is that we
need to maintain our focus on producing quality security forces
rather than trying to crank out large numbers.
Third, the equipping piece is a big part of it. We can run
a 3-week training course, but if the guy does not have a good
rifle, does not have a uniform, does not have a radio, does not
have a vehicle, it is really a hollow force. So maintaining our
focus on quality over quantity I think will help us in the long
run.
Senator Sessions. We have had top officials in the Defense
Department admit that, for various reasons, it has been
difficult to get the equipment and the weapons necessary for
our security forces. Will you tell us that if there is a
difficulty there, you will let us know? Maybe this Congress and
this Senate can help you get what you need for those people.
General Casey. Senator, I will.
Senator Sessions. General, I thank you for your service to
your country. My time is up. You have a great career. This is
going to be a tremendous challenge. It is important for the
world and to the United States that we be successful. I believe
the vast majority of the people in Iraq do want a good and
stable and free government. That is what they want. There is a
tough group out there that want to deny that and seize power
themselves. It is going to take a lot of skill, military,
diplomatic, personal, to join our forces with the free Iraqi
forces to defeat these people. I wish you godspeed.
General Casey. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I wish to associate
myself with your closing remarks. They are well stated.
Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, I want to thank you also for your willingness to
assume this responsibility, and thank you for your offer to
stop by yesterday. I am sorry I had to cancel our meeting. We
had a series of votes.
I wanted to take this opportunity, since I was not on the
floor last night, to thank our chairman and ranking member for
their successful completion of the defense authorization bill.
Both of you just did a superb job, and it is an honor to serve
under both of you. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Well, you were an active participant.
Senator Dayton. Well, I was. I went over with these two
gentlemen to Iraq last July. I will not reveal their ages, but
they are several years older than I am, and I could not keep up
with either one of them in 115 degree July weather. So if you
need a couple of additional troops on the ground, you could not
do any better, I guarantee. [Laughter.]
General Casey. I think they are more useful back here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dayton. Well, that might be.
All of us agree that it is imperative that the United
States achieve success in this undertaking in Iraq in both
reality and perception. One of my concerns is that I see just
incredibly heroic American forces, men and women, have achieved
the successes that they were initially sent over to achieve and
the President sent them in for. They overthrew the Saddam
Hussein regime. They determined that there are no weapons of
mass destruction that threaten our national security.
Now it seems that success has been redefined almost in a
way that makes it much more difficult for us to realize. The
President noted recently that, ``success is now freedom and
independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people.''
How long do you think it would take realistically to achieve
that measure of success, freedom and independence, security and
prosperity for the Iraqi people?
General Casey. Freedom, independence?
Senator Dayton. Freedom and independence, security and
prosperity for the Iraqi people.
General Casey. I would be hard-pressed to put a time limit
on that, Senator.
Senator Dayton. I would too, sir. It concerns me because,
as I say, I think our Armed Forces, the coalition forces
achieved success. We won the victories that they were initially
sent over to win, the overthrow of the regime, the capture,
elimination of Saddam Hussein and his sons, and most of his top
people, henchmen, and then determining that there are no
weapons of mass destruction. In my view those are the victories
that our forces were sent over to achieve. Now they are caught
in this very much more protracted and nebulous struggle with
these terms that if I even apply them to our own American
history, took us years, even decades to realize.
Another rationale that has been set forth here today by
some of my colleagues is, ``Iraq has become the major
battleground in the war against terrorism.'' Another statement
here today is we are in the midst of a terrorist assault.
We may by the actions, not of our forces, but by the
political ineptitude of this undertaking over the last year-
plus have created in Iraq the major front of battleground in
the world against the forces of terrorism, but that did not, in
my judgment, exist prior to our invasion of that country. In
the void, perhaps, that has been allowed to develop there,
perhaps that is the case.
But I think we have to be careful with our terminology here
so we do not misperceive our situation there and misrepresent
it to ourselves and the American people.
What percent of the ``insurgents'' are, in your judgment,
international terrorists and what percent are Iraqis who want
us out of Iraq?
General Casey. Senator, again, not having spent a lot of
time on the ground there, I will give you my judgment, and that
is, a relatively small percentage are foreign extremists, and
the majority are former regime loyalists.
[The information referred to follows:]
We cannot document this with hard intelligence and cannot prove it
definitively, but the MNF-I Counterterrorism Team estimates that 10
percent or less of all fighters in Iraq are associated with Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi or are considered to be foreign fighters; the remainder are
a mixed bag of former regime elements, Iraqi Sunnis, Baathists, Shia,
and others that want the coalition out of Iraq.
Senator Dayton. Maybe sometime after you have had a chance
to be there, if you could, update us. Certainly, we cannot
allow the country to become a breeding ground or a staging area
for international terrorists whether they are operating there
or planning assaults against the neighbors in the region or
against ourselves. But I think it is important to the make that
differentiation.
You also talked, sir, about changing the perceptions of the
Iraqi people toward the coalition forces. You also this morning
talked about developing a more offensive mindset for our
forces. Do you see those as compatible or complementary goals?
General Casey. I do not believe I said a more offensive
mindset. I said to maintain an offensive mindset.
Senator Dayton. Continuing.
General Casey. But it is thinking competitively about an
enemy. That is the mindset I am talking about. It is not
necessarily offensive operations all the time. Again, you have
to keep thinking about your enemy and how you can get an
advantage on it. That is the spirit of the mindset that I would
like the force to have.
Senator Dayton. Let me ask it this way then. Do you think,
given all that has transpired in the last year, that it is
possible to change the views of the general Iraqi population,
whatever those views are? I am sure they are a mixture toward
the coalition forces.
General Casey. I do believe it is possible, Senator,
especially after the 30th of June. We will then be in a
position of supporting the Iraqi security forces and protecting
the Iraqi people from the murderers, as you saw today, that
killed 50 to 70 people today, Iraqis. That is a big difference
from being an occupier to being a protector of the Iraqi
people.
Senator Dayton. I met this last weekend with a dozen
Iraqis, now most of them American citizens but still all of
them, in fact, born in Iraq, and some of them now are also
legal residents of our country in Minnesota. Several of them
had been in Iraq just in the last couple of months, one of them
for an extended period of time.
I guess I would commend the International Red Cross report
to you for your assessment of what they also related to me
about the conditions in Iraq. I do not fault our troops. I
think they are in an impossible situation over there, being the
police and patrol that they were not trained to be and should
not have to be, but in the vacuum of that society, they were
put in that position. The way they have had to interface with
the Iraqi population, as I say, has been difficult.
I am trying to understand why is it that over this period
of a year from the published opinion polls and anecdotal
reports, the attitude of a lot of the Iraqi population, just
the regular people toward our presence there has really
changed. The way in which the 42,000 Iraqis who have been
incarcerated for some period of time have been apprehended, I
think is instructive, and also the failure, according to the
report, of our providing families with information about where
their loved ones are being held, for how long they are going to
be held, when they are going to be released, if they are going
to be released, if they are alive. All of that, I think if you
take 42,000 people who have had that experience and multiply
that by family and friends, in my mind anyway, you start to get
a sizeable group of people that have not had the kind of
experience that you are going to consider befriending our
forces. That makes our forces more vulnerable to these kinds of
attacks.
Finally, I just would say, based on that conversation as
well--my time is up--but I commend for your consideration that
there has been talk here about a NATO force coming in to
supplement our forces. The Iraqis, in their view, would see
United Nations forces as far preferable to NATO forces because
it would be a different complexion. There would be hopefully
Arab nations participating in that U.N. force. It would be
truly international. So I hope we can keep in mind the
advantage, at least as they presented it, of a U.N. supplement
force rather than just a NATO force.
Thank you. Good luck, sir.
General Casey. Thank you, Senator.
Is there a specific ICRC report that concerned you?
Senator Dayton. I read off of the web site. I will get you
a copy, sir.
General Casey. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, let me begin by joining my colleagues in thanking
you for your willingness to take on what is a daunting and
dangerous challenge. We very much appreciate your public
service.
General, we all awoke this morning to the very bad news of
coordinated attacks on a number of police stations in three
different cities in Iraq. Less than a week from now, the
coalition will complete the transfer of sovereignty to the
Iraqis. In view of these continuing attacks and the targeting
of Iraqi police forces, what is your assessment of the ability
of the new Iraqi army and the police forces to provide security
for the Iraqi people?
General Casey. As I said, Senator, right now my assessment
is that they are not capable of providing security country-
wide. They are capable in different places around the country
but not countrywide. So as Prime Minister Allawi has asked,
they need the support of coalition forces for an interim period
here, as we build strong Iraqi security forces to take the role
themselves.
Senator Collins. Is there still a problem with Iraqi forces
being infiltrated by insurgents and thus, when called upon to
fight the insurgents, we are finding that it is not clear whose
side some of the Iraqi police forces are on?
General Casey. I think you will always have a problem like
that in the situation we have right now. I did not get a sense
that it is a severe problem, but it is something that everyone
is keenly aware of.
I did hear an interesting report about this 36th battalion
of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) that was formed out of
the representatives from the political parties. So it was
really a multi-ethnic unit. Because of that, it became self-
vetting. If someone was a bad guy and reporting, the other
folks were telling on them. That will help us a lot. One of the
things we talked about in the security discussions was in fact
vetting. The Iraqis know themselves who the bad guys are, and I
think it will make a big difference after June 30.
Senator Collins. I also want to talk to you about security
from a different perspective. From all reports, we have an
unprecedented number of private security forces that are
supplementing our troops in Iraq. Some in fact have suggested
that private security forces, numbering approximately 20,000
people, comprise the third largest armed force in Iraq. Does
our heavy reliance on private sector contractors for security
suggest that we have either an inadequate number of troops in
Iraq or the wrong mix of troops on which to draw?
General Casey. Senator, that is a great question. I do not
know enough about the private contract security to give you a
credible answer right now. So I would like to take that one and
get back with you, if that is okay.
[The information referred to follows:]
No. I think we have an adequate number of troops in Iraq, and I
think we have the right mix of troops. We have enough troops to ensure
our force protection and accomplish all necessary and required missions
as we work to obtain security and stability in Iraq. We are taking all
necessary, appropriate, and available measures to ensure the protection
of U.S. and multi-national forces. The number of troops and the mix of
troops are steadily improving due to the training of Iraqi security
forces and the introduction of additional forces as part of MNF-I.
Every day the number of Iraqi security forces is increasing. The new
security forces personnel will contribute to short-term and long-term
benefits to the command as they assume security missions right away and
represent the future stability and security of Iraq. The mix of troops
will benefit from the anticipated arrival of troops from other Arab
nations.
I do not think we rely too heavily on private security contractors.
We have two types of private security contracts in Iraq: reconstruction
support services contracts (RSSC) and private security detachment
contracts. The reconstruction support services contracts help ensure
the safety of contractors and program management office (PMO) personnel
in Iraq. These contracts are designed to ensure the security and
protection of PMO personnel and the 10 major prime reconstruction
contractors and their subcontractors as they deploy, occupy work sites,
and perform reconstruction activities throughout four regions in Iraq
(i.e., CPA Baghdad, CPA Central, CPA North, and CPA South). The
contractor also provides personal physical security protection for PMO
fixed facilities and personnel. A contractor also protects the
transportation of cargo from the point of entry in Iraq to the point of
destination, usually DOD warehouses. Private security detachment
contracts are necessary due to the special risks associated with
military service in Iraq, including the risk of capture, kidnap, and
murder.
Senator Collins. Does it trouble you or concern you that we
have such large numbers at a time when it appears we do not
have an adequate number of military police units, for example?
General Casey. Again, Senator, I do not know enough about
the private security contractors to give you a credible answer.
So I will get back with you on that.
[The information referred to follows:]
No. I am not troubled or concerned about the number of private
security contractors in Iraq. I believe we do have an adequate number
of military police units. As noted above, the private security
contracts protect reconstruction activities by other contractors,
unsure the safe transportation of cargo and provide personal protection
services. The private security companies are primarily engaged in the
business of providing security to civilian contractors and their
materiel. They also provide security inside military facilities, for
example, building and site access, and provide essential personal
security for key leaders. The military police units are employed in
traditional military police roles. They ensure force protection on
military bases, conduct searches as necessary, operate detention
facilities, conduct law enforcement missions, and do other missions to
ensure the security of the force. They are responsible for base
perimeter security, access to military bases, and other key force
protection missions. The numbers of military police appear to be
adequate to accomplish all required missions.
Senator Collins. Well, it is an important issue to this
committee and also to the Governmental Affairs Committee which
I chair. The issue has arisen, for example, in the prison abuse
case where it appears that some private sector contractors may
have been involved in the abuse. We know that a lot of the
security for coalition authority personnel is being provided by
private firms. We have seen the problem of private contractors
being killed or subjected to violence. I am just wondering.
That seems to be an unusual war where we are so heavily
dependent on the private sector to provide the troop strength
essentially that in previous conflicts would have been provided
by the military itself.
General Casey. It is a different dimension. I agree with
you. I would also note, as we have talked previously, what we
are doing in the Army to rebalance our low density/high demand
capabilities, we are, in fact, creating 24,000 additional
military police (MP) over the course of the next 3 or 4 years.
So we are taking some steps there to mitigate that.
The whole contractor issue is something that I need to get
a lot smarter on, and I think you are right. It is an issue we
all need to pay attention to.
Senator Collins. Well, I look forward to continuing a
dialogue with you on that issue. I wish you well. Be safe.
General Casey. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey, over the past year, I have enjoyed getting
to know you and working with you in your capacity as Vice Chief
of Staff of the Army, and I think that one of the most striking
tributes to your success in that position is how sparsely
attended this hearing is. Boring is good, General Casey.
[Laughter.]
I applaud you on that. It is something I have not yet
figured out how to do, but clearly you are a master at it.
[Laughter.]
It goes to the heart of your success in your present
position, and I know your success in the future as well.
General Casey. I am going to have to think about that.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. I note for the record that when we
commenced the hearing, we had half a committee present and a
number have rotated in and out.
Senator Clinton. Well, Mr. Chairman, I was more thinking of
the press and the public, particularly the press.
Chairman Warner. I am proud of the committee. That is where
my head count goes.
Senator Clinton. That is right. I agree with that, but I
think the fact that the press is not here and breathing down
the General's neck is a good sign for the future.
Chairman Warner. Yet.
Senator Clinton. Yet?
Senator Levin. They are not breathing down his neck yet.
[Laughter.]
Senator Clinton. General, there are a number of issues that
have already been addressed by members of the committee, and I
want to touch on a few others to get your reaction.
I, along with a number of my colleagues, have expressed
concern about the increasing role and presence of private
contractors in performing a variety of security functions in
Iraq. I am not talking about preparing meals or being parts of
convoys with supplies but actually performing security
functions that put them in the line of fire. In fact, we now
know that they are not only engaged in what amounts to, if not
military, certainly paramilitary actions, but they are
developing their own networks and intelligence services within
Iraq. Yet, they are neither bound by the U.S. rules of
engagement, nor as I understand it, are they protected by any
kind of military shield with respect to the takeover of
sovereignty on June 30.
Could you give us your thoughts about this relationship
that exists now, and do you have any plans to try to clarify
the relationship between U.S. forces in Iraq and contractors
and the new sovereign Iraqi government and these private
contractors?
General Casey. Again, as I mentioned, I do not know
everything I need to know about this subject, Senator, and it
is something that I will commit to looking into.
I do know that as part of the Coalition Provisional
Authority's (CPA) order number 17, that they are looking to
revise and extend, that they are working the issue of whether
contractors get protection or not. It is still an open issue to
the best of my knowledge.
Senator Clinton. But would that protection be military
protection, General? Is that what the CPA is looking to?
General Casey. I am sorry. It is protection under the SOFA-
like arrangements of the order 17.
Senator Clinton. So that would go to the position they
would hold vis-a-vis the Iraqi government after the takeover,
as I understand it, if this CPA provision is accepted.
General Casey. My understanding is basically it would say
that contractors who are providing support to the Multi-
National Force mission would receive protections similar to
those of the Multi-National Force. That is what they are trying
to adjudicate right now.
Senator Clinton. Would that, in your view, include those
security forces that are working to secure the other
contractors who are in Iraq, those working on resumption of
electricity, on the maintenance of the oil pipelines, or would
they be in a different category?
General Casey. Senator, I do not know the specifics of
that.
Senator Clinton. The other issue that is related to that
that I would like to follow is whether there will be additional
calls on our forces with respect to protecting the contractors,
and not only the contractors providing security, but the
contractors doing necessary revitalization and rehabilitation
work in Iraq. With respect to the U.N.'s recent decision not to
provide continuing exemption for American forces from the
International Criminal Court of Justice, how do you view that
as affecting the status of the forces under your command within
Iraq?
General Casey. With respect to the contractors that provide
support to the U.S. military there now, we provide support for
them and security for them as part of our ongoing mission. For
example, the people that run the dining facilities, that drive
our trucks and things, they are provided the same security that
we provide to our forces.
Senator Clinton. General, the other piece of this, though,
is that as I understand, the United Nations has just refused to
continue any exemption for our military forces from potential
prosecution under the International Court of Criminal Justice.
This is a murky area, and I know that it is not yet resolved.
Do you have any reaction to that? Have you been given any
guidance as to what, if any, changes you have to oversee when
you take command in Iraq?
General Casey. Senator, I just heard that same report this
morning. I do not know the details. I do know that as we talked
earlier here, Jerry Bremer is focused on getting an extension
of his order 17 approved so that our forces and supporting
contractors have the protections that they need, and he expects
to do that prior to June 30.
Senator Clinton. General, have they yet identified the
person who will be your counterpart in this new Iraqi
government, the commander of whatever forces or security
personnel that this new government will put into place?
General Casey. General Babakur is the senior military
advisor to the Prime Minister of Iraq, and he will be my direct
interface.
Senator Clinton. So even though he is what is called an
advisor, he will have not only the responsibility for
interacting with you but will he have any line command or any
operational responsibility so far as you know?
General Casey. I am not 100 percent sure of that, Senator.
Senator Clinton. All of these questions about how we
interact with the post-June 30 government are really going to
be in your lap, General. I know that it is going to be a very
challenging task for you to line this up and to get the
appropriate understandings.
But one thing I was struck by is that news reports indicate
CENTCOM is asking for five more brigades. Is that an accurate
report?
General Casey. It is not, Senator. We talked about that a
little bit earlier before you came in. CENTCOM is doing some
contingency planning for increased levels of violence. It is
not, as the report suggested, an informal request for forces.
It is planners doing planning.
Senator Clinton. Finally, General, are there any
projections that you are aware of that have looked to the
numbers of troops we will need over the next 1 to 5 years?
General Casey. Senator, Central Command and Army planners
continuously assess and reassess that.
Senator Clinton. What is the range of troops? Do you have
knowledge of that?
General Casey. Right now we are looking at sustaining
planning. Because we have to designate units 2 and 3 years in
advance, we want to give them that notification so they have
the stability. But we are planning on sustaining the current
force levels through at least another rotation. So, Operation
Iraqi Freedom 4 (OIF-4)----
Senator Clinton. Do you know what percentage of Guard and
Reserve members that will be consisting of?
General Casey. My sense is it will stay somewhere between
30 and 50 percent.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator. We brought
up and I am glad you brought it up again, the status of forces
agreement. The General has been very forthcoming to the extent
that anyone knows the full answer to that important question.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, General Casey. We all welcome your appointment.
You are a superb professional with great experience and you
were given a difficult job, and we appreciate what you are
going to do for us.
What is your relationship, as you understand it, with
Ambassador Negroponte? Are there separate lines of
communication through his office, the Secretary of State to the
President, separate lines through your office to the Department
of Defense? What is the coordination mechanism?
General Casey. I am his principal military advisor. It is a
priority relationship for me to ensure that we work closely
together and that our staffs work closely together so that we
have unity of effort in the U.S. national mission.
Senator Reed. But----
General Casey. I will finish up here. My chain of command
is General Abizaid, Secretary of Defense, President.
Senator Reed. As the advisor to the Ambassador, does that
imply that he will make the decisions and you will provide
advice on military matters?
General Casey. I will provide advice how the military can
best support the operations that he----
Senator Reed. He will make the ultimate judgments that have
to be made there in the country?
General Casey. He will make the ultimate policy judgments.
I will make the ultimate military judgments with guidance from
General Abizaid and the Secretary of Defense.
Senator Reed. The obvious question. Who gets to break the
tie if you disagree?
General Casey. We have the possibility of pushing things
back up our separate chains. So the decision is taken here in
Washington.
Senator Reed. Thank you, General.
General, there was an announcement, which was encouraging,
of the disbanding of these militias. Since that announcement, I
have not heard a great deal of practical information about how
that is going, what is the time frame, will it really happen. I
ask the question because we all recognize that the Iraqi
security services that we are trying to create are months, if
not years, away from deployment, and these militias are on
hand, ready to go. Given the Prime Minister's avowed intention
to get tough with the insurgents, there is I think at least the
temptation to start using these militias rather than disbanding
them. Can you comment upon that?
General Casey. As part of the discussions that we had with
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and the Iraqis last week, the
militia agreement was discussed. Although I have not seen it
directly, the Iraqis and the CPA worked out agreement with a
number of the militias basically to disband over a period of
time. Not having, again, a lot of time on the ground there, my
personal perception is that it is probably a good thing because
what people there are running around with guns ought to be
working for the Iraqi security forces or for the coalition.
Senator Reed. Well, I agree with that. I think there is
sort of an intermediate situation where they are not formally
part of the Iraqi security services but they are working in
some way for the Iraqi government, and given the number of
these militias and their conflicting loyalties, that could
cause you a huge problem. So, again, this is an issue of
concern which I hope you can address.
There is some evidence or information in the media that
particularly in the north, the Kurdish Peshmerga is very
active, very well organized, and unlikely to easily disband
unless all their political objectives are achieved, and also
beginning to encroach upon areas where Sunni Arabs were planted
years ago. Is that an issue that you are concerned about?
General Casey. I was concerned enough about it to ask both
of the Presidents on our visit what their expectation was for
the Peshmerga to disband. What I got back was a willingness to
participate in the militia agreement process that they had
signed up to do.
Senator Reed. Looking at this situation in the last year or
so since my first trip in July with the chairman and Senator
Levin and then subsequent trips with Senator Clinton and again
with Senator Levin, there seems to be a progression or trend on
the insurgency. It started off with kind of random potshots at
our troops. Many times people were paid to just close their
eyes and fire an AK-47 to improvised explosive devices (IED)
which require some sophistication in terms of building them and
in placing them, and now in the last few days, insurgent
attacks which appear to be pretty well coordinated. That is a
very disturbing trend. Do you want to comment on that trend,
General?
General Casey. Senator, I do not think there is any
question that over time the insurgency has become increasingly
sophisticated. Whether they can continue to sustain the level
of operations that they had in April remains to be seen. It has
already dropped off from the peak in April, but it is still
above where it was previous to that.
Senator Reed. Then on our side, the tactics seem to be
shifting too. It appeared, several weeks ago, around Fallujah
that the marines were going to enter the city, root out the
insurgents. That was called off hastily because of objections
presumably from internal Iraqi political forces, turned over
now to Iraqis, our profile lowering. But now we are using
apparently attack helicopters to go in and take out selective
targets. Sort of a lowering of our profile and then the hope
the Iraqis will step in.
The question is, are we creating a vacuum there, or are we
doing something that looks a lot like what the Israelis have
been doing in Gaza and other places for years, using high tech
to go after individual targets? The question is, of course, is
that going to be an effective strategy over time?
General Casey. As I have mentioned earlier, because of the
current state of training and equipping of the Iraqi security
forces, there will be a phased process here as we gradually
bring them to a level where they can take over the security
responsibilities for themselves.
It is that interim period here that I think you are talking
to. What I talked about here earlier was that we, as a Multi-
National Force, need to maintain an offensive mindset that will
continue to develop intelligence to go after the insurgents and
facilitate the precise application of force, like what you are
talking about happened recently in Fallujah.
Senator Reed. Thank you, General. Good luck.
General Casey. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Just an announcement to our colleagues. Even though most of
them have finished their work here, there are staffs and others
who are following these hearings. It is imperative, in the
judgment of the ranking member and myself, that this committee
review the hearing we have had this morning as quickly as we
can and hopefully express our support for the President's
nomination that you have now received and that we allow the
Senate to review the committee's recommendation in the way of a
confirmation process either this evening or first thing
tomorrow morning.
So, Senator Levin and I are looking to the 3 o'clock hour,
at which time the committee will be given the opportunity to
receive briefings from the Department of Defense, an initial
briefing I stress, on the relationship between the
International Red Cross and our command structure and the
oversight of our prison structure in all areas of
responsibility (AORs).
So, General, I am quickly going to ask a few questions
here. We are going to take a minute or 2, each of us.
The United Nations, hopefully, will begin to reestablish
its mission. I presume you have that on a high priority of your
security demands.
General Casey. It is, Senator. It is specifically stated in
the U.N. Security Council resolution.
Chairman Warner. Yes, I am aware of that. Good. But I think
it is important this record reflect your commitment to that.
Back to that resolution 1546, unanimously approved on June
8, the document refers to the requirement to reach agreement
with the government of Iraq regarding ``policy on sensitive
offensive operations.'' Now, as the Commander of the MNF-I,
what does this language mean to you? Anything above and beyond
the interpretation of the English language? Perhaps it was left
in that form purposely to give you the latitude to work with
your counterparts to effectively carry out the missions. Is
that correct?
General Casey. I believe that is the case, Senator.
Chairman Warner. The recent violence, which several
colleagues, notably Senators Sessions and Collins, and others
on this side have raised, led the new Prime Minister to suggest
that some form of martial law might be implemented in order to
restore order and establish security. I suggest we not try and
put too much in the record about that today because I think
that is a subject that you will have to put high on your agenda
as you work with the United States Ambassador and the Iraqi
government and your counterparts in the Iraqi forces.
If that decision were to be made by the successor
government, this committee will bear down very closely in its
oversight responsibilities and just see what is the role of the
coalition forces in implementation. Obviously, in the minds of
the Iraqi people, all of the various nuances in these laws and
regulations and working relationships are lost. It is the
American GI and the coalition GI that gets the flashback when
the necessary use of force is applied. So this is very
important to this committee to follow should that step
eventually be taken. So I will just make that by way of
reference.
General Casey. Thank you, Senator. I will look closely at
that if that does in fact occur.
Chairman Warner. I know you will. We are very fortunate to
have a man of your vast experience and capabilities take on
this position.
I had another question I wrote down here, being an old
farmer. I am out of the business now. You do not put two bulls
in the same pen, and I am not entirely sure how it works
putting two four-stars in the same pen. But we know both of you
quite well from years of experience with General Abizaid and
now recent experience with you. We are going to follow that. We
are going to see just how well that works.
General Casey. I think you will find, Senator, that it will
free General Abizaid up to be more proactive.
Chairman Warner. I beg your pardon?
General Casey. I think you will see that it will free
General Abizaid up to be more proactive throughout the rest of
his theater, something I know he is concerned about.
Chairman Warner. Well, I think that is a very important
consideration for the creation of this post. Nevertheless,
still two bulls in the same pen.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. I know a couple of bulls in the Senate pen.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Yes. You are looking at two of them right
now.
Senator Levin. They have great respect for each other.
Chairman Warner. Order please. You think up your own
metaphor. [Laughter.]
Senator Levin. Literally, it can lead to tremendous
respect, I think, given the backgrounds of both of you. But it
is a good cautionary note in any event.
I want to get back to this issue that the chairman raised
about the martial law. It goes back to the point that Senator
McCain made with you about raising expectations because now,
once that statement is made by Allawi, if that is, in fact,
just announced and it was just put on your doorstep to
implement it, that is one heck of a load. It may be a load you
would not have suggested or recommended be made.
So I concur in what our chairman has said that that
probably needs to be pretty high up there on your list of
things to look into because of that representation that was
made, because I do not think they can enforce their own martial
law. They do not have the forces to do it, so here you would
have an announcement made that is left for us to implement, but
we may not have been part of that decision to make the
announcement. So I support what the chairman said in that
regard.
I want to just get back to the one issue that you commented
on. That has to do with if you needed additional forces, that
you will recommend them. I think you made a very forthright
statement here that if you think that you need more troops, you
will ask for more. I do not want to just raise unnecessarily a
sensitive subject around here, but we had an Army Chief of
Staff who just predicted we would need more troops than the
civilian leaders said they thought we would need in Iraq, and
when General Shinseki made that prediction, he was severely
criticized by civilian leadership.
I just hope that that has not chilled the determination of
our uniformed leaders such as yourself to give us the
unvarnished facts when we ask for them or even if we do not ask
for them, if you feel that we need them. We are heavily relying
upon you to give us that information. So it may be undesirable.
The civilian leaders that you report to may not want to hear
it.
That has happened before. Frankly, it happened during the
Clinton administration apparently. According to all the
reports, there was a well-known general around here who made a
request that turned out to be embarrassing to the civilian
leaders for certain kinds of equipment to go into the Balkans.
It created a problem, but it was the right thing to do. Whether
it was right or wrong, it was the honest thing to do. He
expressed his own opinion on that.
I just want to reinforce this point. When we ask that
question which the chairman asked about will you give us your
honest, professional advice, and you said you sure will, we
really count on you to do that and, more importantly, the
troops count on you to do that. That is something that I know
is first and foremost in your heart and mind is to do what is
right for the troops. So that may cause some painful problems
in terms of civilian leadership if you ask for something they
do not want to hear, but we need you to do that and to give it
to us straight. Everything I know about you I think we can
count on you to do that.
General Casey. You can, Senator.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I want to just follow up with that, General, because one of
my frustrations over the last year, year and a half regarding
the situation in Iraq is that I am not sure we get the truth. I
certainly know we do not get the whole truth, and I do not
think we get nothing but the truth.
By way of illustration, we get this working paper,
unclassified, Iraq status. The last one I received is dated
June 22 this year. It starts out, the highlights of over 12,000
dialogue activities have been held, various things in
governance, time table. I have seen that before. Then it gets
to essential services, water, telecommunications, the number of
telephone subscribers in Iraq is up. Cell phone subscribers is
up. Essential services, transportation, it goes into food
security and health education. I do not doubt that any of those
are essential services. Then it goes into program management.
Finally, I get to page 20 and it gets to the electricity
overview which in the past has been up quite near the front. I
certainly consider it an essential service. It says here, due
to unforseen problems, the goals set by Ambassador Bremer in
January to reach a certain level of capacity in daily
production will not be reached until at least June 30. Then it
gives a couple charts and it has got a couple of graphs that I
cannot distinguish between the various shades of gray to really
tell.
But again, with the Iraqis I met with in Minnesota over the
weekend who had been, a couple of them, in Baghdad up till
about 2 weeks ago and had been there over the previous couple
of months, they told me that the typical electricity situation
in Baghdad now on a given day is 8 hours of electricity, 16
hours of no electricity. They said sometimes it is worse.
We were in Iraq last July, as I said earlier, when it was
115 degree temperature. Electricity was 95 percent of what the
Iraqis were concerned about in terms of daily comfort. It is
essential for refrigeration. It is essential for air
conditioning. It is essential in the major cities I was told
for also running water and sanitation. So if there is not
electricity on a regular, consistent basis, we have got a lot
of unhappy people with understandable reasons. Here is
something, it seems to me if it is true what I was told, that
is extremely significant, has a huge impact.
Our forces unfairly bear the brunt of this because a year
ago--and the electricity situation back then I think was even
better in Baghdad than that. Certainly the situation prior to
our invasion in Baghdad, from what I am told, was better than
what was reported to me. But the Iraqi citizens thought if we
can take over their country militarily in 3 weeks, we are
omnipotent and we ought to be able to provide electricity more
reliably and to a greater degree than Saddam Hussein. We are
falling short of that, and now it seems a year later we are
falling short of, arguably, even what it was back then.
I realize that there are difficulties and the like, but you
would have to ferret through here to find that information
buried on page 20. It says in a very kind of antiseptic way, it
has not met a goal, whereas in the real world over there, as I
say, which I would not have found out if I had not met with
these citizens. There is a real life impact that is not
represented here that is huge. Again, for our forces and the
way they are going to be perceived and treated by Iraqi
citizens and everything else, the vulnerabilities, this is
huge.
We are not getting that information in my experience on a
factual, upfront basis. I would ask that you see that we do,
please and certainly find out if they are not getting
electricity in Iraq, they are not going to be feeling very
favorable toward our forces.
Thank you.
General Casey. That was something that was brought up by
the Iraqi government officials that we met with. Everyone is
very keenly aware of the need to do better in electricity.
I would also point out, though, that part of the problem, a
good part of the problem is because the terrorists are
attacking the electrical infrastructure. They are stealing that
from the Iraqi people.
Senator Dayton. Then the suggestion was made why can we not
bring in generators the way that have been brought in for some
of our base camps operations and for the coalition force
headquarters in the palace. We may have to improvise. I do not
know, but I just know that if the situation is as they
described it, this summer you are going to have a whole lot of
very unhappy people.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. General, just two quick things. One to
follow up on Senator Dayton.
We get reports that a lot of our troops are performing
functions that they were not trained for, and that seems
particularly true with respect to some of these civil projects.
We have had reports that people who were trained for infantry
are trying to help with controlling sewage, and there is not a
significant amount of troops for the engineering, the kind of
fundamental building block work that is required. I do not know
whether that is the case or not, and I would like to get some
sense of that. It may be that you have enough troops, but it
may also be, as we are told consistently, that the mix of
troops may not quite be right for the changeover and the new
kinds of responsibilities you face.
Finally, on a matter that is not perhaps at the top of the
pressing issues that you confront. There was a very poignant
report this morning on, I think it was, National Public Radio
by the man who had been Jerry Bremer's consultant for cultural
affairs. He spoke in detail about how we had established base
camps in places like Babylon on the archaeological sites and
that we, through the efforts to protect these sites and then to
establish a permanent presence, had perhaps taken some actions
that were contrary to preserving not just the archaeological
heritage of the Iraqis but the biblical heritage of the entire
Judeo-Christian world.
Would you look into that, General? Because I was deeply
disturbed, in the aftermath of the initial efforts, that we had
the looting of the national museums and the like and we found
out that damage might not have been as great as had originally
been reported. So I would like to know where we stand with
respect to some of these very valuable ancient sites that mean
so much to people around the world.
General Casey. I will do that, Senator. By chance, I did
happen to visit that Polish base camp, and I can tell you that
he inherited that from the marines who went in first. But he is
doing everything in his power to mitigate the effects of his
presence there on the cultural sites.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator, thank you for raising that
question. On one of the three or four congressional delegations
that I have been on to that region, we went to those very areas
at Babylon and we were impressed with the security that our
multi-national forces had provided and that the restoration and
preservation of some of areas was going right on. I am glad
that you have reinforced, in your response to the Senator's
question, your commitment to do the same.
General Casey. They actually have two full-time Polish
archaeologists there that are with the multi-national force.
Chairman Warner. We met with one of them. A remarkable
piece of history.
We were doing a little homework up here, as you were
speaking with other Senators, about this question of your area
of responsibility and that of General Abizaid. Now, you are
heading a command that was specifically established really by
the United Nations resolutions. Let me read from the most
recent one, which is 1546, adopted just 8 June of this year.
Section 9 notes that the presence of the Multi-National Force
in Iraq is at the request of the incoming interim government of
Iraq and therefore reaffirms the authorization for the Multi-
National Force under unified command, established under
resolution 1511 in 2003--that is the earlier U.N. resolution--
having regard to the letters annexed to this resolution.
In our questions to you, routine questions to our nominees,
we ask what will be the relationship of your command MNF-I to
the United Nations. Your response, ``The U.N. will be
interacting with MNF-I in their efforts to establish democratic
election processes and humanitarian reconstruction assistance.
MNF-I will, with the Iraqi security force, provide security for
these efforts. I envision the relationship between the MNF-I
and the U.N. as a partnership, pursuing the common goal of
building a democratic Iraq.''
Now, as to precedence for two four-star officers being more
or less in the same AOR, there is this Pacific Command and the
Korean Command. If you look down in the fine print, the Korean
Command is in a sense a deputy to the overall commander in the
Pacific, the CINC. It is my understanding according to our
quick research.
General Casey. In the U.S. chain, that is correct.
Chairman Warner. Yes, that is correct.
Now, I ask for the record--and you may not be able to
provide it--what reporting chain do you have, if any, up
through your command to the United Nations?
General Casey. Senator, I know of no reporting chain that
goes back to the United Nations.
Chairman Warner. Because the Korean Commander does have a
reporting chain.
General Casey. That is correct, but in my situation I am
not aware that I do.
Chairman Warner. All right. I just wonder if you would
refine that for the record.
General Casey. If it changes, I will come back to you.
Chairman Warner. Just provide it in today's record at the
earliest possible time because I think that is very important.
Reporting up and what directions, if any, could they send down
to you in your capacity as commander.
General Casey. All right, Senator, I understand. But my
chain of command is through the Secretary of Defense and the
President.
Chairman Warner. I understand that but there is reference
in here to their having established this.
I thank you very much.
Senator Levin, we have been joined by Senator Nelson. I am
wondering if you might forgive the chairman if I absent myself
and say thank you first and foremost to you, General, and to
your family. I wish you all the best of good fortune, and thank
you again on behalf of not only just those of us here in the
United States, but people all over the world for your accepting
this very challenging post in the cause of freedom. Thank you.
General Casey. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, before you depart,
following up on that line of questioning about the question of
where the responsibility lies, clearly an American commander is
responsible to the American chain of command. But, of course,
it can get a little more convoluted since we have the phase-in
of the government over the period of a year and a half, first
with June 30 and then with elections in January 2005, to be
followed by the parliamentary elections in December 2005, a
year and a half from now. In the course of that year and a
half, if the new transitional government were to say we do not
want the American forces there, which is not a remote
possibility given the fact of a campaign for the parliament in
the heat of elections that Iraq is certainly not experienced in
and in what we have already heard from people. They are glad
the Americans liberated them, but they do not want us there as
occupiers, we are going to be likely facing the situation, what
about our troops being there, absolutely necessary for
stabilizing Iraq for the transitional government, with the
transitional government suddenly saying, ``Get out,
Americans?''
That puts us, that puts commanders like this, that puts his
chain of command in a very difficult situation because clearly,
it is not going to be in the interest of the United States to
get out because, at the end of the day, what we want is a
stabilized Iraq. They simply do not have the army. They do not
have the police force, and they are not anywhere close to it
even though we are helping train them. So I think we have got
some real straining and grunting that we are going to be doing
here over the course of the next year and a half.
Chairman Warner. Your observation is well taken, Senator.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I would just note for
General Casey the subject that you have heard me speak of ad
infinitum, just to say that we had a downed flyer that we
walked away from in the Gulf War in 1991, Captain Scott
Speicher. The good news is that we have had a dedicated team
over there under Major General Dayton, who has now rotated
back, and under a specific, smaller Speicher team that was
looking for any evidence. They were very dedicated. I went over
there just to give them some ``atta boys'' not only as the
Senator but as a Senator from the State where the family lives.
The sad news is that we have not found any conclusive
evidence. This clearly is just one of thousands of things that
you have to consider, General Casey, but ultimately coming to
some conclusive evidence is important. It is not only important
for that family that has been in this limbo for so many years,
but it is also important to every pilot in the United States
military that they know, if they are downed, that somebody is
coming after them. We have a pilot that we did not go after
through a series of mistakes. So I just want to put that on
your radar screen, General Casey.
General Casey. Thank you, Senator. One of the elements of
the Army's soldier's creed is that I will never leave a fallen
comrade. So we take that very seriously. Thank you.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Levin. I have never seen anybody take an issue more
seriously than Senator Bill Nelson of Florida has taken on in
the Scott Speicher case. He raises this on every occasion. He
has gone to Iraq solely for that issue. When he is there--I
have been with him when he has done this--he raises this issue.
I want to commend him. I had no doubt what your answer would be
and you should have no doubt of the tenacity of Senator Nelson
and a number of other members of the committee, I am sure, on
behalf of the American people, the families, and the flyers, as
you put it. I want to thank Senator Nelson too. He is
absolutely right in what he is doing here. Until we find out
for sure what happened, we just have to press on. It is a kind
of a mission that we can never forget.
General, thanks to you and your family.
General Casey. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Levin. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to GEN George W. Casey, Jr.,
USA, 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. You have had an opportunity to observe
the implementation and impact of those reforms, particularly in your
assignments as Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Director of the Joint
Staff, and Commander of the Joint Warfighting Center, U.S. Joint Forces
Command.
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, the Goldwater-Nichols act has improved our joint
operations. The goals of Goldwater-Nichols have been confirmed in the
war on terrorism.
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. Our fight in the global war against terrorism and our need
to work with many agencies outside DOD as well as with coalition
partners is creating a different security environment from the one that
drove defense reform in 1986. I do believe that its time to update
Goldwater-Nichols. The update should take into account the lessons
learned since Goldwater-Nichols was implemented, and the current and
projected security environments.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. These reforms have significantly clarified operational
chains of command and working relations among the Military Services and
combatant commanders to enhance joint operations. Most importantly,
they have clearly communicated the intent of Congress and the President
that our warfighting efforts must be increasingly joint.
Question. Do you believe that the role of the combatant commanders
under the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and the policies
and processes in existence allow that role to be fulfilled?
Answer. Yes. The general framework established by the Goldwater-
Nichols Act is appropriate and existing policies and processes allow
that role to be fulfilled.
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. Multi-National
Force-Iraq is a new command, established to oversee U.S., coalition,
and Iraqi military and security operations in Iraq. Please describe
your understanding of the relationship of the Commander, Multi-National
Force-Iraq to the following offices:
The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. The Under Secretaries of Defense assist the Secretary of
Defense in specific functional areas: Policy, Comptroller, Acquisition
and Technology, Intelligence, and Personnel and Readiness. These Under
Secretaries provide coordination and the exchange of information with
Department of Defense components having collateral or related
functions, which include the combatant commanders. Since the Multi-
National Force-Iraq is a subordinate command to Central Command
(CENTCOM), I anticipate that my interaction with the Under Secretaries
would be primarily at the direction of, and subject to the control of,
the CENTCOM Commander.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense have functional
responsibilities prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. Since the
Multi-National Force-Iraq is a subordinate command to CENTCOM, I
anticipate that my interaction with the Assistant Secretaries of
Defense would be primarily at the direction of, and subject to the
control of, the CENTCOM Commander.
If confirmed, I will fully support and execute all guidance issued
by the Assistant Secretaries of Defense with respect to defense
functions pursuant to their assigned duties and responsibilities.
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, subject to the authority of the
CENTCOM Commander, I will coordinate with and keep the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff informed in order to execute any assigned
missions and accomplish the objectives of the President and the
Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The Secretaries of the Military Departments are responsible
for the administration and support of the forces they provide to the
combatant commands. The responsibilities are outlined in title 10
United States Code (USC), section 165, which notes that the Secretaries
are subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary
of Defense. If confirmed, subject to the authority of the CENTCOM
Commander, I will coordinate with the Secretaries of the Military
Departments to ensure I have the forces necessary to execute assigned
missions.
Question. The Service Chiefs.
Answer. While the Service Chiefs are not in the formal chain of
command, they have a significant role. As members of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, the Service Chiefs provide military advice to the President
and Secretary of Defense. Individually and collectively, the Joint
Chiefs are a source of experience and judgment that every joint
commander can call upon; it is a privilege to work with them. If
confirmed, subject to the authority of the CENTCOM Commander, I will
coordinate with the Service Chiefs to ensure that I have the forces
necessary to execute my assigned mission.
Question. The Commander, U.S. Central Command.
Answer. If confirmed as the Commander, Multi-National Force Iraq,
my actions will be subject to the authority, direction, and control of
the Commander, U.S. Central Command, the combatant commander with
overall responsible for current military operations in Iraq. I will
work closely with the Commander, U.S. Central Command to execute his
priorities in successfully accomplishing assigned missions.
Question. The other combatant commanders.
Answer. As directed by the Commander, U.S. Central Command, I will
coordinate with the other combatant commanders to accomplish missions
assigned to the Multi-National Force-Iraq.
Question. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
Answer. The Commander, MNF-I, and the U.S. Ambassador will work
closely in formulating strategic direction and ensuring unity of effort
in support of the Interim Government of Iraq. Creating a secure and
stable Iraq requires careful coordination of military operations and
objectives with other elements of U.S. national power, including
economic, political, diplomatic, and informational objectives.
Establishing a close and effective working relationship with the new
Ambassador and the government agencies working out of the Embassy is a
priority goal for me. I will also serve as his principal military
advisor.
qualifications
Question. If confirmed, you will be entering this important
position at a critical time for United States interests in Iraq and the
Middle East.
What background and experience do you have that you believe
qualifies you for this position?
Answer. My military experience and education have prepared me to
assume this position. I have over 30 years of Military Service, and
have commanded soldiers from platoon to division. My joint experience
includes service as the Deputy Director for Politico-Military Affairs
(Europe), J-5, Director of the J-5 Strategic Plans and Policy on the
Joint Staff, and most recently as the Director of the Joint Staff. My
tour as a U.N. Military Observer in Cairo, Egypt, my assignment as the
Assistant Division Commander of the 1st Armored Division in Bosnia, and
my oversight of 1st Armored Division forces in Kosovo afforded me an
understanding of the challenges and complexities of multi-national
operations. My present assignment as the Vice Chief of Staff of the
Army gives me direct and daily involvement with the critical issues
facing our military in meeting the challenges in Iraq and in fighting
the global war on terrorism. My educational background includes a
Bachelor of Science Foreign Service degree from Georgetown University's
School of Foreign Service, a Masters degree in International Relations
from Denver University, and service as a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic
Council, all of which will be extremely valuable in discharging the
duties as Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq. If confirmed, I
am confident that I possess the experience and knowledge to
successfully address the difficult challenges of this position.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the first Commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I)?
Answer. I see these major challenges facing MNF-I:
1. Implementing an effective transition from occupation to
partnership with the Interim Iraqi Government (IIG).
2. With the IIG and the Iraqi security forces, defeating the
anti-Iraqi and anti-coalition forces.
3. Assisting the IIG in efficiently rebuilding the Iraqi
Security Forces (ISF).
4. With the ISF, provide an environment secure enough to permit
elections in December/January.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. MNF-I is already developing plans to address these
challenges. Broadly, I will focus on: leading the MNF counterinsurgency
effort and establishing a strong relationship with the U.S. ambassador
and IIG to bring all the elements of national power to bear in
defeating the insurgency; building links to the IIG to rebuild the ISF
and ensure close cooperation and coordination of military operations;
and, in coordination with the IIG, the U.N., and the U.S. Embassy, work
to provide a secure environment for the year-end elections.
relationship to commander, multi-national corps-iraq
Question. In addition to MNF-I, there is also a new organization
designated Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNC-I).
What will the relationship of Commander, MNF-I be to the Commander,
MNC-I?
Will there be a division of responsibilities between the two
commanders and, if so, please describe the responsibilities of each
commander?
Answer. The Commander of the MNF-I has a national strategic focus,
with responsibilities for consulting and coordinating with the IIG,
training Iraqi security forces, and political-military relations with
the new U.S. Embassy Team and coalition. The Commander, MNF-I maintains
overall responsibility for military operations in Iraq.
A three-star general commands the Multi-National Corps. MNC-I is
one of the major subordinate commands of MNF-I. The focus of the MNC-I
Commander is the battle command (C2) of five subordinate commanders:
two U.S. Divisions, two Multi-National Divisions (Poland and the U.K.),
and one Multi-National Brigade (U.S.). He will focus on full spectrum
operations at the operational and tactical levels.
operation iraqi freedom
Question. From your perspective as the Director of the Joint Staff
and then as the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, preparing soldiers for
deployment, and now as the prospective Commander of MNF-I, what are the
top lessons learned with regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Answer. The U.S. Army has learned several important lessons from
Operation Iraqi Freedom. The major ones are the value of truly joint
operations and the integration of coalition and Special Operations
Forces. The Joint culture forged through continuous operations and
aided by improved command and control networks enabled CENTCOM to
operate as a cohesive Joint force. The merger of Special Operations
Forces and conventional forces increased the range of coalition
capabilities and enabled key victories.
There are several areas, however, that we want to improve. Our
information operations have provided mixed results and need significant
improvement. The deployment of more than 40,000 reservists was hampered
by cumbersome mobilization policies and by a force mix that put too
many early deploying support units and high demand low-intensity units
in the Reserves. The Army is addressing these issues in its
transformation efforts.
Question. What role do you foresee for forces from additional
coalition nations in Iraq in the future?
Answer. Joint Staff has the lead to work within the Inter-Agency
process to coordinate contributions from current and potential
coalition partners. There are 35 coalition countries with 22,000
personnel conducting stability operations and humanitarian relief in
Iraq. In the near term, we are focusing our efforts on obtaining
contributions for security forces for U.N. personnel and facilities in
Iraq.
united nations security council resolution
Question. On June 8, 2004, the U.N. Security Council unanimously
approved Resolution 1546, recognizing the Interim Government of Iraq as
the legal authority of a sovereign Iraq on June 30, 2004, and extending
the U.N. mandate for 1 year for the presence of a multi-national force
under the unified command of a U.S. military commander.
Question. What will be the relationship of MNF-I to the United
Nations?
Answer. The U.N. will be interacting with the MNF-I in their
efforts to establish democratic election processes and humanitarian
reconstruction assistance. MNF-I will, with the ISF, provide security
for these efforts. I envision the relationship between the MNF-I and
the U.N. as a partnership pursuing the common goal of building a
democratic Iraq.
Question. What will be the relationship of MNF-I to the Government
of Iraq?
Answer. The MNF-I and the IIG will form a partnership to build a
free and democratic Iraq. National, regional, and local coordinating
bodies comprised of Iraqi Security Force and MNF-I leaders will be
established. These bodies will be responsible for ensuring that there
is coordination between Iraqi Security Forces and the MNF-I on all
security policy and operations issues. This will promote unity of
command in military operations in which Iraqi Forces are engaged with
MNF-I. At the invitation of the Prime Minister of Iraq, I, or my
designee, will attend and participate in the sessions of the Iraqi
Ministerial Committee on National Security.
Question. What will be your chain of command?
Answer. Commander, CENTCOM; Secretary of Defense; President.
Question. What will be your responsibilities with regard to
providing security for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq?
What coalition forces will be used for such a mission?
Answer. The MNF will work to facilitate the protection of the U.N.
Assistance Mission. The MNF-I will establish a separate brigade sized
force under its command dedicated to providing security for U.N.
personnel and facilities in Iraq. We strongly desire that this come
from additional international contributions.
status of forces agreement
Question. There is no specific status of forces agreement (SOFA)
between the United States and the Interim Government of Iraq.
How will U.S. and coalition forces be protected from unwarranted
prosecution under Iraqi law?
What will be the status of contractors supporting U.S. and
coalition military efforts after the transfer of sovereignty to the
interim Government of Iraq?
Answer. Currently, Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Order 17
provides immunity from Iraqi legal process for all U.S. and coalition
forces. Order 17 also provides that coalition personnel are subject to
the exclusive jurisdiction of their Parent States, and that they are
immune from local criminal, civil, and administrative jurisdiction and
detention.
The current version of CPA Order 17 relies heavily on occupation
law and this must be modified to extend protection beyond June 30,
2004, when the occupation ends. CENTCOM officials are currently
consulting with the interagency and other members of the coalition on
an amendment to CPA Order 17 that extends and expands protections for
coalition military forces beyond June 30, 2004.
In the draft amendment to CPA Order 17 currently under
consideration, non-Iraqi contractors supporting U.S. and coalition
military efforts shall be immune from Iraqi legal process with respect
to acts performed by them pursuant to the terms and conditions of a
contract with a Sending State. When called into question, the Sending
State is responsible for determining and certifying whether the
contractor acted pursuant to the terms and conditions of the contract.
iraqi and foreign national detainees
Question. After the transfer of sovereignty, what will be the role
of MNF-I in the detention and interrogation of Iraqi and foreign
nationals detained during the course of authorized military operations?
Answer. After the transfer of sovereignty, multinational forces
will continue to have a role in detention and interrogation operations
in support of the maintenance of security in Iraq. In United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1546, the Security Council specifically
decided that multinational forces shall have the authority to take all
necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and
stability in Iraq. Among those tasks is detention and internment where
necessary for imperative reasons of security.
Question. What will be the role of Iraqi security forces in the
detention and intelligence exploitation of persons detained during the
course of authorized coalition military operations?
Answer. MNF is currently working procedures to be able to integrate
the selected Interim Iraqi Government Intelligence and related ministry
elements in the Screening and Debriefing/Interrogation process. There
are currently a number of procedural issues to be worked out to enable
that to happen. Memorandums of Agreement must be drafted between Multi-
National Force-Iraq and the respective Interim Iraqi Governmental
organization to ensure that all parties understand and agree to areas
of mutual concern.
Question. What role will MNF-I have in the supervision and
oversight of detainee operations conducted by the Iraqi security
forces?
Answer. Multi-National Force-Iraq is developing a memorandum of
understanding with the Ministry of Justice for individuals held in pre-
trial confinement. This MOA will address the support to be provided
pending the development of the capacity by the Ministry of Justice to
securely house these detainees.
transformation
Question. As a result of your previous positions, you are familiar
with the requirements for the Military Services to support CENTCOM and
MNF-I.
Do current transformation initiatives support MNF-I's future
requirements?
Answer. I believe that Department of Defense and Army
transformation initiatives support MNF-I's current and future
requirements. In particular, actions directed by the Army
Transformation Strategy and the Army Campaign Plan are enhancing
Current Force capabilities and building toward the Future Force, now.
Currently, the Army is focusing its efforts and institutional energies
to enhance the effectiveness of and reduce risk to our frontline
soldiers at MNF-I and other global operations. The Army's focus and
sense of urgency pervade all of the Army's transformation efforts.
Based on a comprehensive analysis of lessons learned, operational
experience, requirements for the global war on terrorism, combatant
commanders' needs, and a focused look at key areas, the Army has
initiated numerous transformational initiatives. It has accelerated
select Future Force capabilities where they could benefit the
warfighter, now. The focus of Army transformation is reconfiguring Army
maneuver formations to fight as smaller, more modular, more versatile,
and joint interdependent units will enable the MFNI to sustain
operations over protracted campaigns and confer substantial benefits to
Army forces in Iraq.
Question. How will the Army's transformation impact MNF-I's current
operations?
Answer. In Iraq, the benefits of Army transformation are clear,
now. Today, the Army's first networked maneuver formation, a Stryker
Brigade Combat Team, is demonstrating Future Force capabilities in
Iraq. The Army converted the 3rd Infantry Division to a modular design
while retaining its readiness for redeployment and return to Iraq. Army
forces in Iraq fight with Good Enough Battle Command that provides
enhanced situational awareness. The Rapid Fielding Initiative provides
soldiers coming to Iraq with 50 essential items to improve the
effectiveness and protection. The Rapid Equipping Force has fielded a
variety of commercial off-the-shelf or near-term developmental items in
response to warfighter requests--from webcams to aid in weapons
searches to Packbots that remotely search dangerous areas. These
efforts reflect the pace and scope of Army transformation efforts and
demonstrate how Army transformation provides an immediate impact on
MNF-I's current operations.
Transformation efforts that will provide the most significant
impacts to current MNF-I operations will be modular conversion of
maneuver and support formations that retain the capabilities previously
found at higher echelons. Over the next 3 years, the Army will build up
to 15 additional brigades and select high demand/low density
capabilities required for global commitments. The Army will also
convert all maneuver brigades and divisions within the active
components (AC) and Reserve components (RC) into standardized designs
by 2010, with modularly converted units fighting in Iraq this year.
To provide ready forces, the Army is also developing a force
management process that leverages standard unit designs and rotational
deployment cycles. This process pools available forces in the active
and Reserve components into modular deployment packages for specific
periods. Each unit within the force pool will undergo a structured
progression of increased readiness over time, culminating in full
readiness and availability to deploy. When this process is coupled with
the balancing of AC and RC force structure, the Army will improve its
capability to sustain combat operations over the mid-term.
Army transformation efforts are synchronized with the planning,
preparation, and execution of Army operations within the context of
ongoing strategic commitments. The Army Campaign Plan framework has two
complementary parts--strategic posture and transformation. This
framework enables a detailed, by fiscal year view of Army capabilities
to build the Army program. This allows the Army to align resources and
manage its budget against the plan and emerging needs. Further, this
planning framework provides flexibility to adjust plan execution as
required.
Question. What impact will the Army's transformation have on the
large prepositioned stocks in the CENTCOM area of responsibility that
are critical to force rotations for MNF-I?
Answer. Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) and Army Regional Flotillas
are and will continue to be integral components to the strategic
responsiveness and reshaping of Army forces. Modernization of APS has
always been affected by resource prioritization required by the entire
Army. APS equipment has been older and less capable than equipment
found in the active component. Currently, Army prepositioned stocks in
CENTCOM are serving their intended function--providing an equipment
base for rotational Army forces in Iraq.
In 2003, as the VCSA, I approved the concept that supports some
modernization of APS equipment as part of the Army reset initiative.
The prepositioned stocks in the CENTCOM area of responsibility will
benefit from this program. At the same time, rotational ``Stay Behind
Equipment'' packages at MNF-I are also benefiting from some
improvements in battle command and protection.
The APS strategy continues to evolve to meet both changing threats
and simultaneous implementation of Army transformation concepts. The
Army faces significant funding and resourcing challenges as it resets
and converts to modular units, but it recognizes that APS must also be
reset, repositioned, and modularized.
end strength
Question. You have a unique perspective as the current Vice Chief
of Staff of the Army and the prospective Commander of MNF-I.
In your view, is the current end strength of the Army sufficient to
meet the requirements to support the needs of MNF-I, as well as the
Army's other global commitments?
Answer. The Army is currently meeting the needs of MNF-I and our
other global commitments. To continue to meet these commitments, we
need more combat units and a better balance in low density/high demand
capabilities between our active and Reserve component forces. We are
executing a plan to build 10 new brigades by the end of fiscal year
2007 (with a potential for 5 more this decade). One has already been
activated, and by this time next year, we will have four new brigades
available for commitment. These new formations, along with force
stabilization and a new unit rotational readiness cycle will begin to
ease the stress on the force to a more sustainable OPTEMPO.
nato peacekeepers
Question. Military forces from 17 NATO member nations are currently
participating in peacekeeping operations in Iraq.
What additional opportunities, if any, do you foresee for NATO
forces to conduct operations in the MNF-I area of responsibility?
Answer. MNF-I would welcome NATO involvement. A specific way NATO
forces can contribute to operations in Iraq is to provide military
training for the Iraqi army and to build the capacity of Iraqi military
and defense civil servants and institutions. If confirmed, I will
carefully examine this and other possibilities to enhance our
peacekeeping operations in Iraq.
force protection
Question. If confirmed, what would be your top priorities in terms
of force protection?
Answer. My first priority in force protection will be to review the
measures we take to prevent hostile actions against Department of
Defense and coalition personnel. This includes both offensive and
defensive measures that allow us to preserve the lives of our soldiers
while degrading opportunities for enemy forces. We will do our utmost
to protect all coalition personnel on our bases and while they are
conducting operations and movements.
If confirmed, I will insist that requirements for force protection
equipment are met as quickly as possible, with tested and proven gear.
This includes monitoring the aggressive programs we have already put in
place to provide armoring for vehicles, fielding of items like unmanned
aerial vehicles, counter mortar radars, and IED countermeasures. I will
also work to take advantage of innovative new equipment begin developed
by industry and incorporate new tactics and procedures. Finally, I will
aggressively seek and employ solutions that defeat and prevent enemy
combatants from attacking our soldiers.
Question. What additional steps, if any, need to be taken to ensure
that personnel being assigned to Iraq are fully prepared and equipped
for potential threats?
Answer. Service members arrive in theater with an impressive amount
of training that is specifically focused on the threats they will
encounter in Iraq. For example, our Army Combat Training Centers have
adapted to include these threats in training and challenge all units
with realistic scenarios. This training continues all the way until
their arrival in Iraq, under the most realistic challenges possible. I
will continue to work with the Services to ensure that the training and
the preparation received by service members fully prepare them for
operations in Iraq. Additionally, with the great support of Congress,
billions of dollars have been applied to ensure that service members
have the most capable equipment available for their use. If confirmed,
I will continue to work with the commanders on the ground to obtain
their input and ensure they have the best equipment to accomplish the
mission and protect our service members.
Question. What steps are being taken to ensure that foreign nations
that contribute forces to MNF-I have sufficient force protection
capabilities?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my first areas of interest will be to
closely examine the capabilities of the other nations that make up the
coalition. I will also ensure that we are sharing the lessons learned
in force protection techniques and equipment.
bandwidth on the battlefield
Question. Unmanned assets, such as persistent unmanned aerial
vehicles, require tremendous bandwidth capacity. Command and control,
blue force tracking and movement of intelligence products also use
significant amounts of bandwidth.
What challenges do you anticipate in fully utilizing these
important assets with the bandwidth currently available to you in Iraq?
Answer. The full utilization of all radio emitting assets (Command
and Control (C2), Blue Force Situational Awareness (BFSA), and
Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)) in the constrained
area requires a constant effort to efficiently and effectively use the
available bandwidth. Bandwidth requirements for deployed forces have
increased ten fold with over 3.2 Gbps of SATCOM service alone
supporting Central Region. By comparison, the available SATCOM
bandwidth for Operation Desert Storm was 99 Mbps vs. the 3.2 Gbps as of
April 2003 (source DISA Bandwidth report). The bandwidth challenges are
most pronounced below the division level.
sexual assaults in the army
Question. You testified before the Personnel Subcommittee on
February 25, 2004, along with the other service chiefs, about policies
and programs for preventing and responding to incidents of sexual
assault in the armed services. At that time you testified that the Army
Criminal Investigation Command was actively investigating, or had
completed investigating, 86 sexual assault crimes reported in the
CENTCOM area of operations.
How many of the foregoing cases have been closed since you
testified?
Answer. The 86 sexual assault crimes that I referenced in my prior
testimony consisted of 38 allegations of rape, 5 allegations of
forcible sodomy, and 43 allegations of indecent assault. As of June 21,
2004, 5 cases remain open and under investigation (3 allegations of
rape, 1 allegation of sodomy, and 1 allegation of indecent assault). Of
the remaining cases, 52 were investigated and determined founded, 15
were determined as unfounded, and 14 were determined to have
insufficient evidence to proceed.
Question. What measures have been implemented in the CENTCOM AOR to
ensure prevention of sexual assaults and to respond appropriately to
victims of assaults?
Answer. If confirmed as the MNF-I Commander, I will support the
recommendations from the Task Force on Sexual Assault Policies that
establish a policy and program structure to provide support to sexual
assault victims through Victim Advocates (VA) and Victim Advocate
Coordinators (VAC). The Army is currently staffing a draft policy that
will place VACs at the Installation level while assigning as a
collateral duty a minimum of two soldiers at battalion or equivalent
level for all deployments. The installation VAC will have the
responsibility of integrating and coordinating victim services at the
installation while VAs will serve to assist victims of sexual assault
in securing basic needs and serve as a companion throughout the
medical, investigative and judicial process. Since this is considered a
collateral duty, VA's must undergo training to deal with victims of
sexual assault. The Army is aggressively pursuing implementing VACs and
VAs throughout the Army, to include deployments, by the end of the
calendar year 2004. CID will also provide investigative support and
victim and witness protection as required.
Question. What steps will you take as Commander, MNF-I to prevent
sexual assaults and to respond to victims of assaults?
Answer. Commanders will ensure that all soldiers receive
instructions on sexual assault prevention techniques and training. If
confirmed, I will ensure that all MNF-I personnel will understand that
sexual assault is a crime that is not tolerated and those who commit
these crimes will be held accountable. I will also undertake efforts to
improve awareness and education programs designed to prevent sexual
assault, provide sensitive care for sexual assault victims, and conduct
aggressive and thorough investigation of all reported sexual assaults.
If confirmed, I will ensure a positive command climate in which victims
of any crimes have complete confidence in their chain of command, and
will report these crimes immediately.
iraqi security forces
Question. Lieutenant General David Petraeus, USA, has returned to
Iraq as the Chief of Security Transition in Iraq, responsible for the
recruiting, training, equipping and mentoring of Iraqi Security Forces.
What will be your relationship with the Chief of Security
Transition in Iraq?
Answer. The Chief of Security Transition will work for the
Commander, MNF-I.
Question. What relationship will General Petraeus' office have with
the interim Government of Iraq?
Answer. Lieutenant General Petraeus will work closely with the
Minister of Defense for military issues along with the Coalition
Military Assistance Training Team (CMATT), one of his subordinate
commands. Likewise, he will work closely with the Minister of Interior
for police issues with his other subordinate command, the Civilian
Police Assistance Training Team.
Question. What are your views concerning the pace at which Iraqi
security forces can assume responsibility for the internal and external
defense of Iraq?
Answer. This is a priority and the goal is to have the Iraqis
increase their responsibility for internal and external defense of Iraq
as soon as possible. We must ensure that the conditions are set for
their success, and that we proceed at a pace that yields quality as
well as quantity.
assistance to contractor security personnel
Question. Private security companies in Iraq are performing some
extremely important missions, including protecting military supply
convoys and guarding critical facilities and personnel, and, in some
cases, coming under hostile fire.
What responsibilities, if any, should MNF-I assume in assisting
contract security personnel, or other contractors, to include providing
threat information, intelligence, military assistance, or appropriate
medical assistance?
Answer. Private security companies have proven instrumental in the
reconstruction efforts within Iraq. Events over the past several months
have clearly demonstrated their individual professionalism and courage
under hostile action. Moreover, these companies have assisted not only
in providing security to the Coalition Provisional Authority, but to a
host of individuals, contractors, and Iraqi government officials.
The combatant commander is responsible for the security and force
protection for contractors accompanying the force. Integration and
oversight of contractor-provided security services is a key task to be
executed by the MNF-I. I am committed to this relationship and, if
confirmed, will take measures to provide for their safety and well-
being.
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, MNF-I?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of GEN George W. Casey, Jr., USA,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 14, 2004.
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
George W. Casey, Jr., 1204.
______
[The biographical sketch of GEN George W. Casey, Jr., USA,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Resume of Service Career of GEN George W. Casey, Jr.
Source of commissioned service: ROTC.
Military schools attended:
Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Course
Armed Forces Staff College
Senior Service College Fellowship--The Atlantic Council
Educational degrees:
Georgetown University--BS--International Relations
University of Denver--MA--International Relations
Foreign language(s): None recorded.
Promotions:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates of Appointment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2LT....................................... 21 Oct. 70
1LT....................................... 21 Oct. 71
CPT....................................... 21 Oct. 74
MAJ....................................... 6 Sep. 80
LTC....................................... 1 Aug. 85
COL....................................... 1 May 91
BG........................................ 1 Jul. 96
MG........................................ 1 Sep. 99
LTG....................................... 31 Oct. 01
GEN....................................... 1 Dec. 03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major duty assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Assignment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 71......................... Sep. 72........... Mortar Platoon
Leader, later
Liaison Officer,
Headquarters and
Headquarters
Company, 2d
Battalion, 509th
Infantry
(Airborne), 8th
Infantry
Division, United
States Army
Europe, Germany.
Sep. 72......................... Jun. 73........... Platoon Leader, A
Company, 2d
Battalion 509th
Infantry
(Airborne), 8th
Infantry
Division, United
States Army
Europe, Germany.
Jun. 73......................... Oct. 74........... Mortar Platoon
Leader, later
Executive
Officer, A
Company, 1st
Battalion, 509th
Infantry
(Airborne),
United States
Army Southern
European Task
Force, Italy.
Oct. 74......................... Dec. 75........... Student, Ranger
School and
Infantry Officer
Advanced Course,
United States
Army Infantry
School, Fort
Benning, Georgia.
Dec. 75......................... Dec. 78........... Assistant S-4
(Logistics),
later S-4, later
Commander, C
Company, later
Commander, Combat
Support Company,
1st Battalion,
11th Infantry,
4th Infantry
Division
(Mechanized),
Fort Carson,
Colorado.
Dec. 78......................... May 80............ Student,
International
Studies,
University of
Denver, Denver,
Colorado.
Jun. 80......................... Jan. 81........... Student, Armed
Forces Staff
College, Norfolk,
Virginia.
Feb. 81......................... Feb. 82........... Department of
Defense Military
Observer, United
States Military
Observer Group,
United Nations
Truce Supervision
Organization,
Jerusalem.
Feb. 82......................... Feb. 84........... S-3 (Operations),
later Executive
Officer, 1st
Battalion, 10th
Infantry, 4th
Infantry Division
(Mechanized),
Fort Carson,
Colorado.
Feb. 84......................... May 85............ Secretary of the
General Staff,
4th Infantry
Division
(Mechanized),
Fort Carson,
Colorado.
Jul. 85......................... Jul. 87........... Commander, 1st
Battalion, 10th
Infantry, 4th
Infantry Division
(Mechanized),
Fort Carson,
Colorado.
Aug. 87......................... Jul. 88........... Student, United
States Army
Senior Service
College
Fellowship, The
Atlantic Council,
Washington, DC.
Jul. 88......................... Dec. 89........... Congressional
Program
Coordinator,
Office of the
Chief of
Legislative
Liaison,
Washington, DC.
Dec. 89......................... Jun. 91........... Special Assistant
to the Chief of
Staff, Army,
Washington, DC.
Aug. 91......................... May 93............ Chief of Staff,
1st Cavalry
Division, Fort
Hood, Texas.
May 93.......................... Mar. 95........... Commander, 3d
Brigade, 1st
Cavalry Division,
Fort Hood, Texas.
Mar. 95......................... Jul. 96........... Assistant Chief of
Staff, G-3
(Operations),
later Chief of
Staff, V Corps,
United States
Army, Europe and
Seventh Army,
Germany and Task
Force Eagle,
Bosnia-
Herzegovina.
Aug. 96......................... Aug. 97........... Assistant Division
Commander
(Maneuver), later
Assistant
Division
Commander
(Support), 1st
Armored Division,
United States
Army Europe and
Seventh Army,
Germany.
Aug. 97......................... Jun. 99........... Deputy Director
for Politico-
Military Affairs,
J-5, The Joint
Staff,
Washington, DC.
Jul. 99......................... Jul. 01........... Commanding
General, 1st
Armored Division,
United States
Army Europe and
Seventh Army,
Germany.
Jul. 01......................... Oct. 01........... Commander, Joint
Warfighting
Center/Director,
Joint Training, J-
7, United States
Joint Forces
Command, Suffolk,
Virginia.
Oct. 01......................... Oct. 03........... Director,
Strategic Plans
and Policy, J-5,
later Director,
The Joint Staff,
Washington, DC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of joint assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense Military Feb. 81-Feb. 82... Major
Observer, United States
Military Observer Group, United
Nations Truce Supervision
Organization, Jerusalem.
Deputy Director for Politico- Aug. 97-Jun. 99... Brigadier General
Military Affairs J-5, The Joint
Staff, Washington, DC.
Commander, Joint Warfighting Jul. 01-Oct. 01... Major General
Center/Director Joint Training,
J-7, United States Joint Forces
Command, Suffolk, Virginia (No
joint credit).
Director for Strategic Plans and Oct. 01-Jan. 03... Lieutenant General
Policy, J-5, The Joint Staff,
Washington, DC.
Director, Joint Staff, The Joint Jan. 03-Oct. 03... Lieutenant General
Staff, Washington, DC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. decorations and badges:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Distinguished Service Medal
Legion of Merit (with two Oak Leaf Clusters)
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal
Army Commendation Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Army Achievement Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
Army Staff Identification Badge
______
[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 George W.
Casey, Jr., USA, in connection with his nomination follows:]
United States Army,
The Vice Chief of Staff.
Hon. John Warner, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter provides information on my financial
and other interests for your consideration in connection with my
nomination for the position of the Commander, Multi-National Forces-
Iraq. It supplements Standard Form 278, ``Public Financial Disclosure
Report,'' which has already been provided to the committee and which
summarizes my financial interests.
To the best of my knowledge, none of the financial interests listed
on my Standard Form 278 will create any conflict of interest in the
execution of my new governmental responsibilities. Additionally, I have
no other interests or liabilities in any firm or organization that is a
Department of Defense contractor.
During my term of office, neither I, nor my spouse will invest in
any entity that would create a conflict of interest with my government
duties. I do not have any present employment arrangements with any
entity other than the Department of Defense and have no formal or
informal understandings concerning any further employment with any
entity.
I have never been party to any civil litigation with the exception
of the action, which is, annotated in Part D, Legal Matters, paragraph
3. To the best of my knowledge, there have never been any lawsuits
filed against any agency of the Federal Government or corporate entity
with which I have been associated reflecting adversely on the work I
have done at such agency or corporation. I am aware of no incidents
reflecting adversely upon my suitability to serve in the position for
which I have been nominated.
To the best of my knowledge, I am not presently the subject of any
governmental inquiry or investigation.
I trust that the foregoing information will be satisfactory to the
committee.
Sincerely,
George W. Casey, Jr.,
General, United States Army.
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.)
George W. Casey, Jr.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq.
3. Date of nomination:
June 14, 2004.
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 22, 1948; Sendai, Japan.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Sheila Lynch Casey.
7. Names and ages of children:
Sean Patrick Casey, 33.
Ryan Michael Casey, 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.
There are no positions 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.
None.
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.
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.
There are no honors or awards other than those listed in 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?
I do.
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
I do.
______
[The nominee responded to 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.
George W. Casey, Jr.
This 15th day of June, 2004.
[The nomination of GEN George W. Casey, Jr., USA, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Warner on June 24, 2004,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on June 24, 2004.]
NOMINATIONS OF ADM VERNON E. CLARK, USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS; AND LT. GEN. JAMES E.
CARTWRIGHT, USMC, FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE
COMMANDER, UNITED STATES STRATEGIC COMMAND
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 8, 2004
U.S. Senate
Committee on Armed Services
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John
Warner (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Allard,
Sessions, Talent, Chambliss, Dole, Levin, Reed, E. Benjamin
Nelson, Dayton, and Pryor.
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; L. David Cherington, counsel; Brian
R. Green, professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock,
professional staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional
staff member; Paula J. Philbin, professional staff member;
Joseph T. Sixeas, professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky,
general counsel; and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Madelyn R. Creedon, minority
counsel; Kenneth M. Crosswait, professional staff member;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling,
minority counsel; and Peter K. Levine, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Alison E. Brill and Nicholas W.
West.
Committee members' assistants present: Cord Sterling,
assistant to Senator Warner; Christopher J. Paul, assistant to
Senator McCain; Jayson Roehl, assistant to Senator Allard;
Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to Senator Talent; Clyde A. Taylor
IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Elizabeth King, assistant
to Senator Reed; and William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator
Bill Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good morning, everybody. We have changed
the time of our hearing today because the Majority Leader and
the Democratic Leader arranged for the entire Senate to be
briefed this morning with regard to the security situation
facing our Nation here in the next few months. More will be
said about that publicly as the day goes on by Secretary Ridge
and perhaps others. Senator Levin is on his way, so you will
forgive the absence of a number of Senators who are still at
the briefing, which is under way.
We will now come to order, and we are very pleased to have
before the committee this morning our distinguished Chief of
Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Clark, who has been nominated
for an additional 2-year term as CNO. Joining him today is
Lieutenant General James E. Cartwright, Lieutenant General,
Marine Corps. He has been nominated to serve as Commander,
United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM).
We welcome both of our nominees and their families. I
wonder at this time if you might introduce the distinguished
first lady of the Navy, Admiral Clark, who has been a dear and
valued friend and a full partner in your distinguished career
thus far.
Admiral Clark. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
always a privilege to be working beside my commander in chief
and my bride of 40 years, Connie.
Connie, stand up, let everybody see you.
Chairman Warner. We thank you, Mrs. Clark, for your
marvelous service. It is a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week job that
both of you have discharged well. We are so grateful as a
nation that you have indicated that you will extend your tour
of duty, and I am confident that the Senate will confirm you
very promptly.
General?
General Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to introduce my wife Sandy; my daughter Jamie, who is an
analyst with Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); my daughter
Billie, who is a teacher in Fairfax County; her husband Andy,
who is with the West Virginia National Guard, part of the
Special Forces Group there, with tours in Bosnia and then
recently in Afghanistan.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
We have always viewed, Senator Levin and I, working
together these many years that we have been on this committee,
that families are an integral part of our nomination
proceedings, because we recognize the very important role
played by the spouses on behalf of those who perform these
difficult duties.
The military is a family. I have always felt that, and in
the past few years we have shown a greater and greater strength
of the family role in the military. How often have we heard
around this table, Senator Levin, that the decision to extend
the term of service as an enlisted person and as an officer is
made around the dinner table? That probably took place here,
too. So we welcome you and your families here this morning.
Admiral Clark has been before this committee many times,
having served since July 21, 2000, as the 27th Chief of Naval
Operations. You have performed superbly. You have led the Navy
to new heights. You will go on, I am confident, to achieve even
greater goals. We are grateful for your leadership.
I might say as a footnote to history, I think that you are
the second in the contemporary history of the Navy to have gone
the 6 years, Admiral Burke being the first. Am I not correct in
that?
Admiral Clark. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Well, when you finish we will determine
whether or not you have approached the successes of that great
naval officer. We will hold that in abeyance.
Admiral Clark. Yes, sir. I understand it is all about
output. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Dealing with Congress.
You have served in a number of billets, including, I think,
perhaps the one that you and I have talked about so many times,
and that is your early duty as a young officer aboard
destroyers off the coast of Vietnam when I was back in the
Pentagon. Then of course, you commanded the U.S.S. Carl Vinson
battle group, the Second Fleet, United States Atlantic Fleet,
and served as the Director of the Joint Staff. So you are well
experienced to take on this post.
Just over a year into Admiral Clark's tour as Chief of
Naval Operations, our Nation suffered its perhaps worst
disaster, an attack on September 11, 2001. We remember the 198
individuals who died at the Department of Defense (DOD) on that
tragic day, including 29 members of the United States Navy,
both active duty and Reserve, who died in the command center
while performing their duties.
I compliment you, sir, for your compassionate response to
the families of those military and civilian personnel in the
Department of the Navy who died at the Pentagon and for those
who have since, be they in the Navy, the Marine Corps, or other
Services, and for your participation in recognition of their
tremendous sacrifice in the cause of freedom and their
families.
We have witnessed the effects of Admiral Clark's leadership
in the superb performance of the Navy during Operations
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. We see it today in the
ongoing implementation of Sea Power 21, the Navy's strategic
vision for the future. We are fortunate as a Nation again that
you are willing, together with your wife and other members of
your family, to take on this post.
General Cartwright, I admire you for so many reasons. One,
you had the aviation career that I always aspired to, but never
was really qualified or able to achieve. To go back through the
number of hours and the number of airplanes that you have
mastered throughout your career, it is marvelous. You will be
the first marine, if confirmed, to serve as Commander, United
States Strategic Command. Your distinguished aviation record
and outstanding record as an operational commander, including
the First Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Air Group 31, and Marine
Attack Squadron 232. You previously served with the Joint Staff
as the Director for Force Structure, Forces, and Assessment
from 1996 to 1999, and returned in May 2002 to be the Director
of this key directorate, the J-8. In your opening statement, I
think it would be helpful if you expanded on the specific
responsibilities of the J-8 post.
We congratulate you and your family on achieving the
appointment by the President.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me join you in
welcoming and congratulating both of our two nominees. These
are well-deserved nominations. I commend Admiral Clark and
admire him as you do. I do not know General Cartwright as well,
but had an opportunity to talk with him the other day in my
office and was deeply impressed by a number of his
characteristics, as well as by his background.
As you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, Admiral Clark has been
a naval officer for 36 years. He has had a distinguished career
in the Navy, serving as our CNO since July 2000. He will be
only the second CNO to be reappointed to a second term, as you
have mentioned.
General Cartwright has been a marine for 32 years, spent
the last 4 years as commanding general of the First Marine
Aircraft Wing and Director of the J-8 on the Joint Staff, which
gives him some extremely valuable background in terms of his
new duties.
We thank you both for your service. We thank your families.
As our chairman has mentioned, we always try to remember the
families because of the critical role they play. You would not
be here without them. You could not serve without them. Our
Nation could not be served by you without the support of your
families.
This is a very challenging period for our military. Admiral
Clark, you are going to continue to be faced with the
challenging task of recruiting and retaining a quality force,
maintaining current readiness, and conducting the ongoing war
on terrorism, and at the same time transforming the force
structure of the Navy to deal with future threats.
General Cartwright, you, among others, are going to be
playing a key role in establishing requirements for future
space systems and for the nuclear weapons that we have. That is
going to be particularly critical because of the apparent
interest of this administration in exploring new types of
nuclear weapons and new uses for nuclear weapons. That is a
highly controversial position that the administration has
taken. We have had many debates about this issue around this
table and on the floor of the Senate. Your role in establishing
requirements and assuring that whatever systems that you have
function properly and effectively is an absolutely essential
role.
So we welcome and commend both of you. We are grateful,
again, for your extraordinary service to this Nation.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin.
The committee has asked Admiral Clark and General
Cartwright to answer a series of advance policy questions. They
have responded to those questions and, without objection, I
will make these questions and their responses part of the
record.
We also have certain standard questions we ask every
nominee who appears before the committee. Gentlemen, if you
will respond to each question, then we can move on to your
opening statements.
First, have you adhered to the applicable laws and
regulations governing conflict of interest? Admiral Clark?
Admiral Clark. I have.
General Cartwright. I have.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Admiral Clark. No, sir, I have not.
General Cartwright. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with the deadlines established for the requested
communications, including questions for the record, in hearings
before the Congress of the United States?
Admiral Clark. I will do that to the best of my ability,
Mr. Chairman.
General Cartwright. I will do that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to Congressional requests?
Admiral Clark. Yes.
General Cartwright. Yes.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal?
Admiral Clark. Yes, sir.
General Cartwright. Absolutely.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request by any duly constituted committee of the
United States Congress?
Admiral Clark. I do.
General Cartwright. I do.
Chairman Warner. 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,
you will provide them?
Admiral Clark. Yes, sir, I will.
General Cartwright. I will.
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?
Admiral Clark. I will. I understand the question you are
asking sometimes will get into the issue of executive privilege
in matters. I will comply with the directives that I am given,
but I will provide everything that I am authorized to provide,
sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Admiral.
General Cartwright. The same applies to me, sir.
Chairman Warner. Now, first I would like to invite any of
my colleagues who have joined us this morning if they would
care to make an opening observation.
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, just briefly. I am glad to
see that we have Admiral Clark before us again for
consideration for Chief of Naval Operations. I think he has
done a great job, and I have enjoyed working with him on those
issues that we have had the opportunity to work together.
I look forward to working with General Cartwright. I have
looked over your experience, and I think that you have the
background to do a good job. I look forward to working with
you. Many of those areas that you are working in, General
Cartwright, are areas of concern to me as chairman of the
Strategic Forces Subcommittee of this committee. I look forward
to working with you on the development of our global strike
capabilities, the integration of our missile defenses, and the
operation of our military space assets, which are extremely
important to all branches of the Service. I am glad to see that
we are giving a marine an opportunity to serve in that capacity
and look forward to working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. I just want to welcome both Admiral Clark and
General Cartwright and thank them for their great service to
the Nation. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Colleagues?
Senator Talent.
Senator Talent. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. It has been a
pleasure for me as a freshman in this committee and,
notwithstanding that, the chairman of the Seapower
Subcommittee, to work with Admiral Clark. I think his
reappointment is an outstanding move. I am looking forward to
working with General Cartwright, and welcome them both to the
committee.
Chairman Warner. Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to welcome you back, Admiral Clark. Your
distinguished career speaks for itself and the fact that you
have been asked, but also that you are willing to re-up, I
think is a reassuring thing for us as we face a very difficult
and dangerous world. The importance of the Navy to that is
clear.
General Cartwright, I look forward to welcoming you to
Nebraska, where we are very proud to be the home of Strategic
Command. With the addition of Space Command capabilities and
responsibilities, it will be a pleasure to welcome you.
The fact that you are the first marine will cause some
people to ask, why a marine? But they asked, why an admiral in
Nebraska? So I am sure that we will get over that consideration
real quickly. I also am proud to welcome you and your family to
Nebraska, where we are looking forward to working with you both
professionally and socially, as we have with the Commander in
Chiefs (CINCs) at STRATCOM over the years.
It is my pleasure to be here with you today, and I
appreciate the kind response to all the questions that we asked
during our meeting. I think you have gotten an idea of the
capabilities and what the future changes and transformation
time will require, and therefore I think you are an excellent
selection. I look forward to a quick confirmation of your
nomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Dole.
Senator Dole. Admiral Clark, I look forward to working with
you as you continue to pursue your transformation priorities. I
want to mention that I am excited about the growing naval
presence in North Carolina. I had the privilege of talking with
a number of wonderful young sailors, both at Cherry Point and
at Camp Lejeune Naval Hospitals, and I cannot say enough about
these wonderful young people.
Certainly, General Cartwright, I look forward to working
with you in your very important role of supporting our national
security. Our strategic forces must continue to put forth a
safe, reliable deterrent, and STRATCOM must maintain the global
perspective in stabilizing the international security
environment and winning the global war on terror.
So I congratulate you both and thank you for your
outstanding service to our country.
Admiral Clark. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Admiral Clark.
STATEMENT OF ADM VERNON E. CLARK, USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE
GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
Admiral Clark. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
committee, Senator Levin: Good morning. I want to say to each
of you it is a great privilege to be here. I also want to say
that it is a high honor for me to appear alongside General
Cartwright. This is a great officer. He has been well nominated
and well-chosen. He will serve with distinction if you confirm
him to be the Commander of Strategic Command. It is truly an
honor.
I would say too, on the Joint Staff, setting aside the
Chairman and the Vice Chairman, I get to work and rub elbows
with this gentleman more than any of the other directors there.
He is a fantastic officer.
Chairman Warner. That is because of the duties in which he
served in the J-8 post, is that correct?
Admiral Clark. I am sorry, sir?
Chairman Warner. In other words, you said that you have
probably had more association. Is it because of his specific
responsibilities?
Admiral Clark. Because of his responsibilities as the J-8,
I see more of him in the tank and in discussions about the
creation of our future military. I would characterize my
ability to observe him as, ``up close and personal.'' He has
been well nominated.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Admiral.
Admiral Clark. I also want to say thank you for the
opportunity to discuss my potential renomination and the goals
for the future of our Navy. I want to express my appreciation
to each of you for your strong support for our Navy, a support
that has allowed us to respond to the challenges that we have
faced while I have been given the privilege of serving as the
Chief of the Navy.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned I have been here now a number
of times. I have come to know each of you well. I wish that
America could see what I see in watching you labor for the good
of America. It is clear to me that this Nation is blessed to
have a body like this, because I have come to understand that
creating the defense capability the Nation needs is just plain
hard work. Your resolve has given our Nation the best Navy that
we have ever known.
My goals as the CNO for the past 4 years are a matter of
record, and I report that I am pleased with the progress that
we have made in the areas that I have identified as my
priorities: manpower, current readiness, future readiness,
quality of service, and, of course, alignment.
Having said that I am satisfied and pleased with our
progress, I must say that there is still a lot to do. If
confirmed for this additional assignment, I will continue to
emphasize the priorities that I last spoke about to you on
February 10 in my posture hearing, and I will continue to focus
on three specific goals for the future. We will seek to deliver
the right readiness, at the right cost, to support the global
war on terror, and to meet the Nation's warfighting needs. We
will continue to develop our 21st century workforce and deepen
the professional growth of our sailors. That means my
commitment to the men and women who choose to wear the cloth of
the Nation will continue to be my number one priority, because
I am convinced that without them none of the things that we
need to do are possible.
Third, we will seek to accelerate our investments in our
naval strategy, Seapower 21, to recapitalize and to transform
our Navy.
I am committed to pursuing innovative solutions to long-
term challenges, while I also remain committed to our great
sailors. On that point, I want to say that having the
opportunity to lead the young men and women of America who have
chosen to be sailors and to mold and shape the Navy has been an
extreme honor for me and my bride of 40 years.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you recognizing her, and you
called it correctly, the decision to continue to do this was a
team decision, and we have been working on this project as a
team. We are honored to appear before this committee for this
rather unique reappointment.
So I thank you for your continued support and I look
forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. A wonderful statement, Admiral. Thank you
very much.
General.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT, USMC, FOR
APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, UNITED
STATES STRATEGIC COMMAND
General Cartwright. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and other
distinguished members that are here today: I really do feel
greatly honored at this opportunity. I would be remiss, as
Admiral Clark did, to not comment on the bipartisan support of
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are in uniform
and serving today. This committee has really been forward-
leaning in taking care of our people and that is critical both
today and into our future.
It is a personal and professional honor to appear before
you today as the nominee for the position of Commander, United
States Strategic Command. As was mentioned earlier, this is a
time of unprecedented challenge and a time of change for our
forces and the Nation. I am humbled by the prospect of
continued service in this assignment, alongside the talented
people of the United States Strategic Command and all the
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines of the Nation.
If confirmed, I will add my energies to sustaining and
enhancing the unique and essential contributions of Strategic
Command.
I thank you and the members for the opportunity today. I
will digress a little bit here and talk, as you asked, a little
bit about current duties that you have confirmed me for as the
J-8 in the Joint Staff. This is a unique opportunity to be in
that particular billet because you get the opportunity to look
across a wide portfolio. Inside of the J-8 resides for you the
opportunity to do assessments on force structure, acquisition
programs, requirements, all the analytics that go to underpin
our warfighting plans and the future of our force.
In that billet I had the opportunity to provide advice both
to the Chairman and to the Joint Chiefs; the opportunity to lay
down the facts and say, here is how analytically these things
lay out for us. Here are the opportunities. Here, to some
extent, are the second and third order effects of decisions
that you might make.
It is with that background that I come to this job, if
confirmed, to provide that kind of advice both to the Chairman
and to the Secretary of Defense and President and also to the
members of this committee, if asked.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions along
with Admiral Clark.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Admiral, we have watched the military departments go
through their own analyses of transformation and particularly
the Army has had an extraordinary amount of transformation. One
of their goals has been to take, say, the current force level
of the Army and transform it in a way that they are getting
more firepower out of what they have, not only in personnel but
equipment and the like. The Army feels the need for, and I
think all of us wish to be supportive that they need a larger
force level.
Tell us about the degree of transformation that you have
supervised in the Navy, and are you likewise trying to get a
greater efficiency out of what you have in personnel and
equipment, and what you project for the next 2 years?
Admiral Clark. Well, that question is really at the heart
of what the future is about, is it not, Mr. Chairman? In the
written response to questions I think I have about five or six
pages in there about what we have done so far executing our
transformation plan.
Let me start with the people side of this. What we see the
Army doing is basically a restructuring to obtain more
operational availability out of the force that they have
already bought and paid for. Then they are looking at
additional resources, which Congress is dealing with. I would
report to you that one of the most important studies,
potentially the most important study, that has been conducted
since I have been the Chief is a study called the Operational
Availability Study, that is led up by this guy on my left.
I happen to believe that at the heart of everything that we
need to do to transform is we have to figure out how to get
more operational availability out of the investment that the
taxpayers of America have already made in the military.
For me it goes like this. On the people side, of course, I
am trying to build a more effective and efficient Navy. I say
``effective'' because I do not believe you start by trying to
become efficient. I think if you become more effective and
create better warfighting capability, you will become efficient
naturally.
I am the one Service Chief that has a program recommended
before Congress that is reducing the number of people. I happen
to believe that we have a Cold War personnel structure, and I
am seeking to realign and transform my personnel system to the
maximum extent that it is possible to do within the structure
that we have today.
We have done some things that will lead us to future
transformations and addresses the operational availability
issue. For 2 years, I have been talking to you about an
experiment that we are conducting called Sea Swap. The ships
are now home. When I appeared before you in February they were
still in the Gulf, in the area of responsibility (AOR)
conducting combat operations.
One of the ships, a brand new Guided Missile Destroyer
(DDG), went there for 18 months, and then one of the oldest
ships I have in the Navy, a destroyer, went there for 2 years.
I rotated the crews. In the process of doing so, I eliminated
approximately 80 days of transit time, multiplied by 4 for the
destroyer and 80 days of transit multiplied by 3 for the DDG. I
have been also talking about my belief that we need about 375
ships in the Navy. I think I can report to you that I do not
know what that number is for sure now, because I am convinced
that this kind of operational availability analysis is going to
allow me to bring more combat capabilities to the Nation at
lower cost and to provide that kind of combat capability on
point where it gives the President of the United States the
options he or she will need in the future to deal with the
global challenges that face them. That is just one point.
With regard to programs, I could talk to you at length in
the written testimony and the response to questions about
things like the multi-missioned surface combatant (DD(X)).
DD(X), because it is all-electric, will create a fundamental
change in the relationship between the United States Marine
Corps and the United States Navy in warfighting. What does that
mean? Well, to summarize it, I will say it like this: In
Operation Desert Storm we saw precision come to the battle
space. In the air arm of the military, the world watched as
crosshairs went on windows in specific targets, and precision
changed everything. We have not brought that kind of precision
to land warfare yet, but we are now.
DD(X) will bring a gun with a precision capability to
initially fire 100 miles and hit this table. In times after
that as we introduce electromagnetic----
Chairman Warner. Maybe some other table you might target.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Clark. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Now you know that you are making us nervous
here. The chairman just redesigned this committee table!
Admiral Clark. Let me not be taken literally. [Laughter.]
In the days that follow as we continue our investment in
more precision, an electromagnetic rail gun will increase our
current capability by over 400 times and bring precision to the
marines on the battlefield.
Now, General Hagee can come up here and talk to you about
how that will transform the way they fight. But it will be
significant. These are examples. Manpower savings: DD(X) will
have 125 or so people. Pete Schoomaker has reported to you
10,000 people equals $1.2 billion worth of resources. If we can
learn how to bring more combat capability with fewer people, we
can invest that money in the investment streams that create
tomorrow's military capability.
Now, I must say this because I do not want to be
misunderstood. Part of my belief--and if you reconfirm me, I
would hope that you have picked this up, up to this point in
the time in our experience together, but I want to reemphasize
this. I have staked my whole first tour on the point that we
are going to build people. This is not about cutting people; it
is about buying the right level of readiness.
My belief is it has to be good for sailors, but it also has
to be good for the taxpayer, too. Here is what I believe: In
order to compete in the 21st century, we have to compete in the
marketplace for the human resources that will make our Navy
what it is going to become, and that is the young men and women
that are more and more gifted and will be more and more in
demand in the marketplace.
I am convinced that we are going to have to have
incentivized remuneration systems that are different from what
we have today. I am also convinced that when I look at the
track history, manpower accounts have gone up 50 percent since
I have become the CNO. Here is my commitment: I want to commit
that we will spend whatever it takes to grow and develop the
young men and women who have made the choice to serve and wear
the cloth of the Nation. We will spend whatever it takes to
grow and develop them. But I do not want to spend one thin dime
on a person that we really do not need.
So that is a brief top line on where we are going, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
General Cartwright, throughout almost the entire history of
America's posture on strategic systems, we have relied on what
is known as the triad: a sea-based leg, an air leg, and a
missile leg. Give us your views as to whether that is to remain
a fundamental concept in our strategic planning for the future
and your assessment to date of those systems, their
capabilities, and the need for replacement and how that should
be done.
General Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a
broad order, but the triad has served the Nation well. We have
gone through a review, the Nuclear Posture Review, which looked
at that triad. It validated the contribution of the bombers,
the contribution of the missiles, and the contributions of the
submarines. It also looked at the opportunity to create
defensive capabilities, the opportunities to look at non-
nuclear capabilities, both kinetic and non-kinetic. A third
pillar, which is the infrastructure, if you take the offensive
piece, the defensive piece, talks to the buildings and the
mortar, and to the values that Admiral Clark just spoke to: the
people, the intellectual capital, and the people that serve in
the Services that provide these capabilities. Our ability to
get the best and the brightest--the right ones--the ones that
want to serve and who want to contribute, and nurture them and
provide the opportunity for them to contribute. I think that
that is one of the major challenges that I will have if
confirmed, to bring in the right people, attract them, allow
them to have the opportunity to contribute in these areas of
offense, defense, and the infrastructure that support this
great deterrent capability, and broaden that capability from
the standpoint of the non-kinetic and the conventional means by
which we can take a global perspective on deterrence. That is
where we are trying to head.
So if confirmed, those are the areas that I will focus on
with respect to the triad, but to broaden it out, as we have
done in this review, to take in both the defensive pieces and
the infrastructure pieces.
Chairman Warner. Let us go with some specificity on the
three systems. The naval leg is always viewed as the most
survivable leg.
General Cartwright. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. You have upgraded a number of missile
ships. The lifespan of the existing fleet as far as I know,
Admiral, is way into the future. So I think we can put that leg
aside.
But let us look at the airplanes, primarily the aging
aircraft, the old, wonderful, magnificent B-52s. Again, you and
I calculated the other day when we were visiting, some of them
are into their half century of life, am I correct?
General Cartwright. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. How would you visualize continuing that
system? Is there anything in your judgment that should be done
now by the DOD, working with Congress, to lay a foundation for
looking at a follow-on aircraft?
General Cartwright. Well, first with the B-52, it has
served us well. It continues to serve us well, and it has a lot
of life left in it. The Air Force, in particular with the B-52,
is looking at programs to extend the service life. Number one,
to extend the viability of the platform with integrated
avionics and weapons systems that are more relevant today and
keep pace with the developments that are out there.
In addition, you have the B-2 side of the house, which
brings to the table the equation of great survivability. The
question for the future that we look at is: What are the
attributes that we think we are going to want for future
systems? When do we believe that we are going to need to bring
them to bear? When can we no longer modify the existing
platforms to a level that keeps them relevant? When do we need
to transition? What do we want to transition to?
There are several studies out there right now, both ongoing
and completed, that are starting to look at the kinds of
attributes that we would like to have. Obviously, global reach,
the ability to sustain or be persistent in the area and create
effect out there are going to be critical assets. The
survivability of a platform and its ability to get to the
target is going to be absolutely essential, and the ability to
go there in areas that are denied globally is going to be a
critical aspect that we need to take a look at and figure out
how we are going to accomplish.
Some of those are going to bring in the technologies that
we have, that we see on the horizon, of very high speeds, the
ability to sustain and persist on station for long periods of
time that are measured, not in minutes, but in days. Those are
the types of capabilities that we will have to take a look at
in the future.
The critical questions will become: When do we need to make
that decision? When do we need those new capabilities that can
no longer be brought to bear by just modifying existing
platforms? Then to sit down and have that debate about exactly
when. Is this the time and what risks are we assuming by
delaying the decision? I think for each of those legs those are
going to be critical decisions that will come here in the near
future.
Chairman Warner. Let us take the land-based leg then, the
missiles. Those systems have a lot of years on them.
General Cartwright. Yes, sir. The land-based systems, the
missile systems, are going through life extension programs. We
are retiring the Peacekeeper fleet, but the motors, the
launchers, the boosters, those things are still relevant and
could be used in other ways. We should keep those and explore
the opportunities that we have with those.
My belief is that those systems still have life, whether we
are talking about the Minuteman or the Peacekeeper. They still
have a lot of viability. They need to be upgraded as
opportunities become available. This committee has been very
good in supporting those operations and those upgrades and the
life extensions of those programs and keeping them relevant,
and they still are a very relevant force.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, General.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. First, Admiral, let me ask you a budget
question. Many of us at the time that the budget was submitted
by the administration argued that the fiscal year 2005 budget
request did not include any funding for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The administration has now changed their course.
They agree that a $25 billion contingency fund is needed to
bridge the gap between the start of fiscal year 2005 and the
likely time when there will be a full supplemental request.
Now, in the meantime, the DOD has asked Congress to shift
about $3 billion within the Department of Defense's resources
to meet more urgent fiscal year 2004 requirements. At the last
hearing, you indicated that you did not have problems about
cash flowing fiscal year funding to meet early requirements in
fiscal year 2005.
My question, however, is are you convinced now that you can
maintain your current level of readiness and operate through
the end of fiscal year 2004 with the resources that would be
available under the reprogramming request?
Admiral Clark. When we appeared before you in February, I
was also asked what would my shortfalls be, and I believe I
reported $1.3 billion or $1.6 billion. We did not know that
there were going to be additional deployments for the marines.
Before this committee and other committees, as the facts
unfolded over the course of the spring and early summer, we
testified to the fact that we would expect to be covered with
unforeseen expenses through the supplemental.
When it came time to do that, there were insufficient funds
in the supplemental for us to be covered. So I am currently
$1.3 billion short in fiscal year 2004. We have spoken openly
about those numbers. I have reprogrammed $300 million of base
support, project modernizations, and so forth, in the shore
base structure, and I have taken some flying hour money and
things to get by.
No doubt about it, if this is not recovered in a bridge to
fiscal year 2005 those issues will either have to be pushed
into fiscal year 2005, and I have not programmed for them in
fiscal year 2005, or our readiness will be impacted. So I can
address any of those particular issues there, but I can tell
you it is a couple hundred million dollars in flying hours and
a couple hundred million dollars in steaming days and the $300
million in shore structure, and the rest are smaller items.
Those three items will affect our readiness. I will be able to
sustain my six plus two posture, but let us say that my force
was C-2. I would be at a lower level inside the C-2 structure,
but I will be able to respond to global requirements. My
readiness level will be lower.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Admiral, in response to a prehearing question regarding
what you might recommend as a potential change to the
Goldwater-Nichols Act, you indicated disagreement with the
Act's establishment of the Service Secretary as the sole
acquisition authority within the departments. The reason that
the Goldwater-Nichols Act was crafted as it was, to remove the
Service Chiefs from the acquisition chain of command, was that
Congress felt there should be an individual that makes
acquisition decisions who is different from the individual who
sets the requirements. Before Goldwater-Nichols there had been
no healthy tension between the set of requirements and what
might be considered affordable. Before Goldwater-Nichols,
requirements took precedence, to the exclusion of more
affordable systems that might be satisfactory, but not perhaps
quite as good.
If the legislation were changed to again include the
service chiefs in the process, how would that ensure that that
imperative of filling requirements would not overwhelm the
decision to acquire something which is good enough and
affordable?
Admiral Clark. It is a great question. I wrote those words
myself. There has been a lot of discussion in Washington over
the course of the last year. In fact, we discussed this at a
previous hearing. I want to set the stage for this. I happen to
believe that we have a phenomenal team in the Navy department
and the acquisition executive and I work extremely closely.
Here is what I see as the extreme point in the law. Since I
have been the CNO, I have been looking back over what I think
happened in times prior and asking whether we were well served
by the extreme point in the law. The extreme point in the law
says nothing will occur and the services will take no action
which will abridge this--and I am paraphrasing here, which will
abridge this separation, so that the services are involved in
acquisition decisions, or words to that effect.
My view is that is too extreme. My view is that the
services should be represented when you are at an acquisition
point and you are looking at fiscal realities and you are
trading off a potential--you might be way past the knee of the
curve in buying a capability that was initially laid out in the
key performance parameters, and in the final acquisition
decision. If it was going to cost you the sun, moon and the
stars to go to that next level, you ought to be represented in
that discussion.
That is the point that I really am referring to, Senator.
Senator Levin. Just one question for you, General
Cartwright. As the person in charge of operational concepts for
strategic systems, how important is it for you to have good
testing of a system to show what the military utility is? Do
you believe that independent, realistic operational tests on
major weapons systems prior to going into full production
provide for that good testing?
General Cartwright. Senator, the issue of operational
testing is a very important issue, and it is laid out in the
statute. There are various parts of those rules which I need to
spend more time on to understand. Basically in the test regime,
we have the opportunity to look at the performance of any given
system that we would like to field in the developmental
testing. That should be a venue by which we get some of our
information.
I am speaking here as if we had the opportunity, if I were
confirmed in this position and looking at a particular system,
a strategic system that was being fielded. Next, you have the
opportunity for operational testing. In strategic systems we
oftentimes cannot go to the final stage in our testing because
of the types of systems. It is not like jumping in an airplane
and carrying a bomb out to the target and actually dropping it
and getting the chance to see how it falls and what happens at
the point of impact and afterwards. But there are good regimes
for operational testing and they should be operationally
realistic, and I do support that.
If confirmed, there is also some opportunity to conduct
what we are calling military utility assessments, which is the
opportunity for the combatant commander to look at the
developmental testing and all that that brings to the table,
the operational testing and all that that brings to the table.
Then the other tools that we have: war games to understand the
command and control aspects of any given system and how it
would fit; its applicability, its attributes, the analysis that
we can do, when and where you might use that capability. Those
also have to be brought to bear.
So, at the conclusion, each one of those tests gives you an
insight into what it is you might want to be able to do and the
ability of a given system to provide that capability. It would
be my job to come to you at the end of that military utility
assessment and say: ``I have looked at the developmental
testing. I have looked at the operational testing. I have done
as much as I can do to understand all the attributes of this
system from a military utility perspective, and here is my
recommendation.''
Given that new systems often are spiraled and do not just
have one iteration, and then are fielded, I need to come to you
and give you my best judgment on: Is this spiral what we need
and is it worth bringing to the table at this point in time, or
what are the risks if we do not?
Senator Levin. The operational testing you refer to as
being part of that overall assessment which is provided for by
the law, is it important that it be independent operational
testing?
General Cartwright. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Ben Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Clark, I am encouraged by your fiscal response to
preparedness, because I think it clearly is what we need to do,
having the right military to do what we need to do in this
particular environment of threat, as opposed to the Cold War
threat environment in preparedness.
I notice you said that if you reduce the force by 10,000
you save $1.2 billion. So is it your thought that you are
looking at about $120,000 for training, equipping, and
maintaining individual soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines?
Would that apply pretty much across the board, about $120,000?
Admiral Clark. I am not sure I understand.
Senator Ben Nelson. It costs so much to train, equip, and
maintain personnel.
Admiral Clark. Yes.
Senator Ben Nelson. Individually, what do you think that it
costs you to bring a new sailor in to serve?
Admiral Clark. Well, it is different for every individual.
This is why we have to have a 21st century structure.
Senator Ben Nelson. Right.
Admiral Clark. Because you cannot bring in a person, a
highly skilled person, and get them and compete in the
marketplace at the same cost as you do somebody with a lower
skill set. So the future is about matching skill sets and
optimizing the way you get your hands on them and acquire them
for the institution.
I have not gone into this before, but when I came into
office I had a personal project for year 1. For me it was
``alignment.'' Year 2 was the revolution in training, year 3,
and so forth. If I am reconfirmed, my year 5 project is going
to be the pursuit of a 21st century human resource strategy
that addresses these issues. I believe this is the most
important thing for my Navy to focus on. I actually believe it
is a requirement for the entire military structure.
What the human capital, human resource strategy does, it
addresses first how do you acquire these individuals, and then
what is the development cycle for them, and then how do you
retain them, and should you sign onto a philosophy that says
they are going to join you for life? Is that realistic in the
21st century? It turns out that in the marketplace you find
that it is less and less the case.
So do you have ``on ramps and off ramps'' for people, and
how do you do this? I can bring in a sailor for $12,000 to
$15,000, but that does not even start the training process. To
bring in a pilot, it costs me a million plus to train a pilot.
So this is why we have to put the spotlight on this, in
order to redirect those resources. The Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) study pointed out just late last year in a study
on Navy shipbuilding. They said since 1990 we have averaged a
little over $8 billion a year in shipbuilding and acknowledged
that we cannot have the Navy of the future if we continue to do
that.
I have been working to redirect resources so that we have
them to invest in our future while we posture ourselves for the
present and have the right kind of readiness for today.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you very much.
As the ranking member with my chairman, Senator Chambliss,
on the Personnel Subcommittee, I would be very interested if
you could give us more insight at a later date on what the
compensation packages should look like to be modern. I would
suggest that to you, General Cartwright, as well, because I
think we are struggling, making a pie a piece at a time. We are
not getting a comprehensive look at what compensation packages
will make us competitive in the marketplace today.
So I thank you, Admiral.
General, with respect to the risks that we have with the
National Missile Defense systems designed to protect us from
nuclear armed missile attack or any other attack that might
come our way with the weapons of mass destruction, chemical or
biological, would you agree that the launch of a North Korean
long-range missile against the U.S. would be an unforeseen
event necessarily? If we knew that it was coming we could take
all the necessary actions to prevent it, but the offense always
has the element of surprise, whether it is in athletics or
whether it is in warfighting. Is it safe to say that the
operational testing that you are talking about and the
developmental testing will put us into a position where we have
major confidence that our ability to react to any kind of a
launch would be the best that we could possibly have? Can we do
more to aid you in meeting that challenge?
General Cartwright. That is a great question. It is one
that I am going to have to spend more time on, clearly. But if
you know that a threat is coming, you obviously have an
opportunity to bring a lot of the Nation's capabilities to bear
on that threat. It may be that you take a very different tack
if you do not know it is coming, or the opportunity to have a
threat basically threaten the United States from which you do
not have the opportunity to prepare, you would like to build a
defensive system that has all the attributes you described.
Senator Ben Nelson. To react to surprise as well.
General Cartwright. Yes, sir, and the unknown about whether
it is North Korea or somewhere else. Those are the types of
attributes that we are going to have to look at as we grow this
system. Those are the decisions that I have to bring to you on
here is what we are capable of doing under the current system;
is this where we want to be; do we want to go beyond that, and
how. I will spend a great deal of time working to understand
those opportunities.
Senator Ben Nelson. I appreciate your answer. I am
certainly encouraged by your willingness to move forward with
operational testing. It has gotten to be a little bit of a
testy issue sometimes on a rational basis here, and I am
encouraged by your willingness to really look at it. We all
want to make sure that at the end of the day it works or that
we have the greatest assurance that it works, because it is
expensive, a lot is contingent on it, and our security is
dependent on it.
So I thank you very much. I look forward to working with
you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me echo what Senator Nelson says, Admiral Clark, with
respect to the compensation packages. We have been kind of
piecemealing this, in particular for the Guard and Reserve over
the last couple of years, and all of us agree that we need to
relook at this. I think it would behoove all of us, both active
duty as well as the Reserve, to get a plan together so that we
can help you in your recruiting and retention if folks know
what to expect down the road. I think it would be smart to do
that.
Senator Warner, Senator Nelson, and I will look forward to
working with you as well as the other chiefs on that issue.
Talking about the Reserves, Admiral Clark, I know that you
are continuing to move hardware within your Reserve units. Are
you seeing any results of this, such as downsizing of the
Reserves, with folks not reenlisting because all of a sudden
they are having to go further away from home to carry out their
weekend missions and their other training missions?
Can you tell me what your thought process is on this, and
is it going to impact your recruiting and retention?
Admiral Clark. Well, it is a key issue, because before you
came in we were talking about operational availability of
forces and units. Operational availability of people is also a
key issue that really applies to the Reserves. The fundamental
thing of what we are doing right now is that we have a zero-
based review of the whole Reserve structure going on between
the Chief of the Naval Reserve, Vice Admiral John Cotton, and
the Commander of Fleet Forces Command, Admiral Bill Fallon. We
are in the process of baselining everything that we have got
with these objectives in mind.
We want the Reserve Force of the future to be integrated
with the Active Force fully. For much of our past that was not
true, and our conviction is that that is what the Nation needs
and that is what the Navy needs.
I will tell you that we are so impressed with what the
Reserve structure is doing in the global war on terrorism. In
the Navy, our numbers that have been called up are certainly
not as significant as the Army, but my whole Reserve structure
is not nearly as big as theirs. We are looking at the creation
of something that we are going to call Fleet Response Units
(FRUs), that go hand-in-glove with this Fleet Response Plan
that we have created, that is going to give us more operational
availability. We are looking at the Air Force model, the way
they have used the blended approach, which I think makes a lot
of sense. So it is a two-way street, that there are actives in
there and there are Reserves in there.
None of these decisions are final. We are exploring our way
through how to implement a Navy that is more responsive, that
makes the best use of the Reserve structure, that meets the
needs that the Navy really has in the 21st century.
Now, I did not really answer your question. We are alerted
to the potential problem that you describe. You cannot have a
unit that is in your State and have all of the hardware parked
12 States over. That is going to really complicate the problem,
and that has to be a primary consideration as we reach for
potential solutions.
Senator Chambliss. We are going through some of that at
Naval Air Station (NAS) Atlanta right now. You cannot have a
more professional group than those reservists that are there
now. They are superb individuals, and they are doing a terrific
job. I know just from talking to them, that there is the
potential there for that problem. So I hope you will seriously
consider that.
Admiral Clark. Absolutely.
Senator Chambliss. General Cartwright, you discuss in your
responses to the advance policy questions the importance of
developing more robust pit production capability. While there
is limited production facility at Los Alamos Labs, we do not
have the flexible production capability that other countries
possessing nuclear weapons do have. We are considering right
now the establishment of another pit facility and where that
location is going to be. If you will elaborate on the steps you
will take if confirmed to ensure the United States does develop
and maintain this capability, which is essential to maintaining
an effective and safe nuclear deterrent.
General Cartwright. Yes, sir. It is a wonderful question,
and it is at the heart of this new triad and the infrastructure
piece of this new triad, the ability to respond. It is broader
than just building one component. It is looking at the entire
capability and saying: What do we want to have to be able to
respond if our current systems are either put at risk because
the threat matures, or put at risk because there is a technical
problem that we discover with them, or what we are trying to be
able to do with the current capability needs to change to
respond to that threat.
To have the infrastructure, which is, again, not just the
mortar and bricks, but it is the intellectual capital to be
able to do these kinds of very sophisticated tasks associated
in this case with pit production, having that intellectual
underpinning, and having the capacity to respond in a balance.
Let me go to kind of the analytic model of a response surface,
that if one part of this complex system is becoming the
through-put chokepoint, then the ability of the other parts to
respond and make up the difference is one way of looking at it.
In other words, can I go and invest in analytic tools that make
me understand and give me the right pit through-put capability
that I need, or do I need to have a facility that actually
increases the through-put?
We need to look at all of the pieces of the puzzle to make
sure that we understand what portion of it will make the most
significant difference and is the most responsive to why we are
making a change. If I get the opportunity to assume this job,
that is what I will be looking at, the holistic system, and
what makes a difference, where do we need to put our investment
in order to be best postured to respond to the emerging threat.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you. Thanks to both of you for
your service to our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, again thank you for your service to our Nation
and to the Navy and the Marine Corps.
Admiral Clark, there are current reviews of the size of the
submarine fleet. Admiral Sestak, who is a very competent and
capable officer, did a serious study, but that is classified. I
do not want to get into that. But the last report in 1999 by
the Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested that the appropriate level
was 55 submarines. But in the middle of the next decade, which
is presumably several years out, it would be anywhere from 68
to 72.
Do you have a number in mind right now in your view which
is the right number of submarines to be deployed in the fleet?
Admiral Clark. The Joint Staff has a study going on
regarding undersea warfare, and it will address this issue. We
are in the process--as you indicated, Admiral Sestak has done
some work for me, and his work talks across a span of
responses.
Here is, I guess, how I would respond to this. When the
chairman asked the question about transformation, there are so
many things to talk about. I wrote pages and pages in my answer
to my written questions. But when I look at the submarine
force, I look at this: the incredible capability they bring to
the table, and I will tell you that the 1999 study was done
primarily driven by peacetime requirements and what we call
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
requirements. My focus is on warfighting requirements first and
then, what are the options after the warfighting requirements.
I can tell you that coming at that from a different
position is likely to give me a different perception of what I
think we will need. But here is where we are with regard to
requirements. There are a lot of studies out there. We have a
study that says we need 168 surface combatants and I have got
96. I have got another study that says I need 135. We have got
studies that say we need 15 carriers and we have got 12. We
have got studies that say that we need 3.0 Marine Expeditionary
Brigade (MEB) lift for the Marines and we have between 2.5 and
2.8.
By the way, the studies are important, but what are even
more important are the assumptions that cause the studies to
turn out the way they have. Here is what I have asked of the
submarine force. I said: Look, I believe that as we look to the
future--and this is a transformational point--speed is going to
be more important than ever before, which is why we moved three
submarines to Guam, because the Pacific is important and we
want to be ready to respond faster.
This is why in our transformational concepts next year we
will be talking about delivering twice as much combat power in
half the time with the Marine Force. Speed is important to 21st
century warfare.
I believe we have to exploit the stealth capability that
submarines bring to get more return in the pre-hostilities
phase, because I believe this is the greatest advantage that
they bring to the warfight. We have to make the investment so
that it is possible for us to exploit that capability.
I believe, Senator, over the course of the next number of
months we will come down to again a spread of potential numbers
where we might go. I can tell you that I do not know what the
Joint Staff is going to say on this. So I am not in on their
study. With the submarine force, we are going to apply exactly
the same kind of analytical rigor to the requirements that we
apply to every other platform set, and when that number comes
out, whatever comes out, that is what we are going to bring up
through the administration as the requirement for what we need
to be able to win in the 21st century.
Senator Reed. Admiral, I think in your written comments and
also in your response you indicate that if you take a different
scenario you can have a different answer.
Admiral Clark. Absolutely correct.
Senator Reed. The warfighting scenario, as you point out,
depends on assumptions about duration of the fight, even the
scenario itself, is it a quick win or is it a prolonged
operation.
Then the other aspect you mention is this intelligence ISR
mission might be a peacetime mission, but I do not expect it is
going to go away, and I think it is something that has to be
factored, too.
I presume from your answer all of those missions and those
assumptions will be included.
Admiral Clark. Well, let me make sure that I do not get
misrepresented. The numbers were driven by a peacetime rotation
requirement, but certainly you are right--that in wartime one
of the most valuable things that a submarine brings to the task
is they can go conduct covert kinds of ISR collection missions.
Now, having said that, let us cut to the chase here. Cost
is important. In every platform that we have, we are examining
how can we afford what we need for the future. I have been
talking about the challenges in changing the manpower profiles
and all of that to the tunes of billions of dollars to try to
create the 21st century Navy. We have got the record here. The
CBO study lays it out clearly. We, as a Nation, have not been
able to invest the resources to sustain the shipbuilding
structure.
So I am constantly looking to compete every potential
capability against another capability to see, is there a better
and more effective way that I can accomplish the mission. That
is the way I take my task. That is what I am getting paid to
do.
We just had, just this last week, we had another indication
that we are going to have an increase in the Virginia class. We
have to get a hold of costs. By the way, there was an article
in the New London dated this morning, and I want to praise the
leadership of the submarine community. The Program Executive
Officer (PEO), Admiral John Butler, was talking with the
suppliers and saying: Look, we need your help to figure out how
to produce this product in a competitive way, and we do. We
need that. That is what we need to be able to do, because we
cannot make it without the tremendous capability that the
submarine force brings to the fight. We cannot dominate the
undersea battle space without them.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
My time has expired, so, General Cartwright, I will have
some written questions. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. We will, for the
information of all members of the committee, leave the record
open the usual period of time within which to submit questions.
However, it is the intention of the chair, in consultation with
Mr. Levin, to try and move these nominations tonight or
tomorrow morning. I think it is important, particularly for
General Cartwright. There is a change of command taking place
with General Ellis. When is that scheduled?
General Cartwright. If confirmed, sir, it is tomorrow
morning. [Laughter.]
Senator Reed. Just in time.
Chairman Warner. You may have to go find one of those old
single-seat aircraft and get it and fly your mission out there.
We have Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I do not have any
questions.
Chairman Warner. Fine, thank you.
We have our good friend Mr. Dayton.
Senator Dayton. I am amazed that the military has that much
confidence in the efficiency of the Senate. [Laughter.]
Certainly well placed with the chairman and the ranking
member. They will pull us all through no doubt, and I look
forward to supporting both of your nominations, and thank you
for your service to our country.
Admiral, I am impressed with your success in improving
retention, and both my colleagues have touched on a couple of
those areas. You cited in your answers some of the key
ingredients. I guess I want to be clear. What is most important
in retention and what can we provide from Congress more of or
in addition to or whatever, because I think we all agree that
we want to see that as successful as possible.
Admiral Clark. An incredibly important question. Two years
ago you gave me the authority to establish a pilot program. We
called it Assignment Incentive Pay, and now three of the four
Services are using it. The Army just implemented it a few weeks
ago, and it absolutely changed the whole dynamics about the way
they are manning Korea, with an incentivized bonus for people
that chose to stay.
It changes the whole tone of the institution. So what I
would ask you is, please, because I have been successful in
retention do not take away my ability to incentivize. My
ability to incentivize comes out of the selected reenlistment
bonus line. Because I have been successful, there is a tendency
to go: Oh, well, they are not going to need as much of that.
Please do not do that.
What we have tried to do is put the power of choice in
place. This is a transformation issue, Mr. Chairman. The future
is about a web site where young people are going to get on
there and bid for jobs. Their resume is going to be there, and
the executive officer of the ship or the aircraft squadron is
going to look at it. The Bureau of Naval Personnel and what
they do is changing in front of our eyes.
We have something called the slam rate. We said: Needs of
the Navy, you are going. Our data is not great, but the numbers
are about 33 percent. Last year my slam rate was 1.5 percent.
We are effectively changing the environment.
So what I ask you to do is to support this kind of
incentivized process that we can do in the construct of the
current pay and allowances tables. Ultimately, we have to go
after those. But that kind of capability allows me to manage my
work force, understanding that all lieutenant O-3s over 6 years
are not the same and that all E-5s over 8 years are not the
same.
In order to compete, we have got to be able to
differentiate between skill sets, and I need the help to do
that.
Senator Dayton. What help specifically, sir? Is the fund
sufficient now? Do you have sufficient flexibility?
Admiral Clark. Your willingness to allow us to pilot has
been extraordinarily important. Now, I will tell you that in
order for me to achieve the kind of efficiencies that I know
that I can achieve in manpower accounts, I am going to have to
have some tools that I do not have that would incentivize
people to step aside.
Senator Dayton. I just ask that you keep us informed and
tell us.
Admiral Clark. I would be happy to give you details of that
in a written response if you would like.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Navy would like more flexibility and funding to shape our force
as part of a broader 21st century Human Capital Strategy. While we have
a number of statutory authorities to help us recruit and retain high
quality personnel, we have limited means by which to stimulate
voluntary separation among personnel in overmanned skill areas.
Retraining and converting personnel from overmanned skill areas to
undermanned skills is our primary approach for retaining highly-trained
personnel while simultaneously improving the balance of the force. In
many cases, however, retraining and conversion is neither feasible nor
cost-effective. Therefore, statutory authorities that incentivize
voluntary separation would help shape our force while maintaining a
positive tone that will not detract from recruiting and retaining
highly-educated and top performing professionals.
We are currently evaluating proposals for force shaping authorities
that would work with existing authorities and programs to give us
maximum flexibility to adapt to emerging requirements. Our overarching
plan would be to use new and expanded authorities such as a lump sum
buyout, early separation lifetime annuity, a deferred annuity, expanded
selective early retirement, reduction in high-year tenure gates for
field grade officers, and non-monetary transition benefits. Funding for
these proposals will be requested in forthcoming budget inputs.
Senator Dayton. Thank you very much.
General, regarding the ballistic missile capability, your
predecessors and the others involved in that project, I think,
have been in a difficult position for the last couple years
because the Commander in Chief--and I do not mean this
personally; this would be the case with any Commander in
Chief--having said that there shall be deployment by November
2004, everybody else is required to fall in line and to
replicate that line.
On the other hand, we on this committee and Congress, we
are tasked with making our own independent assessments of that
system, and it is a very expensive one. I find it extremely
difficult to get any clear answers from within the system team.
We can, of course, get the evaluations and all the conflicting
studies from outside.
You referenced the military utility assessment. When will
that be undertaken or completed?
General Cartwright. The military utility assessment is
something that--if confirmed, I would undertake--but is already
ongoing. The tools that the Strategic Command has to conduct
that are both internal to the command and with its components.
In addition, they have the engineering level expertise that we
use out of an organization called the Joint Theater and Air
Missile Defense Organization (JTAMDO) which provides us the
engineering level of insight to understand the pros, cons, and
the risks associated with any decision we would make.
So, as is, the developmental and operational testing is
iterative. At any given point, I would like to be able to reach
in and say: Where am I today? If I am approaching a benchmark
period driven by an event, the fielding of the capability, the
testing, whatever it happens to be, what do I know, what are my
confidence levels, where are my risk levels, and how would I
articulate them and be able to bring them both to my leadership
inside of the Strategic Command on up through the chain and
obviously to this organization.
Senator Dayton. I understand that you have a chain of
command, but if you are asked directly by this committee would
you provide that in clear and comprehensible English?
General Cartwright. I will do my best to be clear and
comprehensible.
Senator Dayton. As unequivocally as can be possible,
because I think we are doing here--you mentioned the word
``rudimentary,'' and we recognize, given the way this is being
undertaken, that that is a starting point. But it is just very
difficult to find out, at least for me to find out, how
rudimentary is rudimentary, and then where are we getting into
the level of realistic testing, what kind of additional
realistic testing needs to be undertaken, which seems to be
taking a back seat now to deployment. So be it, that is the
decision that has been made. But once deployed, I am not clear
when the realistic testing is going to either be resumed or
commenced, depending on how you define it.
I am an old hockey goalie and a 95-percent save rate was
awfully good, better than I usually could achieve. That is not
good enough in this realm. I could not tell the opposing
players to please only shoot from outside the blue line and
preferably let me know in advance when they are going to shoot
and only when I am ready and clear and everything else.
So I mean, once you get into the kind of real world
environment that I expect these would have to be functional and
effective at a very high degree of almost perfect proficiency,
that is a very different order from rudimentary. I do not know
how we are planning and what the trajectory is in terms of
time, expense, and procedures to get us to that point. But
there is no point in having a system that is going to stay
rudimentary, I think we would all agree.
So I would ask that you give us that as a progress report
and give it to us straight. You would be the first to do so.
General Cartwright. I take that responsibility very
seriously, and I will do that.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
Gentlemen, as I opened the hearing this morning I stated
that the Senate, or those that sought the opportunity, were
briefed with regard to the heightened alert situation. I just
want the record to reflect that each of you in your respective
posts will heed that alert and see that those people and
installations and equipment, ships, and the like under your
command will be carefully given every protection possible.
Chief, you are aware of this, I am sure.
Admiral Clark. Yes, sir, to be sure.
Chairman Warner. Fine. As you take over your post, there is
a degree of vulnerability there that has got to be established
and taken care of.
General Cartwright. We will do that, sir.
Chairman Warner. Are you aware of it also?
General Cartwright. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Admiral, the carrier strike forces are 12 in number and
there are 12 expeditionary strike groups. Do you envision that
that level will be continued throughout your projected
additional 2 years as Chief of Naval Operations?
Admiral Clark. The requirement is 12 today. I will tell you
that I am in the process of trying set up a Sea Swap experiment
for an expeditionary strike group to see if we could do
something that large. If we could, it would affect my
recommended investment profile and allow us to--I talked about
the importance of speed--to transform to the next level of
speed, especially in the Marine Corps set.
Maritime prepositioned forces of the future will be a
totally new concept. It is not the maritime prepositioned ships
(MPS) of old. They will have flattops in them, they will be
built to surge Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) and V-22 forward, to
give the marines much more striking power, to bring precision
warfare to bear to support the Marine Corps structure. It is
going to be markedly different.
If I could redirect resources by being able to Sea Swap
expeditionary strike groups (ESG), we could start earlier on
that, on that concept. But we have got to prove we can do that.
So we are working toward that.
Now, if I could have just 30 more seconds. With regard to
carriers, it is not just Sea Swapping them. It is how many
total do you need for the fight, the same response to Senator
Reed's question about the submarines: How many do you need for
the fight? How long will it take to get them to the fight?
So those calculations might address the ESG. I see it less
likely to affect the carrier structure, but that is all under
analysis today.
Chairman Warner. Is it within the realm of feasibility to
do a Sea Swap with a carrier, given that there are anywhere
from 5,000 to 6,000 personnel?
Admiral Clark. It would be obviously much more difficult to
do.
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Lastly, Admiral, I think every time we have the
opportunity, really the extraordinary opportunity, to have you
before us, we are always concerned about the vulnerability of
your ships, primarily at sea. The memory of the U.S.S. Cole.
remains with us. What systems do you regard as creating the
greatest threat to our ships? Surface-to-surface missiles, for
example?
Admiral Clark. Again, like Senator Reed's question, I said
it would depend on the scenario. So let me describe a couple to
you.
Chairman Warner. The follow-on: How do you envision in the
coming year that you personally will direct not only the
operations of the Navy, but the technical breakthroughs as they
come along, to apply them against this type of vulnerability?
There is a constant evolution of things regarding the surface
to surface missile.
Admiral Clark. Thank you. The number one principle for the
future and what the Navy has to be able to transform to: No
longer can we be primarily a blue water Navy and conduct the
global war on terrorism. We had two sailors and a
coastguardsman recently killed when they were inspecting the
dhow that was intending to destroy the oil platform. The
economic impact of which would have been incredible, because I
believe something like 60 percent of the oil flow out of
Southern Iraq goes through that platform. So if Iraq is to
restructure itself economically, this would be devastating.
So in days of old we took comfort. We put an airplane in
the air and, oh, there is the grey ship with some numbers on
the side, and it was easier. That is not what this war is
about. We have to be able to do the deep blue water thing and
we have to do the near-land warfare in the global war on
terrorism, which is why I made the Littoral Combatant Ship
(LCS) a priority to be able to deal with the near-land threat.
You can look at nations that will take us on toe to toe, but
that is much less likely than the asymmetric threat that faces
us today and you were briefed on this morning.
So how do we take that on, and what does that threat look
like? A major war against a state in the future, frankly, I
think it would be very worthwhile for us to go to a closed
session and have a discussion about where we see that going in
the next 10 to 20 years. I would very much like to do that in
closed session.
But in an open session, I want to say that the tools that
they used on U.S.S. Cole, the tools that they used against the
French ship Linthal, the tools that we saw them use against the
oil platform, we must be able to defeat them and dominate that
battle space. We are going to need more unmanned vehicles. We
are going to need to be able to dominate that battle space in
the shallows, so LCS has a shallow draft so that we can do
that.
The same thing will go for nations that could bring a large
number of submarines against us, the tools they would use, and
then the missile threat. The specifics of that we need to
discuss in a closed session. But the threat is growing, and we
have to invest in capabilities to defeat it. In my testimony, I
talked about the transition to CGX. It will follow on the DD(X)
hull and take us to a future so that this Nation can go where
it needs to go.
Chairman Warner. That is very reassuring.
Thank you very much. We have had an excellent hearing. I
wish you all well. I am confident we will act promptly on both
nominations.
Admiral Clark. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to ADM Vernon E. Clark, 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 original nomination to be Chief of Naval
Operations.
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 May 16, 2000?
Answer. Yes, my views have changed. I believe, more strongly than
ever before, in the importance of this joint legislation. As I stated
at the time of my first confirmation hearing, I believe that these
reforms have helped to significantly improve the effectiveness of our
joint warfighting forces. Our military is much more capable as a result
of Goldwater-Nichols.
Question. Do you foresee the need for additional modifications of
Goldwater-Nichols? If so, what areas do you believe it might be
appropriate to address in these modifications?
Answer. No legislation, especially when it fundamentally changes
institutions, can predict perfectly how reforms will be implemented.
So, I believe the time has come to conduct a review of certain aspects
of the act.
Most pressing is the need to review how acquisition is accomplished
within the Department of Defense (DOD). We need to focus on how we can
develop systems that are ``born joint.'' Command and control systems,
for example, is one area where we can do better. We are not making
sufficient progress in leveraging the buying power of something as big
as DOD. 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 this
process should be enhanced.
We have made great 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, I am committed to working with the Secretary of
Defense and with the Secretary of the Navy to continue to evaluate this
law and make recommendations to improve our joint forces.
duties
Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in
the duties and functions of the Chief of Naval Operations, as set forth
in title 10, United States Code, and in regulations of the Department
of Defense and Department of the Navy pertaining to functions of the
Chief of Naval Operations?
Answer. I am comfortable with the duties and functions of the Chief
of Naval Operations (CNO) as delineated in the above regulations, and I
recommend no changes.
relationships
Question. Please identify any changes you have observed since your
last confirmation in the relationships between the CNO and the
following officials.
The Secretary of Defense
Answer. Secretary Rumsfeld has created an operating environment
where there is significant senior executive exchange, the focus of
which is the Senior Level Review Group (SLRG). This increased level of
senior executive communication is generally oriented to broader DOD
issues rather than those that are service-specific.
Secretary Rumsfeld is also deeply involved in the selection of
future military leaders, and that has changed our interface as well as
the process for nominating three and four-star officers.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Deputy Secretary continues to function as the number
two in the Department. In the post-September 11 environment especially,
my exchanges with him have become more policy oriented and less
program/budget focused. My primary interface is through the SLRG.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense and the Assistant
Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. The advent of the SLRG has given the Under Secretaries of
Defense and the Assistant Secretaries of Defense more opportunity to
set the agenda. Their impact, and the breadth of their authority, has
therefore increased.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The chairman's involvement with the Secretary of Defense,
not just day-to-day, but hour-to-hour, has increased. While this is to
be expected in time of war, it is also due to the chairman's focus
becoming more and more operational in nature.
Question. The Combatant Commanders.
Answer. I see more interchange between the combatant commanders and
the Service Chiefs. Combatant commander conferences, for example, now
meet three times per year rather than twice in order to enhance our
exchange and maintain the DOD-wide focus on transformation and the
global war on terrorism.
Question. The Secretary of the Navy, the Under Secretary of the
Navy and the Assistant Secretaries of the Navy
Answer. The relationship between the Secretary of the Navy and the
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) staff has changed
markedly. The Secretary of the Navy significantly streamlined his own
staff, and we have established a much more collaborative environment
within the DON that has transformed the way work is accomplished. The
assistant secretaries have direct access to my Deputy CNOs and their
working relationships have changed for the better. My three-star flag
officers now work more directly with the assistant secretaries and this
has also enhanced staff coordination. These arrangements have created a
vastly improved environment of teamwork and the Department functions
much more effectively as a result. The under secretary position is not
filled.
Question. The General Counsel of the Navy.
Answer. No change.
Question. The Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC).
Answer. The commandant and I have created a Navy/Marine Corps Board
of Directors, which functions at the three-star level, and we
formalized additional structures to improve the interface between the
services. We created a ``Big Four'' (CMC, CNO, Vice CNO (VCNO), and
Assistant CMC (ACMC)) and a ``Big 12'' (Big Four plus other key three-
star officers) which now provide a framework for senior level interface
that never existed before. In addition, there are now Marine Corps
general officers in virtually every corporate-level meeting that I
conduct, including all of my budget and program meetings. While we
remain two Services, the cooperation is greater than I've ever known it
to be. This has led to a new level of co-development and is what the
Nation deserves. The Marine Corps is our number one joint partner and
we are seeking to run the headquarters in a way that proves it.
The Secretary of the Navy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and
I have a tremendous partnership as we work together to revolutionize
the warfighting capability of the Navy-Marine Corps team.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the other Services.
Answer. The Service Chiefs are now individually and collectively
pursuing joint solutions more aggressively. Our focus is more on joint
program development and less on current operations in formal settings
like the SLRG and the Tank, in bilateral service warfighter talks, and
in acquisition. This is the most joint group of Chiefs we have had to
date, and this progression to more ``jointness'' should be expected as
we grow officers who have been ``born joint'' at junior levels.
If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to foster the same
strong relationships with leadership across the Department of Defense.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that you
would confront if confirmed for a second term of office as CNO?
Answer. The major challenges that I would face if confirmed for a
second term are those that I have testified to this year, specifically:
Winning the ongoing battle to attract, develop, and
retain the most talented men and women that our Nation has to
offer.
Delivering the right readiness at the right cost to
support the Nation's warfighting needs.
Solving the investment challenge to create the future
capabilities and the vision outlined in Sea Power 21 to
recapitalize and transform our force and improve its ability to
operate as an effective component of our joint warfighting
team.
Creating, formalizing, and executing ideas that will
improve our productivity and reduce our overhead costs.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, the first item on my agenda will be the
development of a Human Capital Strategy that makes sense for the Navy
of the 21st century. As I testified earlier this year, 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 have
proposed a fiscal year 2005 Navy end strength reduction of 7,900
personnel, and I believe that that is just the beginning. Your Navy is
fundamentally different from the other services in that the combat
power of fleet units is not directly proportional to the size of the
crew. It will be even less so in the future as we integrate new
technologies and implement transformational concepts of operation. In
short, 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 that workforce. It will,
therefore, also require some flexible authorities and incentive tools
to shape career paths and our skills mix in a way that lets us compete
for the right talent in a competitive marketplace.
On the issue of readiness, with the help of Congress we now have
the most combat-ready fleet that I've seen in my career. Our people are
superbly trained and well provisioned. They are ready for combat
operations earlier in their training and maintenance cycle and they
remain so for a longer period of time. This has been made possible by
the ongoing transformation of training and maintenance concepts. If
confirmed, my challenge will be to continue to refine our understanding
of the collective contributions of all the components of readiness, to
accurately define the requirements, and to align the proper funding and
provide a balanced investment to the right accounts. To that end, we
will continue to advance the Integrated Readiness Capability Assessment
(IRCA) process that I testified to this year.
I also intend to pursue a broad analytical agenda in order to
maximize our understanding of the data and assumptions that are the
foundation of our campaign analysis and budget request formulation. As
part of that work, we have already invested in improvements to our
modeling and simulation capabilities, and we have modified our
analytical processes to reduce the number of overlapping data reviews.
Sea Power 21 defines the capabilities and processes that the 21st
century Navy will deliver. My objectives in recapitalization and
transformation of the Navy and its infrastructure to achieve this
vision have not changed since my appearance before this committee on 10
February 2004. If confirmed, I intend to continue our pursuit of
distributed and networked solutions that could revolutionize our
capability. We will focus in particular on the power of Sea Basing and
our complementary capability and alignment with our number one joint
partner, the United States Marine Corps. We will also continue our Sea
Enterprise efforts to revolutionize the way in which our defense
dollars are spent. We are committed to efficiency and productivity
improvements that will generate the savings necessary to augment our
investment stream and implement our Sea Power 21 vision.
transformation
Question. If confirmed, you would continue to play an important
role in the process of transforming the Navy to meet new and emerging
threats.
With the benefit of almost 4 years in office, please discuss the
progress that the Navy has made in achieving its transformation
objectives.
Answer. When I became CNO, I established my ``Top 5 Priorities''--
Manpower, Current Readiness, Future Readiness, Quality of Service, and
Alignment. In 2000, we were facing challenges and opportunities in each
of these critical areas. We needed to recruit and retain the highly
skilled, professional workforce of the future. We needed to invest in
current readiness so our Navy would be able to project decisive power
around the world, around the clock. We needed a vision to guide us in
the 21st century. We needed to continue to take care of our sailors and
their families and provide a quality of work worthy of their important
service. We needed to ensure that our organizations, systems, and
processes were aligned to deliver exactly what they were designed to
produce--a combat-capable Navy, ready to sail into harm's way.
The following is a breakdown of our significant accomplishments in
each of those areas:
I. Manpower. This is, and will remain, our Navy's biggest
challenge. As I have written elsewhere in this document, we are in the
process of developing a Human Capital Strategy that makes sense for the
21st century. We would not be in a position to do that today had we not
first tackled the fundamentals of winning the battle for people:
recruiting the right people, raising retention and attacking attrition.
We have built a mentoring culture, emphasized our commitment to
diversity, and piloted personnel programs to capitalize on the
revolution we have inspired in training and detailing. In short, we now
have the highest quality workforce the Navy has ever seen.
Recruiting. We have consistently met or exceeded our
recruiting goals since 2000. In fact, I have approved a
reduction of 17,000 people in our recruiting goals since I have
been CNO, and I'm not convinced that we've reduced enough. The
reason is we are now retaining 62 percent of sailors with less
than 6 years of service. This, in turn, has allowed us to seek
out higher quality recruits than ever before. Nearly 15 percent
of our current recruits, for example, now have some college
experience, up by more than 300 percent since fiscal year 2000.
More than 95 percent of new recruits have high school diplomas,
up from 90 percent in fiscal year 2001. Minority officer
applications increased by 27 percent while minority Seaman to
Admiral-21 applications increased by 15 percent.
Retention. We have experienced extraordinary retention
in our Navy fostered by a new culture of choice and a focus on
professional development for our sailors. This new culture has
led to the highest retention in our history and this fact has
resulted in what I like to call a virtuous cycle in manpower.
We are not only able to be more selective in recruiting, but we
are also able to establish the kind of competitive environment
for reenlistment and detailing that we need to change the shape
of the force, developing a more educated and experienced group
of professionals to lead and manage our high-tech Navy. To that
end, we have grown the percentage of E-4s through E-9s (Top 6)
to 73.25 through the fiscal year 2005 budget submission, moving
well toward our goal of 75.5 percent by fiscal year 2007.
Sailors in many ratings have been given new opportunities to
compete and grow in our institution through adjusted Navy
Enlisted Classification (NEC)-targeted Sailor Reenlistment
Bonuses and the Perform To Serve program. We have also piloted
choice in assignments with a new geographic incentive pay pilot
program. Sailors are now able to compete for select jobs in
duty stations across the globe.
Attrition. Since fiscal year 2000, we have reduced
attrition by 33 percent. Our losses due to illegal drug use are
also down, while we increased drug testing by 12 percent.
II. Current Readiness. As I said in my confirmation hearing 4 years
ago, I believe that we have a responsibility to you in Congress and to
the taxpayers to ensure that the Navy the Nation has already bought is
properly provided for. That is at the root of why we have invested
billions of dollars in training, maintenance, spare parts, ordnance,
flying hours, and steaming days so that the current force is prepared
on a day-to-day basis to deliver persistent combat power whenever and
wherever it is needed. The fleet has answered the call by producing the
best readiness levels I've seen in my career, and the combat-ready
response of more than half the Navy to recent operations worldwide has
provided ample demonstration of that fact.
Surged combat excellence to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Seven aircraft carriers and nine big deck amphibious ships were
among the 164 U.S. Navy ships to deploy worldwide in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Along with our number one joint
partner, the United States Marine Corps, we put more than
60,000 combat-ready marines ashore in Kuwait in 30 days. The
Military Sealift Command sailed and chartered more than 210
ships and moved more than 32 million square feet of combat
cargo and more than 1 billion gallons of fuel, or 94 percent of
the Nation's joint and combined capability to the fight.
Implemented a new Global Concept of Operations. To
enhance our Navy's ability to respond to crises whenever and
wherever needed, we have implemented a Global Concept of
Operations that increases both the number and capabilities of
naval assets that are forward deployed throughout the world.
This new operating concept delivers a sustainable global reach
to influence current events through the sovereign presence of
our naval forces.
Developed the Fleet Response Plan (FRP). The Fleet
Response Plan is a revolutionary new approach to Operational
availability for our Navy and greatly enhances the ability to
surge naval forces if required by the President. The FRP and
the supporting Integrated Readiness Capability Assessment
(IRCA) will enable us to surge 50 percent more combat power on
short notice to deal with future global contingencies.
Sustained the war against terrorists. We expanded our
littoral warfare capabilities by realigning our Naval Coastal
Warfare forces, establishing Mobile Security Force detachments,
adding an Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit to U.S. Naval Forces
Central Command and accelerating the planning for two new SEAL
teams.
Created Expeditionary Strike Groups. We enhanced our
strike capability with creation of Expeditionary Strike Groups
(ESG). The ESG combines the combat power of the Marine
Expeditionary Unit with the strike and Air Combat capabilities
of Cruiser and Destroyer escorts to create a transformational
capability in littoral warfare.
Improved organizational, intermediate, and depot
maintenance for our ships, submarines and aircraft. Innovative
programs like Shipmain and the Naval Aviation Readiness
Integrated Improvement Program helped develop and share best
practices, streamline maintenance planning and improved
performance goals in shipyards, depots and other maintenance
facilities.
Aligned our homeland security organization and
improved our force protection procedures. We established
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Northern Command, activated the
Atlantic and Pacific Shipping Control Centers, and created the
Naval Air Station North Island Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection
(AT/FP) test bed under the Commander, Navy Region Southwest, to
exploit technology and move new AT/FP capabilities into the
Navy.
III. Future Readiness. At the Naval War College in June 2002, I
introduced our vision of tomorrow's Navy, Sea Power 21, and this vision
committed us to change. It began the process of translating theory into
practice for a wide range of advanced concepts and technologies that
will dramatically increase the combat effectiveness of the joint force.
While we must continue to challenge our assumptions, I believe that
recent operations around the world indicate that we are on the right
vector.
Sea Strike. We introduced capabilities that extended
our reach and precision, providing joint force commanders with
a potent mix of weapons. For the first time, we deployed F/A-
18E/F Super Hornet squadrons, providing greatly enhanced range,
payload, and refueling capability to forces in Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF). The Shared Reconnaissance Pod, the Advanced
Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared, the Joint Helmet Mounted
Cueing System, and the Multi-Functional Information
Distribution System arrived in the fleet and showed us the
power of these new knowledge dominance technologies. We began
the conversion of the first of four Trident Nuclear-Powered
Ballistic Missile Submarines into the Nuclear-Powered Cruise
Missile Attack Submarine conventional strike and Special
Operations Forces platform.
Sea Shield. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Navy
helped extend the defensive umbrella over joint forces ashore.
U.S.S. Higgins (DDG 76) provided early warning and tracking to
help U.S. Army Patriot batteries defend Kuwait and southern
Iraq from the threat of theater ballistic missiles. Also,
U.S.S. Lake Erie (CG 70) and U.S.S. Russell (DDG 59) combined
to acquire, track and hit a ballistic test target missile in
space with an SM-3 developmental missile in support of the
Ballistic Missile Defense program. These missile tests are
contributing to an initial Ballistic Missile Defense capability
that will become part of our Navy's ability to respond to
emerging threats. We have formed Task Force antisubmarine
warfare (ASW) to study improvements in ASW readiness, enhance
our capability, and ensure access for joint forces moving from
the sea to objectives inland. Task Force Hip Pocket
demonstrated dramatically improved close-in defensive systems
for surface ships in the near-littoral environment.
Sea Basing. We awarded three preliminary design
contracts for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), leading to the
construction of the first LCS in fiscal year 2005. We selected
the baseline design for the DD(X) multi-mission destroyer,
launched San Antonio (LPD 17) and Virginia (SSN 774) and began
fabrication of Makin Island (LHD 8). The Defense Science Board
study on Sea Basing, our Joint Forcible Entry study and the
Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) Analysis of Alternatives
now nearing completion are all beginning to provide the
information needed to define future sea based expeditionary
operations. As our Sea Basing concept continues to unfold, we
will develop a more detailed view of LHA(R) and Maritime
Prepositioning Force (Future) which will shape our next budget
submission in these areas.
FORCEnet. FORCEnet is the connection between our
initiatives to integrate the power of warriors, sensors,
weapons, and platforms into a networked combat force. For the
first time, we have created a single organization to establish
an enterprise-wide architecture that puts in place standards
for both infrastructure management and the networking of combat
systems. We have also enhanced joint and coalition
interoperability on all of our deploying ships through
installation of combined enterprise regional information
exchange (CENTRIX) and combined operations wide area network
(COWAN) nets. We also partnered with the U.S. Army to develop a
joint, ISR airborne replacement for the aging EP-3.
Sea Trial. Sea Trial streamlined and formalized our
experimentation process and is up and running with the Fleet in
charge. Sea Trial is already providing us with valuable
insights into future tactics and technology. As an example, two
high-speed, wave-piercing catamarans (HSVs) were employed as
part of a joint-service experiment. HSV X1, known as Joint
Venture, conducted operations this past year in support of mine
warfare and special operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
HSV 2, known as SWIFT, is conducting experimentation in support
of Sea Power 21 concept development. These ships are an
experimental bridge to the LCS and their tests will help
mitigate the risk of the LCS program while further enhancing
our understanding of the near-land domain.
Sea Enterprise. As we pursue efficiencies and overall
effectiveness, we are running the business end of the Navy to
redirect resources towards creation of tomorrow's Navy. We have
focused headquarters leadership on outputs and execution and we
are creating ideas that will improve our productivity and
reduce our overhead costs. The Sea Enterprise Board of
Directors established an enterprise-wide approach to
transformation, validating $38 billion in savings across the
fiscal year 2004 future years defense plan and identifying $12
billion in new initiatives to help us recapitalize and
transform the force.
IV. Quality of Service. Quality of Service is a balanced
combination of quality of life and quality of work. Our goal and
commitment is a Navy that provides good quality of life and work for
our sailors and their families. We will continue to fund technologies
and develop programs that enable our people to do their jobs more
effectively.
Continuing investment in our sailors. Sailors are the
core resource of the Navy and we compete with industry to
retain them. Investing in Quality of Service is critical in
this effort. Congressional commitment to redress pay imbalances
relative to the civilian sector have allowed competitive base-
pay raises and the completion of the DOD goal to eliminate out-
of-pocket expenses for housing (by fiscal year 2005).
Additionally, we have funded achievement of Homeport Ashore,
moving all single sea-duty sailors to bachelor quarters by
fiscal year 2008.
Family focused programs. Quality of Service has also
been enhanced for the families of our sailors. We have improved
family housing and remain on track to eliminate inadequate
family housing units by fiscal year 2007. Family medical care
benefits have been enhanced through the initiation of TRICARE
for Life, ensuring superb medical care for qualified families
after their military service. Finally, traditional difficulties
with military service have been mitigated through partnerships
with private industry to provide mobile career opportunities
and enhance the Spouse Employment Assistance Program.
Accelerating the Revolution in Training and Education.
Training and education for our sailors are a critical component
of their quality of service and we have created a developmental
system to accelerate the implementation of training and
education improvements that has become a model for DOD. These
programs seek to create the workforce for the 21st century and
to ensure the right skills, in the right place, at the right
time. Education opportunities have also been enhanced through
the Navy College Program, including partnerships with civilian
colleges, to provide rating-related associate and bachelor
degrees via distance learning.
V. Alignment. At its most fundamental level, alignment within our
Navy is about two things. First, it ensures that organizations,
systems, and processes are constructed to effectively and efficiently
produce a combat-ready fleet geared to fight as part of the joint
force. Alignment is also about effective communication, ensuring that
we share a common understanding of the mission and objectives, and that
we speak one message with many voices across the entire organization.
Over the last 4 years, we have launched numerous initiatives aimed at
increasing the alignment of our organization.
Reorganized the Office of Chief of Naval Operations
(OPNAV) staff. We established the Deputy CNO for Warfare
Requirements and Programs (N6/N7), thereby significantly
enhancing the integration of platform and network requirements,
and resource planning and programming. We refocused the mission
of the Deputy CNO for Fleet Readiness and Logistics.
Reorganized the Fleet. We created the Commander, Fleet
Forces Command (CFFC) to integrate policies and requirements
for manning, equipping, and training all fleet units. We
created Fleet Type Commanders to lead their communities with
one voice, from the waterfront. We established the Naval
Network Warfare Command as a single organization responsible
for network, space and information operations. We organized the
Naval Construction Battalions into a single division. We also
established the Commander, Navy Education and Training Command
to serve as the Chief Learning Officer for the Navy and to be
the single authority for individual training (officer and
enlisted) strategy and policy. We aligned the Navy Warfare
Development Command and warfare centers of excellence under
CFFC to stimulate concept development and technology insertion
to the fleet. We established the Commander, Navy Installations
Command (CNI) to better guide the operations, administration
and support for Navy installations worldwide while reducing
infrastructure management layers.
Improved our alignment for joint warfare. We joined
with the Marine Corps to integrate USN-USMC logistics
functions, capabilities, and processes, and we implemented the
Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Air integration plan. We also issued
the Transformation Roadmap to specify the capabilities required
to increase joint warfighting effectiveness. We invested in the
U.S. Coast Guard's Deepwater Integrated Systems Program, new
munitions development with the U.S. Air Force, and joint
experiments with the U.S. Army on high-speed vessels.
Question. What are your goals regarding transformation in the
future?
Answer. My beliefs about the future boil down to this: success in
the world that we are moving toward will demand two attributes above
all others--speed and agility. This is true regardless of whether we're
talking about combat or the size and adaptability of our industrial
base. It is the demand for speed and agility that drives much of our
thinking about the following transformation goals:
Develop new concepts of operation and the systems that
support them. We have to get to the fight faster and we have to
seize and retain the initiative once there. That means
increasing the operational availability of our forces by
continuing to refine and test the Fleet Response Plan and its
associated training and maintenance processes. That means
studying our base structure to ensure that we are in a position
to win. It also means that we have to do what we can to lighten
the load of joint forces going ashore and reduce our ground
footprint. To that end, we must more fully develop the
operational concepts and tools required for seabasing,
pervasive awareness in the battlespace and the delivery of
precision, seabased fires to support forces ashore. Some of
those tools include the Littoral Combat Ship and modular combat
systems, Aerial Common Sensor (ACS), an all-electric drive
DD(X) and the continuing development of the electromagnetic
rail gun, joint strike fighter, organic mine warfare, unmanned
air/surface/subsurface vehicles, air and ballistic missile
defense, and stealth in our ships and aircraft.
Leverage potential changes in the Maritime
Prepositioning Force (Future). Minimizing dependence on foreign
bases and the need to establish a beachhead for projection of
power ashore, we will use the maneuver space of the sea to
usher in dramatic new ways of employing joint forces to deter
conflict, wage war and restore stability. In that regard, the
Commandant of the Marine Corps and I have initiated an analysis
of alternatives to determine how best to leverage potential
changes in the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) in order
to generate a more responsive amphibious capability; one that
will deliver combat power faster and with more lethality.
Enhance interdependence with our joint partners. Speed
and agility apply as well to the way in which we run the
business of putting combat power to sea. In that vein, we have
initiated efforts to achieve true integration, even
interdependence with our joint partners. We have initiated a
Spiral Development process to increase return on our initial
investments and to reduce the risks associated with
technological advancements. We need to look hard at right
sizing the industrial base to build the military capability we
need for the right kind of fast and agile Navy of the future.
Ensure our ability to operate in all elements of the
unique maritime domain. It has become increasingly clear that
we must have a Navy that can operate in two very different
strategic environments; we must maintain our readiness to win
decisively against an enemy at sea, but we must also be able to
operate effectively in the littoral environment required by the
global war on terrorism. Transformational technologies such as
the Littoral Combat Ship and Unmanned Vehicles, among many
others, will employ spiral development techniques for future
and evolving technologies that will ensure our ability to
operate in all elements of the unique maritime domain.
Refine our infrastructure requirements and level of
manning. As we evolve our concepts for employment of forces,
this will allow refinement of our infrastructure requirements
to include the appropriate number of ships, aircraft and
submarines. We will continue to refine concepts such as Sea-
Swap, and we will continue to experiment with multiple crews
for various platforms to not only define how many assets are
required, but how much structure is needed to create and
sustain them and what level of manning is required.
In sum, if confirmed, my goals for transformation would be to
expand upon our asymmetric advantages, speeding our process of
innovation and driving the co-evolution of concepts, technologies, and
doctrine.
fleet response plan
Fleet Response Plan (FRP) has been implemented to provide a surge
capability to provide ``presence with a purpose.'' There have been some
reports that indicate dissatisfaction with the unpredictability of the
new deployment schedules.
What strengths and weaknesses have you perceived to date with the
implementation of the FRP?
Answer. FRP formalizes a surge capability we have always had, and
streamlines our maintenance and training processes in order to enable
progressive readiness in the fleet. The principal strength of the FRP
is that it will allow us to surge 50 percent more combat power on short
notice whenever the Nation needs our naval forces to arrive with
overpowering force. This is being accomplished largely within resources
already planned, with no increase in tempo of operations/personnel
tempo. While the timing and sequence of underway time may shift, the
total amount of underway time is not increasing. The end result is that
we derive significantly more return on the Nation's investment in naval
forces.
FRP also attempts to maintain the readiness state of naval forces
at a higher level throughout the course of the employment cycle, thus
increasing the operational availability of the force. To do this, we
have fundamentally reconfigured our employment policy, fleet
maintenance, deployment preparations and fleet manning policies to
expand the operational availability of non-deployed fleet units. We
have shifted the readiness cycle from one centered solely on the next-
scheduled-deployment to one focused on returning ships to the right
level of readiness for both surge and deployed operations. In short, we
have been seeking to instill a ``culture of readiness'' throughout the
Fleet so that our adversaries can no longer count on our predictability
in how and when our forces will be employed. This added flexibility and
adaptability is an important part of confronting new threats and giving
the President options as we prosecute the global war on terrorism.
FRP is in its first full year of execution and, while we are
working to identify areas of the plan that require refinement, no
noteworthy weaknesses have been identified to date. ``Summer Pulse 04''
is the first exercise of FRP, and will culminate in simultaneous
deployment of seven carrier strike groups operating in five theaters
with other U.S., allied and coalition military forces.
Question. Are there sufficient assets to support the ``6 plus 2''
surge of Carrier Strike Groups, particularly since there are only 10
active airwings to deploy on the 12 aircraft carriers?
Answer. The FRP 27-month employment cycle allows us to sustain
eight Carrier Strike Groups in `surge ready' status. For a number of
years, we have operated with 12 aircraft carriers and 10 airwings. Type
Wing Commanders prudently schedule airwing aircraft depot-level
maintenance periods prior to and during their Inter Deployment
Readiness Cycle to ensure adequate assets are available for training
and deployment. Nominally, two aircraft carriers are in extended
maintenance periods at any time. By rotating airwings to available
aircraft carriers the ``6 plus 2'' commitment is met.
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. During OIF, we surged seven Carrier Battle Groups, four
Amphibious Readiness Groups, and two Amphibious Task Forces; more than
half the fleet. That force was reconstituted using both public and
private ship depot repair facilities. All the ships that participated
in OIF have been reconstituted and are back in their notional
maintenance schedule. Should another surge be ordered, there is
sufficient repair capability and capacity to reconstitute the fleet and
reestablish notional maintenance rotations.
Question. How does ``presence with a purpose'' differ from other
concepts such as ``virtual presence''?
Answer. ``Virtual presence'' refers to the fact that some military
assets of the United States need not be deployed to a theater of
operations in order to be employed for combat. In theory, therefore,
these assets are always virtually present in the minds of friends and
potential enemies alike. That said, ``virtual presence'' is actual
absence, and absent forces cannot engage with allies or demonstrate
commitment in peacetime, nor can they generate persistent combat power
and operational agility in war. The ``virtual presence'' of strategic
weapons and space-based assets is complementary with, not a substitute
for forces deployed overseas.
``Presence with a purpose'' is a term that I've used to describe
moving beyond rigid 6-month, heel-to-toe rotational deployments based
on the calendar rather than on the accomplishment of specific missions.
It is the surge capability provided by the FRP that makes possible this
reexamination of the definition of global presence. It's about
capitalizing on the tremendous investments that we've made in training
and maintenance, building a culture of readiness, and generating the
responsiveness of our forces required for victory in a new era where
time is the friend of our enemy. Then it is about maximizing the effect
of our presence, both in real-world operations and in exercises. I
believe that to win quickly and at minimum cost, we must arrive early
and with the right set of capabilities. ``Presence with a purpose''
helps us to do that.
vision for the future
Question. In your Sea Power 21 vision for the Navy, you have put
forward a notional force structure that you have publicly stated would
translate into a requirement for approximately 375 ships. Yet recent
documentation from the Defense Department endorsed a shipbuilding rate
that would maintain, at most, a 300 ship Navy. In the past, Navy
officials have been consistent in testimony that ``quantity has a
quality all its own.'' Additionally, you have been quoted in the papers
as indicating that the 375 ship number may not be that important.
Has anything changed that would alter your previous stated
requirement for approximately 375 ships?
Answer. We are continuously studying and updating the analysis that
supports this number. Like all analysis, that which supports a Navy of
approximately 375 ships is based upon assumptions about technology and
about how we use technology to generate warfighting capabilities. For
example, our estimates of the range, payload and sensor envelope for
future unmanned vehicles will generate a notional number needed to
develop some percentage of sensor coverage over a given area. In turn,
the number of unmanned vehicles that can be carried, launched and/or
controlled by a single ship may vary depending upon radio frequency
band and bandwidth requirements, operator requirements and the physical
capacity of the ship itself. From this example, it's easy to see that a
small change in any one of these variables will have an impact on the
outcome of the total ship number analysis.
Add to that new operating concepts like Sea Swap, with which we are
experimenting now, and the variables in the analysis may change again.
Sea Swap has the potential to increase the operational availability of
our platforms for forward presence and for surge operations without
extending the deployments of our sailors. This could also modify our
investment approach.
We will continue to assess the impact of new technology and new
operating concepts as we work to transform our Navy. Now and in the
future the challenge will be to balance risk and an affordable fleet on
the one hand with the global defense needs of the Nation on the other.
If new analysis supports a different number of ships, then you will
hear it from me first.
Question. Do you still envision a force of 12 Carrier Strike Groups
and 12 Expeditionary Strike Groups?
Answer. Yes, but as I discussed above, new technology and new
concepts of operation may change our analysis of what is needed.
Question. What effect have current operations had on your vision?
Answer. Operations Enduring Freedom and OIF were the most joint
operations in our history and they have provided the best possible
opportunity to dissect, study and analyze some of the limiting factors
and effects of how we fight. While we recognize that we must continue
to challenge all of our assumptions in a variety of scenarios, our
lessons learned indicate that the capabilities-based investment
strategies, new war fighting concepts, and enabling technologies we are
pursuing in our Sea Power 21 vision are on the right vector.
These operations proved--more than anything else--the value of the
combat readiness in which the Nation has invested, and the importance
we must place on improving the fleet's ability to respond and surge
with decisive, persistent combat power. They 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 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. Our operations over the
last few years have also highlighted once again that over-flight and
basing overseas are not guaranteed; our dominance of the maritime
domain and our consequent ability to quickly deliver an agile combat
force is a priceless advantage for our Nation.
attack submarine force levels
Question. The most recent official statement of requirements for
attack submarine force levels was a study by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
in fiscal year 1999. That study indicated that the minimum requirement
for attack submarines is 55 boats, and that in the future the Navy
would need to have between 68 and 72 boats. A substantial portion of
these numbers of boats were deemed necessary to meet various
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements. There have
been recent press reports that the Navy is considering reducing the
force structure of attack submarines to fewer than 40 boats, a
significant reduction from any of these levels.
What are the considerations that might permit 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. The reported studies recently alluded to in the press are
Navy internal efforts that are continuously conducted. No definitive
submarine force structure has been determined. Navy, Joint Chiefs of
Staff (JCS), and Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) are
conducting a submarine force structure assessment that will conclude
later this year.
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-offs
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.
A thorough analysis of the required number of submarines should
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 vulnerability of the forward basing to weather,
threat of attack and other variables.
joint forces command
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate role of the Joint
Forces Command?
Answer. As the Department of Defense Executive Agent for Joint
Experimentation, Joint Forces Command is responsible to the Chairman of
the JCS for creating and refining future warfighting concepts and
integrating service efforts in support of the Joint Vision. They
coordinate and collaborate with the Joint Staff, Services, combatant
commanders, and various defense agencies to ensure concept development
and experimentation is conducted in a common joint context to support
the Secretary of Defense Transformation Planning Guidance and CJCS
Joint Vision Implementation Plan.
Question. What role should Joint Forces Command play in
experimentation, acquisition, and exercise planning and execution?
Answer. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) coordinates with the services
to integrate experimentation as well as joint concept and prototype
development. They should continue to develop and define the joint
context for experimentation and their Joint Experimentation Campaign
Plan. This will help synchronize experimentation and assessment events
to refine joint concepts and doctrine, organization, training,
material, leadership, personnel, and facilities to realize desired
joint capabilities.
Through continued co-sponsorship of service war games and
collective assessment of these games and other events such as
exercises, studies, Advanced Technology Demonstrations and real-world
operations, JFCOM will provide a cohesive joint operational concept
development environment. At the same time, they should ensure each
event supports individual Service objectives as well as broader
Department of Defense transformation goals.
JFCOM's role in the acquisition process should remain to inform the
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process
through findings from the conduct of joint experimentation. The
identification and development of transformational warfighting
capabilities through experimentation events that reveal potential
material solutions should be forwarded to the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC) for consideration and implementation in the
JCIDS analysis process.
united states naval academy
Question. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003, increases of 100 per year in the end strength of the U.S. Naval
Academy were authorized up to a limit of 4,400, however, the Navy has
indicated that it does not intend to increase the size of the Brigade
of Midshipmen to 4,400.
What is your view of the optimal size of the Brigade of Midshipmen?
Question. Due to exceptional officer retention and current plans to
decrease end strength in fiscal year 2005, I have given guidance to
target 4,150 students in fiscal year 2005. The optimal size of the
brigade varies from year to year and is dependent on a number of
factors including retention levels, fleet billet requirements, and
overall end strength goals.
Question. Do you support increasing the number of midshipmen to
4,400 and, if not, why not?
Answer. I support authorization to have up to 4,400 students at the
U.S. Naval Academy and request continuing authorization to operate up
to the 4,400 student level. The number of students however is adjusted
year by year in accordance with the dynamics of our overall accession
requirements and our end strength goals.
Question. For several years, the Naval Academy has included in its
faculty Permanent Military Professors, career officers who instruct at
the Academy until mandatory retirement.
What is your view of the appropriate number of Permanent Military
Professors at the Naval Academy?
Answer. Permanent Military Professors are of great value to the
U.S. Naval Academy. We agree with the pending legislative proposal to
increase the number of Permanent Military Professors (PMPs) to 50 and
to exempt these officers from grade control and strength limits. This
has been a recurring recommendation of the Board of Visitors. These
officers typically fill technical disciplines while pursuing doctoral
studies in a related area (e.g., physics, electrical engineering, and
weapons systems development).
Question. If you believe more are needed, what is the Navy's time
line for providing additional Permanent Military Professors?
Answer. If legislation is approved, we would seek support up to 50
PMPs at the Naval Academy in fiscal year 2005.
navy end strength
Question. The Navy's proposed budget for fiscal year 2005 includes
reductions of 7,500 personnel in the active duty ranks and 2,500 in the
Naval Reserve. You have stated that your goal is to reduce the Navy's
Active-Duty Force to 350,000 sailors from the current authorized level
of 373,800.
What is the justification for these reductions in active duty and
Naval Reserve Forces?
Answer. Our end strength goals are part of a long-term plan to
maximize the capability of our people while minimizing the total number
in the manpower account. As I testified to earlier this year, I believe
that retaining manpower we do not truly need limits the potential of
our people. I also believe that it severely limits the investments
needed to transform our combat capability for the future, an area in
which we have underinvested by $90 to $100 billion in the decade of the
1990s. Add to that the fact that my buying power has decreased with
each passing year, and the conclusion that we must become more
effective and efficient with the resources provided us is inescapable.
This is why, if confirmed, the first item on my agenda will be the
development of a Human Capital Strategy that makes sense for the 21st
century Navy.
We must come to grips with the fact that we will need to compete in
the all-volunteer marketplace for bright, talented and ambitious
Americans to operate the ever more technologically complex Navy of
tomorrow. Our workforce as a whole must be better trained in high-tech
skills and more educated to use those skills wisely. These
sophisticated young people are in demand, and we will have to pay them
enough to be competitive with other employers and to reward them for
their increasingly critical contribution to the defense of our Nation.
We must also be able to offer them the kind of job content that will
appeal to their sense of accomplishment and satisfaction.
Achieving a viable human capital strategy will not be possible
unless we attack the problems inherent in our current manpower
approach, which I believe is an unaffordable outgrowth of a
conscription reality that no longer exists. The total costs of manpower
have increased 40 percent since I have been CNO. A change in course for
the workforce will be driven by our changing the nature of the work,
and by changing the way in which we access, develop, and retain these
marvelous Americans. We have a lot of work to do here, and we have
begun to address this challenge by introducing new technology and new
processes to the fleet and to our shore facilities, such as Optimal
Manning and the establishment of the Navy Installations Command, that
reduce manpower needs.
Our analysis indicates that based on technology insertion and
innovation, we can potentially reduce our manpower structure to nearly
350,000, and we will continue to study if additional reductions would
be practical or desirable.
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 Services at which a ``zero tolerance''
standard was endorsed by the service vice chiefs. 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 are you taking to improve the Navy's prevention of
sexual assaults?
Answer. Sexual assault is not tolerated in our Navy. Our standard
is that every sailor be treated with dignity and respect. When
incidents do occur, we have a process in place to provide specialized
assistance to the victim, to conduct a full and fair investigation, and
to hold offenders accountable. 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. We require annual training on sexual assault
awareness and prevention. Training is included in the student curricula
at Recruit Training Command (RTC) Great Lakes, the Naval Academy, Naval
Air Station (NAS) Pensacola, and is presented to prospective Commanding
Officers and Executive Officers, to Surface Warfare Officer classes,
and at the Senior Enlisted Academy. I have also asked the Chief of
Naval Personnel to initiate an internal monthly review of sexual
assault data to identify trends and propose corrective action where
required.
Question. Does the Navy's SAVI program have sufficient resources?
Answer. Yes, and we are continually evaluating resource
requirements. Accordingly, we have allocated additional funding for the
remainder of fiscal year 2004 and for fiscal year 2005 to further
enhance program services and to offset increasing costs.
Question. What actions, if any, do you plan to take to improve the
Navy's ability to respond to the needs of victims of sexual assault?
Answer. We have what I believe to be 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
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.
national security personnel system
Question. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee,
the Secretary of the Navy stated that the Navy will be the first
component of the Department of Defense to implement the National
Security Personnel System (NSPS) enacted by Congress in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
If confirmed, what role would you play in implementation of the
NSPS for civilian personnel in the Navy?
Answer. If I am confirmed my role would be to incorporate the
legislated personnel management system into our larger institutional
strategy for capturing the genius of our people, both military and
civilian. I will also implement and integrate the civilian workforce
into our 21st century workforce to ensure continued readiness of our
Navy while seeking out efficiencies to minimize overall cost. I believe
NSPS must be a central element of any Human Capital Strategy that we
develop to recruit, access, train and manage our workforce.
What I like most about this legislation is that it authorizes a
more flexible civilian personnel management system, allowing DOD to be
a more competitive and progressive employer at a time when our national
security demands a highly responsive system of civilian personnel
management. At the same time, it also ensures that merit systems
principles govern changes in personnel management, that whistleblowers
are protected, that discrimination and nepotism remain illegal, and
that veterans' preference is protected. This will facilitate the kind
of competition and performance we need for the future.
Most importantly, I believe we will also need these kinds of
flexible authorities and incentive tools to shape the career paths and
our skills mix in a way that lets us compete for the right talent in
uniform, not just within the Navy, but with all the Nation's employers
as well.
Question. What are the fundamental principles that you would apply
in managing personnel reform of this magnitude?
Answer. Four fundamental principles will guide the management of
this personnel reform. First, we will seek to create a workforce that
maintains our Navy's readiness. Second, we will seek to maintain a
flexibility that will enable us to tap into the efficiencies that
ensure we are good stewards of our budget. Third, we will continue to
be a merit-based organization that seeks to deepen the growth and
development of our workforce. Finally, our organization will demand a
safe, fair, and respectful working environment that respects the
fundamental dignity of our workforce.
Question. You testified that the enactment of the NSPS system would
enable the Navy to shift functions now performed by the uniformed
military to civilian employees of the Department of the Navy.
What is the status of the Navy's efforts to shift functions
previously performed by the uniformed military to civilian employees of
the Department of the Navy?
Answer. I have established an office of Civilian Community
Management, similar to that which we have used for military community
management, under my Deputy for Manpower and Personnel. That office is
currently evaluating the work performed and the skills required in our
civilian workforce as a necessary prerequisite to a determination of
how best to transfer military functions to civilian and contract
personnel.
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. Let me say first that I believe that the Navy-Marine Corps
Intranet (NMCI) is vitally important to both the U.S. Navy and the U.S.
Marine Corps; it is the foundation upon which we are connecting our
force and our people, and it is moving forward.
There are a number of complex challenges that remain including
ongoing standardization of existing hardware and software systems,
countering the cost spiral of emerging technologies, maintaining system
efficiencies across the enterprise in light of these new technologies,
maintaining information assurance on a large-scale system, and long-
term integration with other knowledge management systems.
These are complex and highly dynamic problems, but Electronic Data
Systems (EDS) Corporation is already providing NMCI services to more
than 360,000 users in the Navy and Marine Corps, which makes NMCI the
second-largest computer network in the world--only the Internet itself
is larger. NMCI is providing an increasing user base with much better
information assurance and security. We also have 4 world-class Network
Operation Centers (NOCs), 27 unclassified server farms, and 6
classified server farms up and running. This ``backbone'' has
successfully maintained service through fires, floods, blackouts, and
hurricanes. What the DON/EDS partnership has accomplished is
significant and improves on a daily basis.
We are committed to NMCI and to bringing the entire department onto
a single, secure, enterprise-wide intranet. The immediate challenges
are rapid completion of the ``cutover'' of NMCI seats on the NMCI
network, improved user acceptance of the inherent changes, and
``harvesting'' the benefits offered by NMCI (e.g., business process
change and improved productivity).
tricare
Question. Your support for the TRICARE program has been notable
throughout your military service, particularly as the Chief of Naval
Operations.
What is your assessment of the effectiveness of the military health
benefit, its administration through TRICARE, and the sufficiency of
funding for military health benefits by the Department of Defense?
Answer. The military health benefit is among the finest available,
as evidenced by the continued enrollment growth of our beneficiaries
and its identification in survey data as one of the strongest retention
incentives among active duty naval personnel. Naval Medicine
effectively managed the military health benefit during a period of
benefit expansion and enrollment growth, while keeping medical
inflation below the national average. The new TRICARE contracts
provided sweeping improvements in the provision of TRICARE benefits
this fiscal year. While there will be no significant benefit changes,
it simplifies the old contracts, and provides performance incentives
and guarantees. It is important to allow the military heath benefit to
mature under the new contract. Any future modifications should
incorporate readiness, equity, affordability, and be competitive with
the private sector. Naval medicine is funded at the level supported in
the President's budget, benchmarked at fiscal year 2002 baseline
levels.
space programs
Question. What role should the Navy play in space programs?
Answer. While the United States Air Force is executive agent for
space programs, we remain engaged in the Department of Defense
management structure for these programs, including requirements
development, science and technology (S&T), research and development,
acquisition and, wherever appropriate, operations.
Question. Should the Navy principally be involved in the
exploitation of data and services provided by space assets, or should
the Navy be engaged in the development and operation of space systems?
Answer. The Navy is engaged across the board and supports the Air
Force role as Executive Agent. The Services have been charged by the
Secretary of Defense to educate, train, develop and sustain a cadre of
highly competent and motivated military and civilian space
professionals. The Navy space cadre, with their experience in naval
warfighting, are valuable participants in the requirements, science and
technology, research and development, acquisition, and operation
processes. They are in a position to put maritime needs into the space
context, and suggest innovative approaches to best satisfy joint
requirements.
Question. If the latter, what is the appropriate level of that
involvement in development and operation of the space system?
Answer. Ensuring maritime applications of space programs are being
executed by the Air Force is an important consideration, and we
therefore cooperate with our joint partners to ensure appropriate joint
development that incorporates capabilities to operate in the unique
maritime environment.
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. As I testified to this committee last year, I accept
ballistic missile defense as a core Navy mission. We have been working
with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to help deploy this important
capability for the Nation. Navy systems and tests have shown great
promise in recent years. Indeed, our SM-3 missile has hit the target
four out of five times in the past 18 months. I initiated and fully
support the ongoing agreement between Navy and the MDA that provides
full-time commitment of an Aegis equipped Cruiser to the Testing and
Evaluation (T&E) role, as well as a plan to modify other Aegis equipped
ships to conduct MDA missions when required. We are intent on helping
MDA succeed in deploying effective ballistic missile defenses.
Question. Should the Navy play a role in the defense against short
and medium range ballistic missile threats?
Answer. Yes. It wouldn't make sense if we don't capitalize upon the
oceans and our dominance at sea in posturing to do this important
mission. The combatant commanders are in the process of developing a
joint concept of operations for ballistic missile defense against
threats of the short and medium-range class. The fleet and Navy
headquarters staffs are actively engaged to ensure that Navy capability
is utilized to best effect in both advance planning and deployment of
short-range ballistic missile/medium-range ballistic Missile defenses.
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. I have directed the fleet to cooperate actively as
MDA proceeds with their testing and evaluation program. Navy ships have
been involved in every major system test for the past 2 years. Aside
from the Navy-specific firing events featuring U.S.S. Lake Erie, Navy
destroyers have participated in intercontinental ballistic missile
tracking exercises on a recurring basis. Under the direction of Fleet
Forces Command, Navy sailors have begun an aggressive training and
exercise program in cooperation with our colleagues in the joint arena.
We're resolved to be ready to go when the President calls for the
deployment of ballistic missile defenses and I'm pleased with our
progress to date.
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.
How do you plan to address the shortfalls in the Navy science and
technology program to meet the Secretary's goal?
Answer. The fiscal year 2005 Navy S&T budget request stabilizes
funding at 0 percent real growth for the first time in 3 fiscal years,
and though it is not 3 percent of Navy Total Obligation Authority, it
does provide a sufficient level of investment in this very important
program for this year. Three percent remains our goal, but at the same
time, we must recognize and balance competing investment priorities
from year to year. We have done that in this year's budget, and I
expect we will continue to do so in the years to come.
Question. What is your view of the role and value of science and
technology programs in meeting the Navy's transformation roadmap goals?
Answer. As I have said in previous testimony, I would count
advanced technology as one of our national asymmetric advantages.
Science and technology programs are therefore important in maintaining
that advantage. In fact, much of the maturing technology being
delivered today for incorporation into platforms, weapons, sensors, and
process improvements are the result of long-term investments in science
and technology. That said, new technology alone will not deliver the
Navy's transformation roadmap goals. It is only when we integrate that
technology with new operational concepts and organizational constructs
that it results in real transformation of military capability.
readiness and range preservation initiative
Question. The Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI) is
a package of legislative proposals requested by the Department of
Defense in response to environmental encroachment on military
readiness.
How have the three RRPI proposals which already have been clarified
in law--the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)--affected the
Navy's test and training readiness?
Answer. The amendments to the ESA, MMPA, and MBTA enacted in the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2003 and the NDAA for
2004 made favorable changes that have improved the Navy's performance
in both environmental stewardship and fleet training operations.
Clarifying our current and future responsibilities and providing
assurances that these standards will remain constant is helping us to
plan and resource for stable, long-term programs that will benefit both
fleet readiness and the land and life that abounds on and around our
ranges. Specifically:
Migratory Bird Treaty Act: NDAA for Fiscal Year 2003
allows the military to conduct training while protecting
migratory birds, thereby preserving the availability of
Farallon de Medinilla and other critical ranges for vital Navy
training.
Endangered Species Act: NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004
allows DOD to use the Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plan prepared under the Sikes Act to address endangered species
concerns in lieu of designating a critical habitat. It also
required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider the
impact to national security when designating a critical
habitat.
Marine Mammal Protection Act: NDAA for Fiscal Year
2004 amended the MMPA definition of ``harassment,'' adjusted
the permitting system to better accommodate military readiness
activities, and added a national defense exemption consistent
with other environmental statutes.
``Harassment'' now focuses on biologically
significant vice benign disturbances, eliminating the
legal tripwires of `small numbers' and `specific
geographic area.'
Allows safety, practicality, and effectiveness
of the military readiness activity to be considered for
monitoring and mitigation measures.
We are grateful for the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year
2004 changes which continue to be implemented. Preserving these changes
in future reauthorization acts is important to us, allowing the Navy to
continue to demonstrate the right balance between military readiness
and environmental stewardship.
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 John McCain
18-18-18 plan
1. Senator McCain. Admiral Clark, in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, we created a new short term
enlistment plan for the military. This plan could effectively be used
as a recruiting tool to quickly and affordably meet necessary manpower
requirements. Please share the implementation of the ``18-18-18'' short
term enlistment plan within the Navy.
Admiral Clark. Our accession goal for fiscal year 2004 is 1,000
recruits under the National Call to Service (NCS) plan, previously
referred to as ``18-18-18.'' This represents 2.5 percent of our total
fiscal year 2004 accession objective.
To support long-term needs within the Naval Reserve for Hospital
Corpsman (HMs) and Masters-At-Arms (MAs), 88 percent of NCS enlistees
will serve within these ratings. HMs will provide field medic support
to Fleet Marine Force units, many of which are engaged in Operations
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Upon affiliating with their
respective Reserve units, these recruits will possess formal technical
schooling and 15 months of Fleet or Fleet Marine Force experience.
Likewise, MA personnel enlisted under the NCS program will enhance our
Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) mission, again offering a
combination of formal technical training coupled with follow-on fleet
experience in a variety of assignments. The remaining 12 percent of
this fiscal year's NCS enlistees are dedicated to other Reserve Force
missions, including intelligence, anti-mine warfare, and naval
aviation.
For fiscal year 2005, we plan to double the NCS accession goal to
2,000 recruits, which represents 5.2 percent of the total fiscal year
2005 accession objective, 1,100 of which will serve in the HM and MA
ratings.
end strength
2. Senator McCain. Admiral Clark, as the global war on terrorism
expands, it has put a strain on the manning of our armed services,
especially the Reserves. While I understand that your justification for
reducing end strength in the Navy will save significant funding, how
can you justify reductions in end strength now, when the platforms that
have reduced manning will not be in place for years to come?
Admiral Clark. Platforms designed from the keel up for reduced
manning, like LCS, DD(X), and Carrier Vessel Nuclear (CVN) 21, are only
part of a long-term plan. In the near-term, we are attacking the
problems and inefficiencies inherent in our current manpower approach,
which I believe is an unaffordable outgrowth of a conscription reality
that no longer exists. We are changing the nature of the work required
in our current platforms--and thereby changing the skill sets and
numbers of people needed--by introducing and experimenting with new
technologies in areas such as navigation, engineering, and seamanship.
We are changing policies and processes to enhance the effectiveness and
job content of our sailors with experiments like Optimal Manning. We
are experimenting with new concepts of operation, like the Fleet
Response Plan and Sea Swap, designed to derive more operational
availability from the platforms we have today. We have also reorganized
and aligned our infrastructure under the Navy Installations Command to
more efficiently support both today's and tomorrow's fleets. All of
these initiatives promise a more efficient Navy that requires fewer
sailors.
air force tanker
3. Senator McCain. Admiral Clark, you have always been an advocate
for jointness across the Services and saying that no single Service can
do the job alone. Is it still a requirement for the Navy to have multi-
point and simultaneous refueling capabilities in any future airborne
tanker program?
Admiral Clark. Yes. I consider it a Navy requirement and a
tremendous joint and combined force multiplier to have any future
tanker program retain the capability to perform boom and probe/drogue
refueling on the same sortie. While we have no documented requirement
specifically for multi-point refueling (the ability to simultaneously
refuel more than one aircraft at a time), we do capture our
requirements for Air Force tanking in terms of pounds per day and hose-
hours (defined as one tanker hose on station for 1 hour).
The current specific requirement numbers are classified and, as you
might imagine, there are several caveats and footnotes associated with
these numbers based on scenario and strategic context. Clearly, there
are several options on how the Air Force meets this requirement; for
example, a larger fleet of tankers with a single hose each or a smaller
fleet of tankers with multi-point refueling capability. Our initial
analysis shows that, at a minimum, our future tanker force should
include the necessary platform modifications (plumbing, wiring, etc.)
to accommodate wingtip-refueling pods even if the Air Force does not
procure the pods on a one-for-one basis.
We are participating in several Service and OSD-sponsored studies
and working groups to examine the trade-offs and benefits of various
concepts to identify the best way to meet our tanking requirements.
active reserve integration
4. Senator McCain. Admiral Clark, I applaud your leadership and
efforts in active-Reserve integration. How do you plan on integrating
the infrastructure and personnel to accommodate a more effective and
efficient workforce?
Admiral Clark. To more effectively integrate active and Reserve
infrastructure and personnel we have, for example, rebalanced the Navy
Coastal Warfare mission from a predominantly Reserve capability to a
fully integrated active-Reserve capability. Other ongoing efforts
include consolidation of Reserve recruiting into the Navy Recruiting
Command, alignment of Reserve training requirements under the Naval
Education and Training Command, and the integration of Reserve
infrastructure under the Chief of Navy Installations.
Additionally, I have asked my fleet commander to review Reserve
units and billets on a continuing basis for capability relevance and
alignment with fleet requirements. The initial review is not yet
complete.
operational availability
5. Senator McCain. Admiral Clark, you have been extremely
successful in applying the Fleet Response Plan to increase the
operational availability of the carrier force. What success have you
had in working with the Marine Corps to increase the operational
availability of the amphibious Navy's Expeditionary Strike Groups?
Admiral Clark. The Fleet Response Plan (FRP) operational concept
for Navy ships and the ESG concept are both in their first full year of
execution. The Navy-Marine Corps team is working aspects of the FRP
that require additional refinement.
One of those areas is the application of FRP to the ESG, including
aligning the readiness standards and milestones of Navy ships with
available Marine forces. These Marine forces may range from a Special
Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force (SPMAGTF) to, potentially, an
Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB).
Experiments to validate the principles of FRP are ongoing.
Significant data has been compiled regarding the effects of FRP on
surface combatant ships. Additional data is being gathered regarding
the application of FRP to submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious
warfare ships, and aviation squadrons.
We are working with the Marine Corps to integrate their units into
FRP, as well, although this effort is being impacted by the deployment
demands of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
force structure and industrial base
6. Senator McCain. Admiral Clark, the LCS and all-electric
destroyer ((DD(X)) seem central to your transformation strategy. What
will be the impact on the Navy's force structure and the industrial
base if the current marks against the DD(X) and LCS stand?
Admiral Clark. The impact would be significant. For DD(X), the
proposed cut would eliminate funding for initiation of detail design
and procurement of long-lead materials to support start of fabrication
of the lead ship at the end of fiscal year 2007. Long-lead material
purchases include generators, propeller and shafting, gun mounts and
communications antennas. These items must be procured in fiscal year
2005 to ensure delivery by the ``in yard'' need date. A reduction of
funding to begin detail design and procurement of long-lead materials
for the lead ship in fiscal year 2005 will slip delivery of the first
DD(X) until fiscal year 2012, and may jeopardize the financial
viability of the second shipbuilder due to schedule slippage that will
migrate to follow ships as a result of the mark.
For LCS, in the event that the funds for LCS lead ship construction
are not provided, we will not be able to commence with detail design
and construction on schedule, effectively delaying lead ship delivery
by 1 year. In addition, it is important to understand that LCS mission
module integration risks are currently low, well understood, and
properly funded to allow the program to proceed as currently
scheduled--with mission modules ready for employment before the first
ship delivery in fiscal year 2007. A delay in lead ship construction
would not provide additional risk reduction in terms of ship-module
interface development.
7. Senator McCain. Admiral Clark, while you have come out publicly
supporting increasing shipbuilding to support a force structure of 375
ships, I am confused by some other statements you have made. You have
advocated reducing the total number of ships by decreasing the number
of amphibious ships and submarines as well as keeping more ships on
station while swapping out crews. This seems to be contradictory. Can
you explain?
Admiral Clark. The force structure of our Navy--present and
future--is under constant review to achieve the best combination of
capabilities and numbers. Future fleet size estimates are based on
emerging technologies, operational concepts, and real-world missions.
As we conduct technical experiments and validate more efficient ways to
generate combat power, we also revise fleet size estimates.
The Sea Swap operating concept, by which multiple crews are rotated
through ships that are deployed forward for great lengths of time,
shows particular promise. Sea Swap has the potential to greatly
increase the operational availability of our Navy, while providing
enhanced stability to deployment lengths for our sailors.
The global war on terrorism has also impacted Navy requirements.
Evolving missions such as precision strike, maritime interception
operations, intelligence gathering, and homeland defense, among others,
impact future fleet capabilities and composition estimates.
Review of new technologies, operating concepts, particularly Sea
Swap, and warfighting requirements have convinced me that we can
produce an operational availability with fewer than 375 ships. That
said, the analytical rigor required to identify a new 375-ship
equivalency is still ongoing. As we refine estimates of a smaller Navy
that is optimally sized and shaped for the 21st century, we will keep
Congress fully apprised.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
navy reallocation and the supplemental
8. Senator Collins. Admiral Clark, earlier this year, the Senate
passed a $25 billion supplemental appropriations bill to pay for
continuing efforts in the war on terrorism and Iraq. Recently, the
Navy, specifically the Navy Installations Command, reallocated $300
million from base operating budgets worldwide to the global war on
terrorism. I know this decision may affect a lot of people--for
example, firefighters from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard called my
office and told that 5-13 firefighting positions may be cut. This
really concerns me because I have to wonder if that $25 billion
supplemental was enough if we are now having to dig deeper into the
operating budgets. How do you view the $300 million reallocation and
how that will affect programs?
Admiral Clark. The $25 billion supplemental was provided after the
$300 million cost of war realignment of funds. The $300 million
reallocation to support the global war on terrorism was executed with a
close review of mission requirements and legal obligations. No
reductions in force or furlough actions--including firefighters from
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard--were part of this realignment of funds,
although some shore support services were curtailed or delayed to
support the reallocation.
dd(x) and littoral combat ship
9. Senator Collins. Admiral Clark, I know you have been a strong
supporter of the DD(X) and the Littoral Combat Ship. In fact, I was
pleased to see that you had sent a letter to the House Armed Services
Committee requesting that they restore full funding to these important
programs. How do you assess the future of these two programs and do you
believe their production schedule will stabilize?
Admiral Clark. Maritime Dominance in the 21st century requires a
naval force capable of projecting power and defeating anti- access
threats. DD(X) and LCS offer these vital capabilities for the future.
DD(X) will provide critical area control and deep striking power in
support of the Navy/Marine Corps team. LCS will be central to
dominating the near-land arena in which we operate in support of the
global war on terrorism.
While both DD(X) and LCS are on track and meeting major milestones,
it is important to note that actions taken by Congress in the fiscal
year 2005 budget process have impacted the rate and pace of future
deliveries. Changes in the funding approach submitted in the
President's fiscal year 2005 budget will delay DD(X) and impact the
delivery of the second and follow-on ships of the LCS class.
As a result of these actions, we are currently funded ($15.8
billion) to build one DD(X) in fiscal year 2007, one in fiscal year
2008, two in fiscal year 2009, two in fiscal year 2010, and one in
fiscal year 2011 for a total of seven across the Future Years Defense
Program. For LCS, we are funded ($5.1 billion) for 1 in fiscal year
2005, 1 in fiscal year 2006, 2 in fiscal year 2007, 3 in fiscal year
2008, and 5 per fiscal year from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2011
for a total of 22 since program start through the current Future Years
Defense Program.
The total number of ships to be built for each of these classes
will be determined based upon ongoing analysis of technologies,
warfighting requirements, and innovative manning concepts such as Sea
Swap and multi-crewing.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
attack submarine force levels
10. Senator Reed. Admiral Clark, the pre-hearing policy questions
asked about what considerations might permit 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 (COCOM)
and other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) needs.
Your answer discussed a number of considerations, including such
considerations as the duration of future conflicts, changes in threats,
changes in strategy and tactics, and forward basing options. Your
answer does not make clear that the requirements established by the
combatant commanders or other ISR needs would be among those
considerations. Also, based on previous Navy testimony, combatant
commander and ISR requirements exceed the currently available attack
submarine force's capability and have been steadily increasing over the
past 10 years or more.
Are the requirements established by the combatant commander or
other ISR needs not as important to these calculations as the
considerations you mention?
Admiral Clark. The requirements established by combatant commanders
(COCOM) and other ISR needs are central to our ongoing calculation of
optimum force structure. COCOM requirements are based upon both wartime
and peacetime needs. We have more than sufficient submarines to meet
wartime operational plan (OPLAN) requirements. However, peacetime ISR
requirements have driven submersible ship nuclear (SSN) force structure
calculations. These ISR needs are important to the COCOMs, and in
certain cases a SSN may be uniquely capable of satisfying a specific
ISR requirement. Having said that, as we transform our force and field
new technology we are committed to a process wherein requirements are
stated as desired outcomes, not inputs. Emerging technologies may
enable platforms with greater reach and aperture--including Navy,
Joint, and national sensors--to satisfy ISR needs historically met by
SSNs. Certainly the SSN's unrivaled stealth will continue to make it
the ideal, and perhaps uniquely qualified, asset to satisfy certain
COCOM collection requirements, but that determination should be made
based on validating desired outcomes rather than specifying certain
platforms. Given an objective outcome, we can optimize force employment
to deliver the proper warfare capabilities to satisfy ISR needs.
We will make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense based on a
differentiation between peacetime and wartime requirements, and we will
evaluate investment risk accordingly. With regard to ISR, we will
continually seek to evaluate the critical components of the warfighting
analysis to determine how to maintain and equip a viable capability for
the COCOMs. We will continue to make investment judgments using all
applicable variables to procure future capabilities, in close
coordination with the COCOMs, and will evaluate our capabilities and
programs to meet future requirements and seek efficiencies to improve
the operational availability of our forces.
______
[The nomination reference of ADM Vernon E. Clark, USN,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
October 22, 2003.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for reappointment as Chief of Naval
Operations, United States Navy, for an additional term of 2 years, and
appointment to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of
importance and responsibility under title 10, United States Code,
sections 601 and 5033:
To be Admiral
ADM Vernon E. Clark, 8489.
______
[The biographical sketch ADM Vernon E. Clark, USN, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Transcript of Naval Service for ADM Vernon Eugene Clark, U.S. Navy
07 SEP 1944 Born in Sioux City, Iowa.
23 AUG 1968 Ensign.
23 AUG 1969 Lieutenant junior grade.
02 MAY 1971 Lieutenant.
28 MAR 1972 Released from active duty.
03 FEB 1973 Reported for active duty.
07 MAR 1974 Augmented in the U.S. Navy.
01 JUL 1975 Lieutenant Commander.
01 SEP 1980 Commander.
01 JUN 1987 Captain.
22 JUL 1991 Designated Rear Admiral (lower half) while serving in
billets commensurate with that grade.
01 SEP 1992 Rear Admiral (lower half).
SEP 1994 Designated Rear Admiral while serving in billets
commensurate with that grade.
01 OCT 1995 Rear Admiral.
01 APR 1996 Vice Admiral.
11 AUG 1999 Designated Admiral while serving in billets
commensurate with that grade.
01 NOV 1999 Admiral, Service continuous to date.
Assignments and duties:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet Training Center, Norfolk, VA AUG 1968......... SEP 1968
(DUINS).
U.S.S. John W. Weeks (DD 701) (Main SEP 1968......... AUG 1970
Propulsion Asst/Engineer Officer).
U.S.S. Gearing (DD 710) (Engineer AUG 1970......... FEB 1972
Officer).
Office of CNO (Administrative FEB 1973......... MAY 1974
Asst.) (OP-96).
Naval Guided Missile School, Dam MAY 1974......... JUN 1974
Neck (DUINS).
CO, U.S.S. Grand Rapids (PG 98).... JUN 1974......... SEP 1976
Office of CNO (Personal Aide and SEP 1976......... DEC 1977
Administrative Asst. to DCNO,
Surface Warfare) (OP-03).
Office of CNO (Administrative Asst. DEC 1977......... MAR 1979
to VCNO) (OP-09).
CO, U.S.S. McCloy (FF 1038)........ MAR 1979......... JUN 1981
Staff, Commander, Naval Surface JUN 1981......... FEB 1983
Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (Force
ASW Officer).
Bureau of Naval Personnel (DUINS).. FEB 1983......... JUN 1983
Surface Warfare Officers School JUN 1983......... AUG 1983
Command (DUINS).
CO, U.S.S. Spruance (DD 963)....... AUG 1983......... NOV 1985
Naval War College (DUINS).......... NOV 1985......... MAR 1986
CO, Fleet Anti-Submarine Training MAR 1986......... DEC 1987
Center Atlantic.
Commander, Destroyer Squadron ONE DEC 1987......... JAN 1990
SEVEN.
Commander, Destroyer Squadron FIVE. JAN 1990......... JUL 1990
Office of Joint Chiefs of Staff JUL 1990......... JUL 1991
(Chief, PACOM Branch, J-3).
Director, Plans & Policy, J-5, and JUL 1991......... JUL 1993
Director, Program Analysis and
Financial Management, J-8, U.S.
Transportation Command.
Commander, Cruiser Destroyer Group AUG 1993......... NOV 1994
THREE.
Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic NOV 1994......... MAR 1996
Fleet (Deputy and Chief of Staff).
Commander, SECOND Fleet/Commander MAR 1996......... NOV 1997
Striking Fleet Atlantic.
Joint Staff (Director for NOV 1997......... NOV 1998
Operations) (J-3).
Joint Staff (Director)............. NOV 1998......... AUG 1999
Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic SEP 1999......... JUN 2000
Fleet.
Chief of Naval Operations.......... JUL 2000......... TO DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medals and awards:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal with two Gold Stars.
Navy ``E'' Ribbon with two ``Es''.
Distinguished Service Medal.
National Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Star.
Legion of Merit with two Gold Stars.
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.
Defense Meritorious Service Medal.
Vietnam Service Medal with two Bronze Stars.
Meritorious Service Medal with three Gold Stars.
Southwest Asia Service Medal with one Bronze Star.
Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal.
Sea Service Deployment Ribbon with one Silver Star.
Joint Meritorious Unit Award with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster.
Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon. Meritorious Unit
Commendation.
Special qualifications:
BA (Business Administration) Evangel College, 1967.
MA (Business Administration) University of Arkansas, 1968.
Designated Joint Specialty Officer, 1998.
Personal data:
Wife:
Connie Rae Nealy of Bay City, Texas.
Children:
Jeffrey Alan Clark (Son), Born: 5 August 1970;
Matthew Christopher Clark (Son), Born: 26 April 1974.
Summary of joint duty assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment Dates Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Joint Chiefs of Staff JUL 90-JUL 91......... CAPT
(Chief, PACOM Branch, J-3).
Director, Plans & Policy, J-5, and JUL 91-JUL 93......... RDML
Director, Program Analysis and
Financial Management, J-8, U.S.
Transportation Command.
Commander, SECOND Fleet/ Commander MAR 96-NOV 97......... VADM
Striking Fleet Atlantic.
Joint Staff (Director for NOV 97-NOV 98......... VADM
Operations) (J-3).
Joint Staff (Director)............ DEC 98-AUG 99......... VADM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
[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 Vernon E.
Clark, 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.)
Clark, Vernon E.
2. Position to which nominated:
Chief of Naval Operations.
3. Date of nomination:
October 22, 2003.
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 7, 1944; Sioux City, IA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Connie Rae (Nealy) Clark.
7. Names and ages of children:
Jeffrey A. Clark, 33 yrs.; Matthew Clark, 29 yrs.
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.
State--Virginia Military Advisory Council.
Local--Norfolk Military/Civilian Liaison Group.
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
None.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
Council on Foreign Relations.
Honorary Member, Naval Academy Alumni Association.
Co-Chairman, Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society.
11. Honors and awards: List all memberships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements other than those listed on the service record
extract provided to the committee by the executive branch.
2003 George P. Schultz Award for Public Service, June 2003.
Presented by the 45th Class of the United States Department of State
Foreign Service Institute Senior Seminar.
Meritorious Service Medal (Military), March 2003. Awarding
Official: Chief of Navy, Republic of Singapore Navy.
Knight Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal
Republic of Germany, November 2002. Awarding Official: President of
Federal Republic of Germany, on recommendation of Chief of Staff of
German Navy.
Grand Officer, Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, October
2002. Awarding Official: Chief of Staff, Italian Navy.
Rank of Commander of the ``Legion d'Honneur,'' April 2002. Awarding
Official: President, French Republic.
Order of National Security Merit, Tong-Il Medal, September 2001.
Awarding Official: Minister of National Defense of the Republic of
Korea, on behalf of the President of the Republic of Korea.
Japanese Medal Order of the Rising Sun, September 2001. Awarding
Official: Minister for Self Defense.
Naval Cross of the First Class, May 2001. Awarding Official: Chief
of Staff, Portuguese Navy.
National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) Service
Master Distinguished Graduate, January 1994: Presented to former
student athletes who have distinguished themselves in their
professions.
The General Superintendent's Medal of Honor, 1991: An award
presented to the outstanding layperson who distinguished themselves
through meritorious service to God, the church, community, and fellow
citizens. Presented by the Executive Presbytery of the General Counsel
of the Assemblies of God.
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?
I do 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?
I do agree, when asked before any duly constituted committee of
Congress, to give my personal views, even if those views differ from
the administration in power.
______
[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.
Vernon E. Clark.
This 21st day of January, 2004.
[The nomination of ADM Vernon E. Clark, USN, was reported
to the Senate by Chairman Warner on July 8, 2004, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 8, 2004.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. James E.
Cartwright, USMC, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with
answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms
brought about fundamental change in the manner in which the Department
of Defense (DOD) and the Services carry out the mission of national
security.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I support the Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. They have strengthened our Armed
Forces, joint operations and the effectiveness of our combatant
commanders.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The most positive aspect is overall improvement in our
joint military operations. The Goldwater-Nichols Act resulted in much
needed improvements in joint doctrine, joint professional military
education, and joint strategic planning. Another important element is
clarity in the chain of command from the National Command Authorities
to the combatant commanders and unambiguous responsibility placed upon
each combatant commander for execution of mission and preparedness of
assigned forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe the Department of Defense has vigorously and
successfully pursued implementation of these important reforms.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special
Operations 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. The law gives combatant commanders sufficient
authority to carry out their assigned missions. Additionally, the voice
of the combatant commanders has been strengthened in the resource
allocation process ensuring vital requirements are properly resourced.
Many complex joint operations conducted since the legislation was
enacted have demonstrated this effectiveness. These changes continue to
be vital to success of the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) strategic
deterrence mission as well as the newly assigned missions of global
strike, information operations, intelligence, surveillance,
reconnaissance (ISR), missile defense, and space.
Question. Do you foresee the need for additional modifications of
Goldwater-Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible
revisions to the national security strategy?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act has profoundly improved the
performance and capabilities of the American military establishment. We
have significantly improved our ability to conduct combat operations,
manage defense resources, streamline management practices, and address
organizational issues within the Department of Defense. The Department
has undertaken, and continues to refine and develop, several internal
processes that are further strengthening the spirit and intent of
Goldwater-Nichols. As we continue to improve the joint influence in
critical decisionmaking, the Goldwater-Nichols Act remains an important
and effective piece of legislation. As a result, I do not believe any
major revisions are required at this time. However, as with any of our
organizational constructs, we should not hesitate to challenge
underlying assumptions, initial intentions and plans as situations
change. Defense organization is important and deserves innovative
attention. Congress and the Department have recognized this with
efforts to look beyond Goldwater-Nichols. The results of these reviews
will better inform the debate concerning any potential changes required
to enhance our defense posture.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command?
Answer. The Commander, United States Strategic Command has
responsibility and control for all strategic forces in support of the
national security objective of strategic deterrence. The commander's
traditional role as custodian of our Nation's nuclear forces remains
paramount, and nothing can detract from this critical mission of
ensuring safety, reliability and positive control of our nuclear
forces. Additionally, the new Strategic Command structure created and
evolved during the past 2 years, includes further missions such as
kinetic and non-kinetic global strike, department-wide information
operations, ISR, space operations, and an integrator for missile
defense. In my view, Strategic Command as currently structured has
tremendous opportunities to view the international security environment
through an entirely new prism, and to continue to develop new
mechanisms for dealing with the global issues that face us. This global
perspective is critical as we further develop and integrate the other
elements of strategic operations to more completely and comprehensively
meet critical national security requirements.
Throughout the mission areas briefly mentioned above, the commander
exercises combatant command over the organization and operation of all
assigned forces and headquarters in accordance with public law and the
policies established by the Secretary of Defense. Additionally, he is a
primary advisor to the Secretary of Defense on strategic military
issues.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. Almost 33 years of service in the United States military
have prepared me for this position through a variety of Marine Corps
and Joint Assignments, in periods of peace, crisis and conflict,
alongside the finest soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast
Guardsmen in the world. I have commanded two aviation squadrons, a
Marine Aircraft Group, a Marine Aircraft Wing and was the Deputy
Commanding General of Fleet Marine Forces Atlantic. Operationally, I
have been fortunate to serve on numerous occasions overseas including
recent operational involvement in Bosnia and Operation Enduring
Freedom. I have been privileged to fill several Washington staff
positions including my current assignment as the Director of Force
Structure, Resources and Assessments on the Joint Staff, and previous
tours in other billets on the Joint Staff, Marine Corps Staff and
technical assignments in jet aircraft programs.
My career has included qualification as a Radar Intercept Officer,
Naval Aviator, as well as graduate-level education from two war
colleges.
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
in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command?
Answer. One of the great benefits of a military career is the
continuing opportunity to learn, and I certainly have much to continue
learning. Not only are we in a period of operationally challenging
activities surrounding the war on terror, I believe we are also in a
period of strategic transition, and the success of STRATCOM depends on
many factors and organizations outside the immediate command structure.
I have not worked regularly with several organizations that contribute
to the success of STRATCOM (examples: National Security Council,
Nuclear Weapons Council, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Department of
Energy-National Nuclear Security Administration and others). If
confirmed, I will make it a priority to become more familiar with these
organizations and the contributions they make to the success of our
missions.
relationships
Question. 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. Strategic Command, to the following officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. In accordance with title 10, United States Code, section
164, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (CDR STRATCOM) performs
his duties under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary
of Defense. CDR STRATCOM is directly responsible to the Secretary of
Defense for the preparedness of the command and the ability to carry
out missions assigned to the command.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. In accordance with title 10, United States Code, section
132, the Deputy Secretary of Defense will perform duties and exercise
powers as prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, and in the absence of
the Secretary of Defense, perform his duties. If confirmed, I intend to
work closely with the Deputy Secretary on all strategic matters.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, and current DOD directives
establish the Under Secretaries of Defense as the principal staff
assistants and advisors to the Secretary of Defense regarding matters
related to specific functional areas. Within these areas, the Under
Secretaries exercise policy and oversight functions, and in discharging
their responsibilities the Under Secretaries may issue instructions and
directive memoranda that implement policy approved by the Secretary.
Communication lines between under secretaries and combatant commanders
is direct unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy on all strategic policy issues.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, and current DOD directives
establish the Under Secretaries of Defense as the principal staff
assistants and advisors to the Secretary of Defense regarding matters
related to specific functional areas. Within these areas, the Under
Secretaries exercise policy and oversight functions, and in discharging
their responsibilities the Under Secretaries may issue instructions and
directive memoranda that implement policy approved by the Secretary.
Communication lines between under secretaries and combatant commanders
is direct unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence in defining and attaining command goals in the
area of intelligence.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, and current DOD directives
establish the Under Secretaries of Defense as the principal staff
assistants and advisors to the Secretary of Defense regarding matters
related to specific functional areas. Within these areas, the Under
Secretary exercises policy and oversight functions, and in discharging
their responsibilities the Under Secretary may issue instructions and
directive memoranda that implement policy approved by the Secretary.
Communication lines between under secretaries and combatant commanders
is direct unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on command issues
pertaining to his departmental responsibilities.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Policy.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Policy (ISP) is subordinate to the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy. Any relationship U.S. Strategic Command would require with
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for ISP would be with and through
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense.
Answer. Relations with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Homeland Defense would be conducted along the same lines as those
discussed above regarding relations with the Under Secretaries of
Defense. If confirmed, I look forward to working with U.S. Northern
Command, U.S. Pacific Command and the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Homeland Defense on command-related national security issues.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman is clearly established by title 10, United
States Code, as the principal military advisor to the President,
National Security Council, and Secretary of Defense. He serves as an
advisor and is not in the chain of command that runs from the National
Command Authorities (NCA) directly to each combatant commander. The law
does allow the President to direct that communications between the NCA
and the combatant commanders be transmitted through the chairman. This
action keeps the chairman fully involved so that he can execute his
other responsibilities. By law and to the extent directed by the
Secretary of Defense, the chairman serves as spokesman for the
combatant commanders and is charged with overseeing their activities.
He provides a vital linkage between the combatant commanders and other
elements of the Department of Defense. The legal duties of the chairman
are many and they require either his representation or personal
participation in a wide range of issues. If confirmed, I will also have
an obligation in accordance with title 10, United States Code, to keep
the Secretary of Defense promptly informed on matters for which he may
hold me personally accountable. If confirmed, I will work with and
through the chairman in the execution of my duties.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, section 165, provides that,
subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of
Defense and subject to the authority of combatant commanders, the
Secretaries of military departments are responsible for the
administration and support of the forces they have assigned to
combatant commands. The authority exercised by a combatant commander
over Service components is quite clear, but requires close coordination
with each secretary to ensure there is no infringement upon those
lawful responsibilities a Service Secretary alone may discharge.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. As a result of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Service
Chiefs are no longer involved in the operational chain of command. They
now have two significant roles. First, their primary function is to
provide organized, trained, and equipped forces to be employed by the
combatant commander in the accomplishment of assigned missions.
Additionally, as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service
Chiefs have a lawful obligation to provide military advice.
Individually and collectively, the Service Chiefs are a source of
experience and judgment every combatant commander can and should call
upon. If confirmed, I would work closely and confer regularly with the
Service Chiefs.
Question. The Combatant Commanders, including Commander, U.S.
Northern Command.
Answer. The Commander of STRATCOM has both supported and supporting
relationships with the other combatant commanders. These relationships
are primarily identified in the Unified Command Plan, the Forces For
Unified Commands Memorandum, the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan,
specific command arrangement agreements, Operations Plan, and
contingency plans. In general, STRATCOM is the supported combatant
commander for the national strategic war plan, and is a supporting
combatant commander for many remaining plans and missions. The new
missions recently added to STRATCOM create opportunities to further
develop the supporting/supported command relationships between the
combatant commands. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the
other combatant commands to broaden and enhance the level and range of
these supporting/supported relationships, especially in the areas of
information warfare/operations, ISR, space operations, missile defense,
and global strike.
Question. The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration
Answer. In accordance with title 32, section 3212, of the National
Nuclear Security Act of 1999, the Administrator is responsible to the
Secretary of Energy for all Department of Energy programs and
activities involving the production, safety, and security of nuclear
energy and nuclear weapons--including the stockpile stewardship
program. Though the Administrator is outside the Defense Department's
chain of command, these issues are of concern to STRATCOM as well, and
if confirmed, I will work closely and confer regularly with the
Administrator.
Question. The Director of the Missile Defense Agency.
Answer. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) serves as the missile
defense systems engineering and development organization for the
Department of Defense. It provides the research, development, testing,
and evaluation of the missile defense and associated support systems
that would be employed by the combatant commanders. U.S. Strategic
Command maintains a close and continuous relationship with the Director
of the MDA as they develop the systems to support our warfighting
requirements. In accordance with Unified Command Plan, Change Two, U.S.
Strategic Command advocates and ensures desired ballistic missile
defense and missile-warning characteristics and capabilities of
combatant commanders are properly represented to MDA.
Question. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, section 139, provides that
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation is appointed from
civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate. The Director is the principal adviser to the Secretary of
Defense on operational test and evaluation in the Department of Defense
and the principal operational test and evaluation official with the
senior management of the Department of Defense. The director may
communicate views on matters within the responsibility of the office of
Operational Test and Evaluation directly to the Secretary of Defense.
If confirmed, I will work closely with and seek the advice of the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in assessing the progress
of command programs of interest.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Commander, U.S. Strategic Command?
Answer. The responsibilities of U.S. Strategic Command were
recently broadened to help advance a global perspective on current and
emerging capabilities and to enhance DOD ability to counter potential
threats to our national security. Significant progress has been made in
developing capabilities within all of the previously unassigned mission
areas and, if confirmed, I look forward to continuing the efforts of my
predecessor. As I look ahead, I see challenges along several fronts.
Most significant of these is ensuring the ability to sustain and
develop a corps of well-trained professionals with the technical
competence to advance all assigned mission area disciplines, within
both the operational and scientific realms. The right, properly skilled
people will be key to tackling other important issues such as ensuring
a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, advancing credible and
effective strategic deterrent capabilities and expanding command and
control architectures beyond the legacy nuclear mission to help
effectively integrate all of STRATCOM's strategic mission areas.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to build upon the excellent
work of my predecessor and ensure we further operationalize the global
missions assigned to STRATCOM in order to create a coherent integration
effort that will provide greater, more flexible capabilities and
options to the other combatant commanders and the National Command
Authority. I will also seek to develop and nurture an effective
organization comprised of talented, educated forces focused on
strengthening our capabilities to adapt to strategic challenges
wherever they may arise. If confirmed, I intend to build upon the
cooperation which STRATCOM already enjoys with other combatant
commanders to promote improved planning, intelligence, exercises,
resource management, information operations and security, force
protection, and command and control so that the Nation is better
prepared to respond appropriately to a variety of potential
contingencies.
strategic threats
Question. In your view, what are the most serious strategic threats
facing the United States today?
Answer. The globalization of our Nation's security landscape has
demanded fundamental defense policy shifts. The United States will face
an array of potential adversaries whose political, cultural, and
idiosyncratic differences will complicate our efforts to protect vital
U.S. interests at home and abroad. We face four persistent and emerging
global challenges: the traditional adversaries, unconventional non-
state or state supported actors, catastrophic use of WMD or methods,
and disruptive capabilities to supplant our advantages in particular
operational domains. We must change the way we think about strategic
deterrence to provide the President with a wider range of deterrent
capabilities that effectively address the new set of challenges we face
today.
Question. What future strategic threats should the United States
prepare for?
Answer. Considering the ambiguities today's environment holds as
discussed above, it is difficult to clearly define all threats the U.S.
may face in the future. That said, within the STRATCOM realm of
responsibility, several significant challenges do seem to present
themselves in my opinion: cyber threats, threats to assured access and
use of space, weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles are
all areas where rising challenges can be seen. Encompassing yet also
exceeding the traditional military domain, the first two are vitally
important to our daily way-of-life and economic well-being nationwide.
Likewise, the second two pose threats with obviously devastating
consequences. As we develop plans and potential responses to these
known threats, we need to ensure capabilities developed for known
challenges possess the flexibility to deal with what we do not predict
today.
u.s. strategic command missions
Question. In an overarching sense, how do you define the U.S.
Strategic Command mission?
Answer. U.S. Strategic Command was created to advance a global
perspective on current and emerging capabilities to counter threats to
our national security. The mission of U.S. Strategic Command is to
establish and provide full-spectrum global strike, coordinated space
and information operations, integrate missile defense, global C\4\ISR,
specialized planning expertise to joint warfighters as well as
retaining the legacy missions for our nuclear forces.The intent is to
meet both deterrent and decisive national security objectives globally.
Question. U.S. Strategic Command has absorbed several new missions
in the last 2 years, including ballistic missile defense, space
operations, ISR, information operations, and computer network security.
How successful has U.S. Strategic Command been at integrating these
new missions and acquiring the expertise needed to perform them?
Answer. I understand that STRATCOM headquarters has realigned,
refocused, and is energized across the full range of missions assigned.
New concepts have been shaped, innovative relationships crafted,
aggressive milestones established, and real progress is being made
towards full operational capability in the missions assigned by the
Unified Command Plan. If confirmed, I will continue to seek mechanisms,
component relationships, and relationships with other combatant
commanders that further develop the flexibility of pre-existing
capabilities and expertise resident within the DOD and other agencies
to support U.S. Strategic Command's missions. Additionally, we will
continue coherent integration to advance efforts that provide new and
innovative capabilities allowing the Secretary of Defense and President
more flexible options in support of our strategic interests.
Question. What organizational challenges remain at U.S. Strategic
Command related to these new missions? Specifically, what additional
work, if any, remains to be done and what expertise, if any, needs to
be acquired for these new missions?
Answer. The assignment of forces, where appropriate, and
establishment of effective component relationships with Services and
Agencies, as well as strong ties with our allies will continue to
transform our Nation's security posture as directed in the Unified
Command Plan. Partnerships with civilian agencies, private industry,
and academia are vital to successfully accomplish U.S. Strategic
Command's missions. If confirmed, I will investigate what if any
challenges remain and how best to address any shortfalls I discover.
Question. If confirmed, would you recommend or support any changes
in the missions currently assigned to U.S. Strategic Command? If so,
what changes would you recommend?
Answer. U.S. Strategic Command has achieved full operational
capability for the oversight and direction of all currently assigned
missions. Each mission area, however, continues to develop and, if
confirmed, I will continue to apply all of the commands resources to
achieve full operational capability in each mission area. However, I
believe that until U.S. Strategic Command achieves full operational
capability in all missions, significant changes to these assigned
missions should not be made.
ballistic missile defense
Question. How do you view the role of the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command, related to ballistic missile defense?
Answer. The Unified Command Plan directs STRATCOM to plan,
integrate, coordinate global missile defense operations and support for
missile defense, as well as to develop and advocate for all combatant
commands missile defense characteristics and capabilities. I understand
that STRATCOM has already established a Global Missile Defense
Strategic Concept and is developing operational procedures to execute
its Unified Command Plan missions. If confirmed, my role is to continue
to provide a clear voice for other Combatant Commanders with Defense
Agencies on advocating requirements and concepts of operations; and,
during crisis, to provide sound alternatives for the Secretary of
Defense and President across the spectrum of missile defense responses,
including global strike and information operations (offensive-defense
integration).
Question. If confirmed, would you recommend or support any changes
in the authorities of Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, as they relate
to ballistic missile defense?
Answer. At present, it appears that the level of authority given to
Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, as they relate to ballistic missile
defense, is appropriate.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you anticipate playing in
the assessment of the military utility of ballistic missile defenses
against short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missiles?
Answer. U.S. Strategic Command is responsible for conducting a
Military Utility Assessment (MUA) of the Ballistic Missile Defense
System. Overall, the MUA serves as a progress report to the Secretary
of Defense on the progress to date and the ultimate utility of the
system. It is designed to support two purposes. First, to provide the
combatant commanders' view of the military utility of the Ballistic
Missile Defense System at Initial Defensive Operations in 2004. Second,
to provide the combatant commander's assessment of the Ballistic
Missile Defense Systems Initial Defensive Operations capabilities and
limitations.
Question. What are your views on the relationship between ballistic
missile defenses and nuclear deterrence?
Answer. The significant changes in the post-Cold War environment
call into question the framework and analysis used at the height of the
Cold War when bipolar, offensive based strategic deterrence worked
well. Deterrence theory needs to adapt to the multi-faceted, multi-
threat world of today. A more comprehensive framework, including
missile defense, can integrate additional elements of military strategy
and deny an adversary specific benefits, to complement offensive
nuclear forces and assure sustainment of a deterrent capability. Robust
missile defenses can make the U.S. an even more valuable partner to
friends and allies and possibly begin to devalue the expensive, long-
range missiles to potential rivals or foes.
Question. From the perspective of the warfighter, do you believe
that the spiral acquisition of ballistic missile defenses through
concurrent fielding, development, testing, and operations is
appropriate?
Answer. Spiral acquisition methods facilitate collaborative
processes that could incorporate rapidly evolving technologies and
address ballistic missile threats in a dynamic and unpredictable
security environment. I anticipate concurrent fielding activities will
not only provide timely defensive coverage, but will also expedite
inclusion of operational input from combatant commanders.
Question. Do you believe that the exploitation of the operational
capabilities of the ballistic missile test bed provides a militarily
useful capability and contributes to deterrence?
Answer. If we are able to realize the operational capabilities,
they will provide two fundamental benefits. First, we gain a
rudimentary defensive capability against near term threats for the
United States. Second, as we exercise and test the system, we will
develop better procedures and experience to ultimately transition from
a primarily test configuration into full operational capability status.
Question. In your view, at what stage in the deployment of missile
defense capabilities should operationally realistic testing be
conducted?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine the current state of
operational testing as we prepare for initial defensive operations
later this year. U.S. Strategic Command is tasked with operationalizing
the capabilities being developed by the Missile Defense Agency. As an
operational commander, it is essential to ensure that deployed systems
will work as designed.
I understand that the operational test bed system to be deployed
this fall is a rudimentary system that will provide the capability upon
which to continue further spiral development work. In coordination with
the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation and Missile Defense
Agency, U.S. Strategic Command will assess, through the Military
Utility Assessment, the degree to which delivered capabilities support
execution of the missile defense mission with a focus on effectiveness,
interoperability and suitability. We will quantify system performance
and assess mission execution, fully aware of the developmental
capabilities and limitations identified. Observations and insights on
system performance gained from wargames will also be added to determine
whether modifications to tactics, techniques and procedures can enhance
system capabilities.
space
Question. What is your view on the responsiveness of current space
systems to meet warfighter needs?
Answer. Our Nation's space systems have served us well and the
importance of space systems and the warfighting capabilities they
afford are widely recognized across the Services and combatant
commands. However, many of these systems are reaching the end of their
useful life, posing challenges in our future ability to collect, assess
and transmit timely, actionable information.
Question. What is your view of the ability of the DOD to develop
and deploy spaces systems in a cost-effective and timely manner?
Answer. While there have been challenges with the cost and schedule
performance of DOD space programs, I believe we understand the
underlying reasons for many of those problems. I believe that with
closer attention to three vital areas: the technical, intellectual, and
industrial bases, we should be able to provide a greater impetus for
success.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe might be necessary to
improve the responsiveness of current space systems?
Answer. The Department is aggressively working to improve the
responsiveness of space systems. To achieve optimum responsiveness, I
believe focus areas for improvement must address the following key
attributes: horizontal integration--ensuring space capabilities are
integrated with programs serving other functional areas; persistent
capability; survivable and not bandwidth limited; and rooted in a
responsive launch capability.
Question. In your view, what are the most important unmet
requirements for space systems?
Answer. Persistent surveillance, increased bandwidth,
survivability, and horizontal integration are all key attributes which,
if confirmed, I would continue to advocate as key enhancements required
of our future space systems. I would also advocate investments in
science and technology to maintain our space pre-eminence well into the
future.
Question. What do you believe should be done to meet those
requirements, and what space programs should be accorded highest
priority?
Answer. I believe we should further develop those capabilities that
provide assured, worldwide survivable communications, persistent
surveillance and those systems which support these capabilities. The
Department has several ongoing programs to address these capability
shortfall areas including Transformational Satellite Communications
(TSAT), Space-Based Infrared (SBIRS), and Space-Based Radar (SBR) and
Operationally Responsive Launch (ORL).
Question. How important, in your view, is persistent surveillance?
What programs do you believe are best able to provide this capability?
Answer. Persistent surveillance is paramount to better
understanding of adversary intentions and movements and a key
contributor to a credible strategic deterrent. As our adversaries learn
more about our current surveillance systems, they are able to exploit
gaps in our coverage. Shorter revisit times provided by enhanced
persistence allow us to operate inside an adversary's decision cycle,
minimizing the potential for him to conduct complex activities out of
our view. Importantly, I believe integrated airborne and space ISR
programs must be employed to provide the persistence this Nations
requires.
Question. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004, Congress approved a national policy to support two space launch
vehicles, or families of launch vehicles, capable of launching national
security payloads into space.
What, in your view, should the United States do in the future, and
what steps would you take if confirmed, to ensure continued reliable
access to space?
Answer. The U.S. must maintain assured access to space. While most
of the recent focus has been on launch vehicles, there are several
other elements that help comprise the overall capabilities for the end-
to-end process necessary for reliable access to space. If confirmed, I
will support continued emphasis in all critical areas of space access
including space ranges, launch facilities, support infrastructure,
launch vehicles and launch services.
Question. Do you believe that the Nation should sustain redundant
space launch capabilities?
Answer. There is always increased risk when relying exclusively on
one system to achieve a particular capability. The history of the Space
Shuttle program is ample evidence of the vulnerability in reliance on a
single launch system. Our Nation's launch capability must be affordable
and balanced against all elements required to maintain assured access
to space.
Question. How important, in your view, is the Air Force
Operationally Responsive Launch program?
Answer. Robust augmentation and reconstitution of the capabilities
addressed by operationally responsive launch programs will allow the
warfighter to rapidly insert emerging technologies and meet the
flexibility demands necessary for today's operational concepts.
Question. In your view, what are the most significant challenges
that the U.S. faces in military space programs and policy?
Answer. I believe the most significant challenges are improving
U.S. launch capabilities, improving space-based ISR, reducing space
system vulnerabilities, improving satellite communications, and
assuring access to space. Operations in Iraq last year provided a wake
up call to potential vulnerabilities of space systems we take for
granted (like Global Positioning System (GPS)). If confirmed, I intend
to remain committed to strengthening our space systems and ensure
horizontal integration of space with other functional air, land, and
sea capabilities.
cruise missile defense
Question. In your view, how serious is the vulnerability of our
Nation and deployed military forces to the cruise missile threat?
Answer. This is a serious threat. Numerous states continue to
improve their ballistic and cruise missiles, focusing on longer range,
better accuracy and deployment of new units. The preponderance of the
cruise missiles under development can carry nuclear, biological, or
chemical warheads and submunitions. Thus, prudent defense planning,
active defense design, and command and control systems--both for
homeland defense and regional defense of deployed forces and interests
abroad--require that cruise missiles be considered. The actual
assessment of vulnerability of specific targets is situation dependent
and is considered in both homeland and regional defense planning.
Question. What role do you believe U.S. Strategic Command should
play in the cruise missile defense of our Nation?
Answer. The Unified Command Plan (Change 2, 10 Jan 03) directs
STRATCOM to plan, integrate, coordinate global missile defense
operations and support for missile defense, as well as to develop and
advocate for all combatant commands missile defense characteristics and
capabilities. An integrated missile defense architecture must consider
all credible threats including cruise missiles. STRATCOM is positioned,
both by law and breadth of program oversight-space operations,
offense--defense integration, and active defense integration--to
provide leadership for integrating of cruise missile defense into
existing capabilities. If confirmed, I will work closely with other
combatant commanders, defense agencies and material developers in this
regard.
nuclear deterrence
Question. What is your view of the significance of the nuclear
triad in today's military and strategic environment?
Answer. The New Triad outlined in the Nuclear Posture Review allows
us to adapt to new threats and also provide our national leaders a
greater range of response options than ever before. I support the
transition to our New Triad, which provides for a range of capabilities
beyond our traditional nuclear forces. That said, the capabilities
provided by the three components of our offensive nuclear forces are
still very relevant today. They provide diversity in our deployed force
that remains a viable and desired attribute in our New Triad. The three
nuclear delivery means complicate potential adversary's attack
planning, hedge against wholesale failure by one or more systems,
reduces the risk of technological obsolescence by countermeasures
developed against any particular system, and likewise, forces
adversary's to consider a broad range of defense measures for
themselves. The deterrent value and flexibility of options available
has been greatly expanded by adding the elements included in the New
Triad thereby increasing overall strategic value to the Nation.
Question. If confirmed, what priority would you place on sustaining
and modernizing the nuclear triad and what steps would you recommend in
that regard?
Answer. As our Nation comes to rely on a numerically smaller
deployed strategic nuclear force, the imperative for modernizing and
sustaining that force becomes even more critical to ensure a continued
viable deterrent. If confirmed, I would give priority to supporting on
going life extension programs to strategic nuclear platforms, and
planned life extension programs for our nuclear stockpile. Programs
such as these are, in some cases, multi-decade long events and require
continuous support to ensure their successful conclusion. These are the
core nuclear deterrent capabilities and must be supported.
Question. The Nuclear Posture Review recommended a new triad
consisting of offensive forces, both nuclear and conventional;
defenses, both active and passive; and a responsive infrastructure to
support those forces. With respect to offensive forces, the Nuclear
Posture Review called for improved conventional strike capabilities and
nuclear forces tailored to deter adversaries.
Do you support the conclusions of the Nuclear Posture Review?
Answer. Yes. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) provided a good
conceptual re-examination of our forces and posture and established a
viable new framework to re-set how we consider our strategic Triad. The
New Triad provides the Nation a more robust flexible capability that
does not only rely on offensive response as the sole deterrent
mechanism.
Question. Do you believe that there is a minimum number of
strategic nuclear weapons needed to sustain a viable deterrent posture?
Answer. I support the President's commitment to reduce the nuclear
stockpile to the lowest number possible consistent with our national
security needs. I also support the goals laid out in the Moscow Treaty
of reducing our operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons to
between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012.
Question. Do you believe new nuclear weapons are needed or will be
needed to support a viable deterrent posture?
Answer. I do not foresee a need in the immediate future, but we
need to ensure the Nation retains the response infrastructure that is
capable of development, production, and fielding as a hedge against
future uncertainty. I support the President's commitment to reduce the
nuclear stockpile to the lowest number possible consistent with our
national security needs. I also support the goals laid out in the
Moscow Treaty of reducing our operationally deployed strategic nuclear
weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012.
Question. In your view, what steps, if any, are appropriate to
tailor our nuclear forces to the new strategic environment?
Answer. Our immediately required actions are already underway as a
result of the NPR and the recent stockpile reduction plan. As we
develop the legs of the New Triad, we will be able to further consider
appropriate changes to our existing nuclear forces. Any re-examination
should look to ensure our stockpile is capabilities-based while
simultaneously maintaining safety and security.
Question. In your view, is there a relationship between U.S.
nuclear deterrence policy and nonproliferation policy? If so, please
describe the relationship.
Answer. A credible nuclear deterrent has been an important
nonproliferation tool that has removed incentives for many allies to
develop and deploy their own nuclear forces. Nuclear weapons, in
concert with treaty and alliance structures, have assured allies the
U.S. will deter, prevent, or limit damage to them from adversary
attacks. Our newly expanded definition of deterrence may in fact help
discourage further proliferation. While some developing and existing
nuclear powers may continue their improvement efforts, as U.S.
defensive capabilities improve, this may devalue the enormous expense
required to initiate nuclear capability development and lessen the
proliferation drive from aspiring participants.
hard and deeply buried targets
Question. In your view, how adequate are current efforts to address
hard and deeply buried targets?
Answer. There are hard and deep buried targets in existence today
that are difficult for us to place at risk. Deterrence requires we be
able to hold these targets at risk--potential adversaries obviously
value them highly or they would not go the trouble of deep location and
hardened protection. If confirmed, I desire to comprehensively assess
the full spectrum of capabilities necessary to place these targets at
risk, both kinetically and nonkinetically.
Question. If confirmed, would you support or recommend steps to
improve the management or coordination of development efforts to hold
at risk hard and deeply buried targets?
Answer. I wholeheartedly support identifying and analyzing the
capabilities the Nation desires against such types of targets. The
ultimate capability required will better direct particular development
efforts across the broad spectrum of potential military solutions--
kinetic and nonkinetic, nuclear, and conventional.
Question. Do you support development of new or modified nuclear
weapons to hold at risk hard or deeply buried targets?
Answer. I believe we need to first determine the capability we
desire against such targets and then evaluate all material and non-
material solutions to engage them. Nuclear weapons are only one of many
potential arrows that we could carry in our quiver against hard and
deep buried targets.
arms control
Question. In the last several years, the United States ratified the
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty with Russia and withdrew from the
1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
What is your view of the significance of strategic arms control
agreements in the current environment?
Answer. Arms control agreements still remain a central feature in
the strategic environment we face with other state-based actors. The
recently ratified Moscow Treaty highlights this importance and will
facilitate reductions in nuclear arsenals. However, our rapidly
evolving security environment is no longer hinged on a static, bi-polar
relationship and the certain stability and predictability that
framework brought. In the future, arms control may need to place
greater emphasis on managing strategic uncertainty than on codification
of specific force structures.
Question. If confirmed, what arms control initiatives, or other
forms of cooperative initiatives related to armaments, if any, would
you recommend?
Answer. As stated above, the evolving strategic environment may
require us to reconsider the basic underpinnings of future arms control
agreements. Regardless of any potential specific initiative, I feel
future agreements will still have to possess confidence building
measures, maintain linkage to the broader dictates of U.S. foreign and
defense policy goals, provide timely and rapidly accessible
information, be developed in consultation and cooperation with Congress
and our allies, and most importantly, provide protection mechanisms
against the shock of unexpected strategic developments.
Question. In your view, should the U.S. continue to abide by a
moratorium on nuclear weapons testing?
Answer. I support our current policy and program of science-based
Stockpile Stewardship. However, while this is currently sufficient, we
should not preclude the ability to resume such tests if serious
technical issues, or other factors, call into question our data
analysis or reliability of the nuclear stockpile. I feel we need to
retain our capability for testing even while we honor the moratorium on
such tests.
global strike
Question. Are you satisfied with Service efforts to provide
appropriate weapon systems and platforms to support the U.S. Strategic
Command global strike mission?
Answer. With close cooperation of the Air Force and Navy, the
Secretary of Defense just signed the Interim Global Strike Alert Order,
which provides the President a prompt, global strike capability. Today,
we rely upon Navy Tomahawk missiles and Air Force bombers carrying
conventional cruise missiles, Joint Direct Attack Munitions and other
gravity released weapons to provide this kinetic-kill solution, and our
global command and control reach. U.S. Strategic Command is responsible
for the advocacy of kinetic and nonkinetic capabilities that could be
adapted to the global strike mission. As the Services develop new, even
more responsive kinetic and nonkinetic solutions, global strike
capabilities will achieve the desired effects with far greater time
responsiveness.
Question. What strike weapon systems and platforms do you believe
are most important in this regard?
Answer. Global strike capabilities must have a global reach and
unimpeded access as well as timely response to any threat to national
security. While today's global strike capability is limited, if
confirmed, I will advocate advancements in kinetic and nonkinetic
solutions that improve global reach and access. Global Strike
effectiveness will be limited, however, without robust ISR. We must
continue to improve our persistent ISR capability to obtain warning and
necessary targeting information to find and fix a target before we can
neutralize or destroy it through Global Strike kinetic or nonkinetic
weaponry.
Question. In your view, what steps should be taken over the next 10
years to modernize and sustain the bomber fleet?
Answer. The long range bomber fleet is an essential element of the
Nation's strategic deterrent force and STRATCOM's nuclear and Global
Strike capability. The Air Force is currently executing plans to
sustain and modernize our bomber fleet through 2037. Programmed
upgrades to all three platforms including radar modernization,
survivable communications and defensive/offensive systems upgrades are
essential for the fleet to fulfill the new combat capabilities demanded
by Global Strike. If confirmed, I intend to keep the Command fully
engaged in advocating associated requirements and improving the fleet's
concepts of operation.
stockpile stewardship program
Question. What is your view of how well the Stockpile Stewardship
Program is proceeding towards its goal of being able to continuously
assess and annually certify the U.S. enduring nuclear weapons stockpile
as safe, secure, and reliable, without the need for underground nuclear
testing?
Answer. The science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program continues
to improve and the combined efforts of STRATCOM and the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) should be able to continue to
certify the safety and reliability of the stockpile without resorting
to underground testing anytime in the near future. To the best of my
knowledge, we have no immediate need to, and no current plans to,
recommence underground testing. What I think we do not want to do is
preclude our ability to resume such tests if we find technically
compelling reasons in future that call into question our data or
weapons reliability.
Question. In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges for the
Stockpile Stewardship Program?
Answer. I think the program faces several challenges. The first is
maintaining sufficient funding to ensure our current facilities are
developed and maintained to world-class standards to support our
national security requirements. The second major challenge as I
understand it, is an acute aging of the scientific/engineering
community in several areas of nuclear weapons research. This is
particularly evident in the nuclear effects arena. Throughout a variety
of nuclear weapons related scientific and engineering activities there
is a lack of young scientists and engineers available and willing to
undertake and persist in requisite apprenticeships to replace the
expertise that is and soon will be retiring. Finally, as our stockpile
ages, I believe we may need to reevaluate the baseline assumptions of a
purely science based approach as there is little to no experience in
extrapolating such complex matters over long periods of time. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with our partners at NNSA in
addressing these potential challenges.
pit production capability and modern pit facility
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy stated in
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 14,
2002, ``I believe that of the countries that have nuclear weapons, we
are the only one that does not have the capability to manufacture new
nuclear weapons now.'' Since that time, Los Alamos National Laboratory
has added the capability to manufacture small numbers of W88 pits,
however, the United States still does not have a flexible production
capability.
What is your view of the need for the United States to restore its
pit production capability beyond the limited capability at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory?
Answer. The third leg of our new triad of flexible response
capabilities is an R&D and industrial infrastructure needed to develop,
build, and maintain nuclear offensive forces and defensive systems. The
limited pit production capability at Los Alamos is one element of this
Triad leg that is lacking in sufficient capability should the need
arise. In order to be responsive, achieve the planned stockpile
reductions without further risk, and maintain our commitment to a
second-to-none strategic deterrent, it is vital that the U.S. develop a
more robust pit production capability.
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, U.S. Strategic
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.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator John McCain
assured access to space
1. Senator McCain. General Cartwright, in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Congress approved a policy to
support two space launch vehicles capable to support a policy of
assured access to space. The result has been significant cost overruns
to the taxpayer in keeping duplicate systems in place. Do you believe
we should reconsider this policy in favor of affordable access to space
at any time, rather than assured access to space at any cost?
General Cartwright. United States national security is highly
dependent on space capabilities. It is essential that our combatant
commanders be provided these capabilities when needed. We are moving
toward the next generation of launch technologies that should give us
reliable, routine, and affordable access to space in the future.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
icbm and nuclear weapons
2. Senator Reed. General Cartwright, there are several studies
underway looking at the next generation bomber or other options for
long range global strike in the future. There are a wide variety of
options including manned and unmanned vehicles under discussion. In
addition, the Air Force will shortly begin to conduct an analysis of
alternatives for a new land-based intercontinental ballistic missile
(ICBM). Options that are being suggested in both contexts include using
conventional warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles. Have you
looked at this option; and, if you have, do you have any thoughts on
whether it is practical, affordable, and how it would not be confused
with a nuclear ICBM?
General Cartwright. The Services are examining several
possibilities of conventional strike through space to provide a
practical, affordable global strike capability. This effort meets the
Nuclear Posture Review goal of enhancing our deterrent posture with a
mix of advanced concepts, to provide a full range of options for our
Nation's leaders. Initial studies indicate there is a set of workable
and affordable measures that could effectively reduce the risk of any
major power confusing a conventional strike with a nuclear attack.
3. Senator Reed. General Cartwright, are there any military
requirements for new nuclear weapons?
General Cartwright. Currently, there is no military requirement for
a new nuclear weapon. The military does have a requirement to defeat
hard and deeply buried targets that currently cannot be held at risk.
We are studying several options to achieve this capability.
4. Senator Reed. General Cartwright, what are your views on whether
new nuclear weapons are needed and under what circumstances?
General Cartwright. Currently, there is no military requirement to
develop a ``new'' nuclear weapon. As stated in the 2001 Quadrennial
Defense Review and Nuclear Posture Review, the post-September 11 future
is uncertain and requires a force structure that can effectively adapt
to unexpected shifts in the geo-political landscape. I cannot
anticipate whether future circumstances may drive the development of a
completely ``new'' nuclear weapon.
nuclear policy and nonproliferation
5. Senator Reed. General Cartwright, it has been said that the
world watches us like a hawk when it comes to nuclear weapons and
nuclear policy. If the United States should decide to develop new
nuclear weapons or resume nuclear weapons testing in support of either
new or modified nuclear weapons, what signal would this send or what
impact would it have on those countries that are seeking nuclear
weapons, such as Iran or North Korea?
General Cartwright. Deterrence is the capacity to dissuade others
from taking action contrary to our vital interests by maintenance of
overwhelming power. Nuclear capabilities are a cornerstone of our
national deterrence strategy. Maintaining the safety and reliability of
those weapons demonstrate a strong national resolve to remain a global
power. The decision to resume testing lays with the President of the
United States if a need arises.
nuclear weapons testing
6. Senator Reed. General Cartwright, in pre-hearing questions you
were asked if, in your view, the U.S. should continue to abide by the
moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. In your response you said that
while you support current policy ``we should not preclude the ability
to resume such tests if serious technical issues, or other factors call
into question our data analysis or reliability of the nuclear
stockpile.'' Could you please explain what you mean by ``other
factors?''
General Cartwright. The United States is attempting to maintain
weapons that contain primary elements that naturally decay. Without
testing, we continue to modify the weapons to make them more reliable
and safer. The ``other factors'' include the uncertainty of untested
design configurations, metallurgy changes due to radioactive decay, and
limitations of models built without empirical test data. These factors,
combined with technical issues discovered from component testing, could
support consideration for future testing.
7. Senator Reed. General Cartwright, the resumption of nuclear
weapons testing has been reserved for a situation when the safety or
reliability of a nuclear weapon essential to the U.S. stockpile is no
longer able to be certified. Could you please explain what you mean by
``call into question our data analysis?'' By this statement do you mean
to lower the threshold for a resumption of nuclear weapons testing?
General Cartwright. The United States Government currently relies
on the analytical tools of the Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure
our aging stockpile remains safe and reliable over time. The phrase
``call into question our data analyses'' refers specifically to
possible limitations of the current models that support certification.
future space systems
8. Senator Reed. General Cartwright, the 1996 National Security
Space Policy is in the process of being changed. The new policy is
projected to be finished in the fall. If confirmed, will you have an
opportunity to participate in or comment on the new policy?
General Cartwright. Yes, the STRATCOM staff is engaged with the
Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense on this issue.
9. Senator Reed. General Cartwright, do you have any thoughts on
how any specific areas or issues should be addressed? For instance,
would you support development and deployment of space based electronic
attack satellites?
General Cartwright. United States space systems provide unique
capabilities and offer global force enhancements critical to prevailing
during military operations today and tomorrow. Our recent operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that given the opportunity and
capability, an adversary will likely contest our ability to use space
assets. Although these adversaries employed nascent capabilities in
their counter-space effort, it demonstrated the importance of being
able to maintain space control capabilities.
confidence in missile defense
10. Senator Reed. General Cartwright, by September the
administration plans to deploy a national missile defense system, and
you will have the responsibility to ensure this system protects the
United States from long-range missile attack. You will also bear
responsibility if this system fails in the unlikely event it is called
upon to defend this country.
At this point in time, neither the new operational interceptor, nor
the operational radar, nor the operational software of this system have
ever been tested in an actual intercept test. The last intercept test
of this system, which occurred way back in December 2002, was a
failure.
The next intercept test (which is described as a ``fly by'' even
though it is really intended to hit the target) had been scheduled for
March, but has been delayed again and again because of technical
problems, and now is not scheduled until August.
In March, I asked the Pentagon's chief tester, Tom Christie: ``So
at this time we cannot be sure that the actual system would work
against a real North Korean missile threat?'' Mr. Christie replied: ``I
would say that's true.''
Given all of this, what confidence do you have that the system to
be deployed in September will actually be capable of defending the U.S.
against a missile attack, and what is the basis for your level of
confidence?
General Cartwright. STRATCOM is working closely with the Missile
Defense Agency, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, and
other combatant commands towards initial defensive capability. Barring
unforeseen complications, we will be prepared to operate a rudimentary
defensive capability this year. A Military Utility Assessment in
progress forms the basis for this confidence. This iterative, event-
driven assessment is the mechanism for evaluating system capabilities
and provides for periodic assessments of system effectiveness and
suitability. It utilizes a full range of missile defense testing,
modeling, and simulation tools.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
ensuring access to space
11. Senator Bill Nelson. General Cartwright, in your view what are
your highest priorities in ensuring that the U.S. maintains the ability
to access space and about what do you most worry?
General Cartwright. The Nation's ongoing efforts to maintain
reliable access to and operations in space are paramount. We must
continue to accurately assess and maintain the quality of our launch
vehicles, facilities, and control systems. My highest priorities are
space protection, responsiveness, affordability, and infrastructure.
coordination and cooperation with nasa
12. Senator Bill Nelson. General Cartwright, there is not
significant coordination and cooperation with NASA and the DOD on space
research and development. In your view what are the opportunities for
improved or new cooperative work with NASA on space systems?
General Cartwright. The Department of Defense and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration recognize mutual support is in the
best interest of the Nation, Today, we are focusing our collaboration
efforts in four major areas: interagency cooperation, science and
technology developments, space operations, and human space flight
activities. To advance those efforts we have established the
Partnership Council, the Space Technology Alliance, the National
Aerospace Initiative, the Space Exploration Steering Council, the Space
Experimentation Review Board, and the Space Test Program.
space systems
13. Senator Bill Nelson. General Cartwright, many of the key space
systems are substantially over budget and behind schedule, due in large
part to an inability to resolve the requirements for the systems and
underestimating the complexity of the technology. What role will you
play in developing requirements and improving the way requirements for
space systems are developed and technologies adopted?
General Cartwright. I see STRATCOM's role as the broker for
warfighter requirements to ensure combatant commanders' needs are met.
Recent progress has been made through the National Security Space
Programs Acquisition process. In addition, the Defense Department's
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development system promises greater
linkage between the requirements, acquisition, and planning and
programming processes. Together these improvements will enhance the
space systems acquisition process. Close interaction with STRATCOM's
component commands and services will ensure future space systems are
designed, funded, fielded, and sustained as end-to-end systems that
meet the requirements of all stakeholders.
global strike
14. Senator Bill Nelson. General Cartwright, one of the new
Strategic Command missions is encompassed in the Global Operations
Division. In many ways this division appears to overlap or duplicate
planning and operations previously conducted by the regional
commanders. What is your thinking on this new mission and how should
Strategic Command support the other commanders in planning global
operations?
General Cartwright. The Global Operations Directorate, in concert
with other STRATCOM directorates, collaborates with the regional
commanders to accomplish STRATCOM's newly assigned missions. STRATCOM
leverages headquarters-based and component expertise to enhance,
augment, and complement regional commanders' operations. STRATCOM also
integrates the newly assigned missions in its supporting plans to
regional commanders. STRATCOM's global focus leverages worldwide DOD
asset availability and, with the regional commanders, develops
solutions on a macro-scale to resolve issues within each region and
across area of responsibility seams. Mission duplication is eliminated
through ongoing collaboration and cooperation between STRATCOM and the
regional commanders.
missile defense testing
15. Senator Bill Nelson. General Cartwright, the last missile
defense intercept test, held in December 2002, was a failure. As of
now, there are just two missile defense intercept tests scheduled prior
to the system being declared operational in September. How will the
results of these tests impact your view of whether the system is
effective? For example, what if one or both test fail--would you
recommend to the President that the system be deployed anyway?
General Cartwright. The failure of a single test or a series of
tests would not necessarily preclude my recommendation to deploy the
system. The root cause of any test failure must be determined and
evaluated.
______
[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. James E. Cartwright,
USMC, follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 15, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment in the Untied States
Marine Corps to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of
importance and responsibility under title 10, United States Code,
Section 601:
To be General.
Lt. Gen. James E. Cartwright, 5961.
______
[The biographical sketch of Lt. Gen. James E. Cartwright,
USMC, which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Lt. Gen. James E. Cartwright, USMC
Date and pace of birth: September 22, 1949; Rockford, IL.
Date of first commission: November 1, 1971.
Years of commission: 32.
Education:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education Year Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civilian:
BS, University of Iowa............................ 1971
Military:
The Basic School.................................. 1972
Naval Flight Officer Training..................... 1973
Naval Aviator Flight Training..................... 1979
Air Command and Staff College..................... 1986
Naval War College................................. 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Command experience:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MALS-12, Marine Aircraft Group 12 1989 1990 LtCol
(Squadron Commander).
VMFA-232, Marine Aircraft Group 1991 1992 LtCol
24 (Squadron Commander).
MAG-31, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing 1994 1996 Col
(Group Commander).
U.S. Marine Corps Forces Atlantic 1999 2000 BGen
(Deputy Commander).
1st Marine Aircraft Wing 2000 2002 BGen/MajGen
(Commanding General).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major staff assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F/A-18 Program, Naval Air Systems 1986 1989 LtCol
Command (Deputy Assistant
Program Manager).
Aviation Plans, Policy and Budget 1993 1994 LtCol/Col
Branch, Aviation Department,
HQMC (Assistant Branch Head).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint duty assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director, J-8, Joint Staff 1996 1997 Col
(Special Assistant).
Resources and Requirements, J-8, 1997 1999 BGen
Joint Staff (Deputy Director).
Force Structure, Resources and 2002 present LtGen
Assessment J-8, Joint Staff
(Director).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Qualifications:
Personal Decorations: Defense Distinguished Service Medal; Legion of
Merit w/gold star, Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation
Medal w/gold star, Navy Achievement Medal.
______
[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. James
E. Cartwright, 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.)
James E. Cartwright.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, United States Strategic Command.
3. Date of nomination:
June 15, 2004.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
September 22, 1949; Rockford, IL.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Sandra K. Waltz.
7. Names and ages of children:
Jayme Elizabeth Cartwright, 24 years, birthdate: September 20,
1979.
Billee Ann Bennett (married); 29 years, birthdate: March 18, 1974.
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
proided 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.
None.
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 respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
I do.
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
I do.
______
[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.
James E. Cartwright.
This 11th day of June, 2004.
[The nomination of Lt. Gen. James E. Cartwright, USMC, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Warner on July 8, 2004, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on July 8, 2004.]
NOMINATIONS OF VADM TIMOTHY J. KEATING, USN, FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO THE
GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND/
COMMANDER, NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND; LTG BANTZ J.
CRADDOCK, USA, FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE
COMMANDER, UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND; PETER CYRIL WYCHE FLORY TO
BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY POLICY;
AND VALERIE LYNN BALDWIN TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in
room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John
Warner (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain,
Roberts, Allard, Talent, Chambliss, Dole, Levin, Kennedy, E.
Benjamin Nelson, and Pryor.
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; Regina A. Dubey, research assistant;
Brian R. Green, professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock,
professional staff member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff
member; Paula J. Philbin, professional staff member; Lynn F.
Rusten, professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general
counsel; and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Madelyn R. Creedon,
minority counsel; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff member;
Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Maren R.
Leed, professional staff member; Peter K. Levine, minority
counsel; Michael J. McCord, professional staff member; and
William G.P. Monahan, minority counsel.
Staff assistant present: Alison E. Brill.
Committee members' assistants present: Darren M. Dick,
assistant to Senator Roberts; Jayson Roehl, assistant to
Senator Allard; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator
Chambliss; Christine O. Hill, assistant to Senator Dole; David
S. Lyles, assistant to Senator Levin; Mieke Y. Eoyang,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Jarret A. Wright, assistant to
Senator Kennedy; William K. Sutey and Peter A. Contostavlos,
assistants to Senator Bill Nelson; and Terri Glaze, assistant
to Senator Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. The committee will come to order.
We here on the committee are very pleased that we have four
distinguished nominees this morning in the advice and consent
process, which--I will explain for the benefit of some of the
newer members here--is established by the Constitution of the
United States, giving the United States Senate a very special
and very important authority to review the nominations
forwarded by the President of the United States, whoever that
may be, to the Senate for confirmation.
On our first panel, we have two military nominees. Vice
Admiral Timothy J. Keating, United States Navy, has been
nominated to be Commander of the United States Northern Command
(NORTHCOM) and the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD). Lieutenant General Bantz Craddock, United States Army,
has been nominated to be Commander, United States Southern
Command (SOUTHCOM).
We welcome you, gentlemen, and your families. I wonder if
at this time, Admiral, you would introduce your family that is
here with you.
Admiral Keating. I would be delighted, Senator. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. My wife, Wanda Lee. We have been married for
decades. [Laughter.]
She does not look it. I do.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. That is clear and to
the point. [Laughter.]
General Craddock.
General Craddock. Mr. Chairman, thank you. My wife, Linda,
is with me today. We too have been married for decades, I
guess. [Laughter.]
She has been with me every step of the journey of this
military career. My daughter, Amanda, who is also here today,
is the Assistant Dean of Admissions at the University of Mary
Washington in Fredericksburg. We are very proud of her. A dear
friend, Gail Loveless, who is beside Amanda, is also joining us
today. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
In our second panel, we will consider two civilian
nominations. Peter Flory has been nominated to be the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, and
Valerie Baldwin has been nominated to be the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller.
I wonder, Mr. Flory, if you would introduce your family at this
time please.
Mr. Flory. Senator, my wife Kathleen, to whom I have been
married, also for decades. [Laughter.]
Just barely. My son, Seamus Flory, 16; my son, Xavier
Flory; and my daughter Fiona. Will you stand up please? My
youngest daughter, Mairead, who is 4. There are two others who
are not here. They are at camp. I am sure they would rather be
here.
Chairman Warner. Well, you are very well represented. Thank
you.
Ms. Baldwin, if you would, kindly introduce those that have
joined you today.
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, sir. First of all, I would like to
introduce my brother, Louie Lemert, and substituting for my
parents who could not be here from Kansas today, I have Don and
Carol Muntz and Kevin Delany, and later on, sir, I hope you
will bear with me, I think that a number of my younger
godchildren are going to be arriving.
Chairman Warner. I understand you are the godmother to four
individuals. Is that correct?
Ms. Baldwin. Actually five, sir, two of whom are my
nephews.
Chairman Warner. That is a very important function. Well,
we welcome the families. Our committee urged the nominees to
bring their families. I myself proudly sat at that table, oh,
my gracious, 30 some odd years ago.
Senator Levin. Decades ago. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin and I have been seated side
by side on this committee for 26 years.
Senator Levin. Decades. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. But we recognize the importance--and it is
becoming of increasing importance in military life--of the role
of the families. Throughout history, it has been that wonderful
family that stood beside that soldier, sailor, airman, and
marine, as he or she has been deployed beyond our shores, and
the family that packs and moves, and packs and moves, and packs
and moves in the careers of our military. So we thank you, and
we are glad to have you here. You are every bit a part of this
nomination process.
Now, Admiral Keating, I shall briefly mention your very
distinguished career as a naval aviator, he is presently
serving as Director of the Joint Staff. He has commanded a
fighter attack squadron, a carrier based wing, a carrier battle
group, and most recently commanded United States Naval Forces
Central Command (NAVCENTCOM), and the U.S. Fifth Fleet during
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
I remember very well, as does my distinguished colleague,
Mr. Levin, when we came to visit you in Qatar in February 2003,
and you briefed us on the naval responsibilities for the
forthcoming operation in Iraq.
Previously you served as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
(CNO) for Plans, Policy, and Operations and as the Deputy
Director for Operations, J-3, on the Joint Staff. We welcome
you again, Admiral.
Admiral Keating. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. General Craddock is currently assigned as
the Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, and
when we have the privilege of visiting with the Secretary in
his spaces, you are always there silently, discreetly at a
distance, taking notes, but ready with a firm hand to grab any
of us who get out of order and chuck us out. [Laughter.]
I witnessed that not for a Member of Congress, but somebody
else. I was rather impressed----[Laughter.]
----how firmly you got that individual settled and back.
He has had various assignments in the United States Army,
in Europe with the 7th Army in Germany, and culminating in his
command of the 1st Infantry Division.
General Craddock served in Kosovo from 1998 to 1999 as the
Commander, Multinational Brigade, and as the commander of an
armored battalion during Operation Desert Storm, for which he
was awarded the Silver Star.
General Craddock has also served previously on the Joint
Staff as Assistant Deputy Director for Strategy and Policy, J-
5.
General Craddock, I congratulate you on your nomination for
this important command, as I do you, Admiral.
Now, we have a series of pre-hearing policy questions. You
have given your answers. They are now a part of the record
available for all members to examine, and I will put them in
without objection into the record.
I also have certain standard questions we ask of every
nominee who appears before the committee. At this time, I will
propound those questions to our first two panelists, with the
understanding that we may have to stop. If someone would advise
me if the Member of Congress, Mr. Lewis, arrives.
So to our first panel, have you adhered to applicable laws
and regulations governing conflict of interests?
Admiral Keating. I have.
General Craddock. I have.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Admiral Keating. No, sir.
General Craddock. I have not.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record in the hearings?
Admiral Keating. I will, sir.
General Craddock. I will, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir, I will.
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir.
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir.
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views
when asked before this committee to do som even if those views
differ with the administration at that time in office?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir.
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a
timely manner when requested by this committee, or to consult
with the committee regarding the basis for any good faith delay
or denial in providing such documents?
Admiral Keating. I do.
General Craddock. I do.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, do you have some comments
for this first panel?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me first join
you in welcoming Admiral Keating and General Craddock and their
family members. I wholeheartedly join your sentiments about the
relevance and importance of family to the careers of these
nominees, as well as to all of the members of this wonderful
military profession.
Admiral Keating has been nominated to be the second
commander of the relatively new Northern Command, as well as to
assume the command of NORAD. His nomination comes at a juncture
where we are receiving almost daily reminders of the ongoing
terrorist threat. Two weeks ago, Secretary Ridge told the
public that we face an increased risk of attack this summer. He
said that ``credible reporting now indicates that al Qaeda is
moving forward with its plans to carry out a large scale attack
on the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic
process.''
A few months ago, Thomas Kean, the chairman of the panel
investigating the September 11 attacks, said in an interview
with the Philadelphia Inquirer that, ``Every single person whom
we have talked to who is considered knowledgeable in this study
expects another attack.''
Meanwhile, in a newly released book, Steve Flynn, a retired
Coast Guard Commander and senior fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations, stated that: ``With the exception of
airports, much of what is critical to our way of life remains
unprotected: water and food supplies, refineries, energy grids
and pipelines, bridges, tunnels, trains, trucks, and cargo
containers, as well as the cyber backbone that underpins the
information age in which we live. The security measures we have
been cobbling together are hardly fit to deter amateur thieves,
vandals, and hackers, never mind determined terrorists.''
``Worse still,'' he said, ``small improvements are often
oversold as giant steps forward, lowering the guard of average
citizens as they carry on their daily routine with an
unwarranted sense of confidence.''
Against this backdrop, the Northern Command continues to
be, as the former deputy commander told committee staff a few
months ago, an evolving command. NORTHCOM is working to address
the challenge of developing intelligence sharing and
communication systems that are interagency and involve State
and local authorities. NORTHCOM and NORAD are working to
improve North America's air defense system and to develop
systems for managing maritime and land security.
Admiral Keating, I look forward, as all of us do, to
hearing some of your thoughts as to how we can do that and, if
you are confirmed, working with you to ensure that Northern
Command is a robust, fully capable command.
General Craddock, you have been nominated to assume command
of the U.S. Southern Command at a time when political and
economic stability in the western hemisphere is shaky in
several areas that are critical to us--from their contribution
to fighting illegal drug production and trafficking and for
maintaining stability in Latin America and the Caribbean. We
are watching with interest and concern the political
developments in Peru, Bolivia, and Venezuela. The United States
continues to have a great stake in the struggle against the
armed insurgent narcotraffickers in Colombia. In Haiti the
government still does not control about half of the country.
Security remains dependent on the roughly 2,000 troops that are
there now.
The Southern Command is also responsible for detainee
operations in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that is an issue of
great concern to this committee and to the American people. If
confirmed, it is my hope that we can work closely with you,
General, to address the challenges of implementing detainee
policies within the context of U.S. and international law and
to address U.S. national security interests in Latin America
and the Caribbean.
Again, thank you both for your service to this country and
thanks to your families for their contribution to your service.
Chairman Warner. We are ready to proceed. Do any other
colleagues desire to address our witnesses this morning?
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I know you want
to get on to hear from them, as I do. I think we have an
outstanding and talented group of professional soldiers and
civilians before us. Admiral Keating, I guess, realizes that it
has been a few million years since we have had a coastline in
Colorado where Northern Command is. [Laughter.]
But on a more serious note, we do need his expertise. I do
not think we talk enough about how vital Northern Command is to
actual homeland defense. That is very key.
Chairman Warner. Integral.
Senator Allard. One of our challenges, obviously, is the
ports. So I am absolutely delighted to see somebody with his
kind of background and qualifications moving to Colorado to
join us out there.
Admiral Keating. Thank you, sir.
Senator Allard. Also, I look forward to working with Peter
Flory, who is the President's nominee for Assistant Secretary
of Defense for International Security Policy. The issues that
he will be dealing with are issues that I have in my
subcommittee: missile defense, nuclear programs, as well as the
security treaties.
So I look forward to working with them and look forward to
their testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Dole.
Senator Dole. Admiral Keating, I would like to congratulate
you on your nomination as NORTHCOM and NORAD Commander, and I
certainly look forward to working with you on the homeland
defense and civil support missions that have become
increasingly important as we continue to execute the war on
terror.
You played a very commendable role in orchestrating the
successful liberation of Iraq as the naval component commander,
and while your expertise will be central in maintaining a
strong defense against airborne threats, I am encouraged to see
your strong interest in improving maritime security awareness
as a part of our National defense strategy.
General Craddock, I also look forward to working closely
with you in your very important role of supporting our national
security. SOUTHCOM operations in Haiti, Colombia, and Cuba in
the drug war, hurricane assistance, and peacekeeping are often
relegated to the back pages of our newspapers but are extremely
important in maintaining a strong front in the war on terror.
While many successes may not be covered with much fanfare, I
particularly want to commend the men and women in SOUTHCOM who
are meeting the challenges of their difficult mission with such
dedication.
I look forward to hearing your testimony and strongly
supporting your nominations.
Admiral Keating. Thank you.
General Craddock. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Anyone else, colleagues? Thank you very much.
Admiral, will you kindly give your opening statement to the
committee this morning?
STATEMENT OF VADM TIMOTHY J. KEATING, USN, FOR THE APPOINTMENT
TO THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, UNITED STATES
NORTHERN COMMAND/COMMANDER, NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE
COMMAND
Admiral Keating. Mr. Chairman, it is a real thrill and an
honor to appear before you and your colleagues in this historic
chamber. Wanda Lee and I are very excited at the prospect of
continuing to serve our great Nation.
It is a personal privilege for me to sit next to John
Craddock, a fellow with whom I have had the pleasure of working
for the past year. I have come to appreciate and recognize his
talents and his dedication.
I look forward to your questions, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
General Craddock.
STATEMENT OF LTG BANTZ J. CRADDOCK, USA, FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, UNITED STATES
SOUTHERN COMMAND
General Craddock. Sir, I just have very brief remarks. To
you sir, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the
committee, again thank you for the opportunity to appear here
today and to appear here with Vice Admiral Keating.
The members of the committee may not be aware of the fact
that, as Tim said, over the past year or so he has been the
Director of the Joint Staff and I have been the Senior Military
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, and in those
assignments, we meet every day and we discuss and work the
activities and the issues of the Department of Defense (DOD).
So it is good to be here today with my wingman, Tim Keating. He
is a great officer, a great leader, and I hear a fair-to-
middling naval aviator.
I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to
appear before you. I know you have a full schedule, a very
hectic schedule this week and a lot of work, and we certainly
appreciate your time.
I am honored to have been nominated by the President for
the position of the Commander of the United States Southern
Command. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the
members of this committee, as well as with all Members of
Congress, in carrying out this important task.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to answer your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
This is a changed world in which we live, and those of us
who are privileged to work here in the environs of Capitol Hill
from time to time, in a very quiet and orderly way, accept
situations, and I have just been informed that the Dirksen and
Hart buildings are being evacuated. Thus far, this building is
not under an evacuation order, but I wish to inform anyone who,
for whatever reason, might desire to depart now. I do not know
the causes for the evacuation of the other buildings. I will
keep the persons in this room promptly informed as information
comes to me.
In the meantime, I intend to continue this hearing. I will
start a brief question period of 6 minutes each for our
members, and then we may go into a second round.
First, to you, Admiral, I am going to read from the
questions that our committee propounded and your response:
``Several proposals have been made to expand NORAD's focus from
air to air, land, and sea. The Chief of Naval Operations has
suggested creating a `maritime NORAD,' and a recent Defense
Science Board study recommended that the Department improve and
integrate its maritime intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance assets with those of the Departments of Homeland
Security, Transportation, the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). What do
you think would be the advantages and disadvantages of such an
approach?''
You gave a fairly detailed answer: ``I believe that
improving our awareness of the maritime domain is critical to
the security of the United States. There are vulnerabilities in
our maritime approaches. Numerous initiatives, including the
96-hour notice of arrival requirement to offload at a U.S. or
Canadian port and the automatic identification system--a
maritime equivalent to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
transponders--are being implemented to improve our maritime
awareness.'' I am going to put the rest of it in the record.
[See prepared questions at the conclusion of the testimony.]
But I am interested to have a clear understanding of your
role in the maritime domain together with your partners, so to
speak, the Coast Guard and the Homeland Security Department.
Specifically, you have the rather awesome responsibility of
having aircraft on standby at various locations in our country
to interdict any aircraft for reasons which are clearly
identified in all of the documents that have been thought
through very carefully.
By coincidence, the last evacuation of this building
occurred here just weeks ago when an unidentified aircraft
approached National Airport, and I think authorities responded
quite appropriately and ordered the evacuation of the Capitol
and these buildings. It was later found to be a
miscommunication and a faulty transponder.
But that is a heavy responsibility, and I am interested in
the maritime side of it. Should we have, for example, in our
ports, on a standby basis, surface craft or perhaps helicopters
under the maritime command to respond instantly to a suspicious
situation and if necessary to apply force to interdict that
situation before it comes into the port system?
Admiral Keating. Mr. Chairman, I would say the shortest
answer I could give you is I do not think we need that
capability in a general port as we understand the term today.
From my current position as the Director of the Joint Staff and
some discussions I have had with some staffers from Northern
Command, I am aware that there is increased interest and
emphasis on intelligence fusion and intelligence sharing. In my
view that is a linchpin for attacking this problem of maritime
domain awareness and protection of the coastal United States,
including our ports.
As we get better at fusing this intelligence, we will be
able to pinpoint with greater accuracy, both in terms of
location and time, where we may need to position forces when
authorized by the Secretary of Defense or the President to
respond to a situation you described. I am unaware of a
situation like that at this time, sir.
Chairman Warner. Well, supposing some craft, not unlike a
pleasure craft, were to stash aboard it a lot of explosives,
not unlike what we saw happen to the U.S.S. Cole, and suddenly
decide to head into the Norfolk port and hit the first target
they could find. What would we do? Is that part of your
jurisdiction or is that the Coast Guard?
Admiral Keating. Both, I would say, Senator. It is my
understanding--and I have some knowledge here from previous
lives in the Navy--that there are layered force protection
measures in effect. So it is unlikely, not impossible, but very
unlikely, that a boat as you describe could come up alongside a
naval vessel or Coast Guard vessel in Norfolk harbor or any
other military harbor and get that close without some sort of
challenge and, with sufficient time, response from watch teams
on the ships and on boats that are patrolling the waters.
The Northern Command, I understand, works very closely with
the Coast Guard. There is a joint interagency coordination
group that examines situations just as you describe. This group
fuses the intelligence, and focuses their assets both on a
State and a local level in coordination with the Department of
Homeland Security to respond to situations.
Chairman Warner. Well, suppose that vessel did not approach
a military vessel but approached a civilian vessel. Is there a
sufficient watch on that vessel? Suppose it is just in a
routine offloading or onloading of cargo.
Admiral Keating. Probably not, sir.
Chairman Warner. Is that a gap that should be addressed?
Admiral Keating. I am certain it is being considered,
Senator, and the short answer to your question is yes, it
should be at least considered. Now, the fix is a challenge. I
do not believe it is possible to protect every ship in every
harbor. But I have some experience here. As you mentioned, I
spent some time in Bahrain and while there was tasked with
maritime interdiction operations. The forces in my command were
required to intercept and investigate every ship going into and
out of the north Arabian Gulf waters. It is a challenge. It is
doable. It is asset-intensive, both in terms of ships and young
men and women who are trained for the mission. So we have a
significant amount of capability and experience here. It is
dedicating the right resources to that situation if our
intelligence tells us it is appropriate to do that.
Chairman Warner. The inspection of containers, does that
come within your sphere of responsibility?
Admiral Keating. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. That is Coast Guard?
Admiral Keating. Correct, sir.
Chairman Warner. Well, when you have these overlapping
jurisdictions of three entities of our Government, namely your
command now, Coast Guard, and the Department of Homeland
Security, and indeed the indigenous port security provided by
the local community in the port, I just hope that you have the
opportunity to really determine if there are gaps in this
coordinated activity that have to be filled. It is a perplexing
and daunting task. Something like several thousand containers a
day enter the United States, and people are being requested to
be held responsible for the contents of all them. It is just a
very challenging task.
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir, it is.
Chairman Warner. General Craddock, there is current
interest in how the U.S. conducts detainee and interrogation
operations in the global war on terrorism. What will be your
role and responsibilities in the conduct of detainee operations
and interrogations at Guantanamo (GITMO)? What responsibility
will you have for training or promulgating techniques and
procedures for other theaters of operation in your area of
responsibility (AOR)?
General Craddock. Mr. Chairman, assuming confirmation as
Commander of SOUTHCOM, I would be responsible and be the
Commander of the Joint Task Force (JTF) at Guantanamo, which is
the JTF that provides security for and interrogation operations
of the detainees at GITMO. So from that perspective, the
operations there come under the SOUTHCOM Commander's purview.
With regard to that, there is obviously a security aspect
to that. We will support the efforts and initiatives that
Secretary England has recently been tasked to undertake, which
is a review of combatant detainees, the status of those
detainees as combatants. He is executing that mission right
now. So from that perspective, SOUTHCOM will support that
current review or any future review as so directed by the
Department.
With regards to training services, trained interrogators,
there is a combination of linguists that are needed,
interrogators obviously, and analysts. Those people work for
the command that puts together interrogation plans. Their
responsibilities are to monitor interrogation plans, to monitor
interrogation techniques, to ensure that those techniques used
are in accordance with the policy guidelines provided by the
Department, and to inform the Department, the Secretary of
Defense of some of those techniques for which he has retained
an information knowledge of prior to use. So we have that
responsibility at the facility in Guantanamo.
Also, SOUTHCOM has responsibility for detainee advice with
regard to other locations around the world, and we will send
out, as requested from other combatant commanders, training
teams which will move to those areas and provide training to
and in interrogation and detainment operations at other sites.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Admiral Keating, on June 9, just before President
Reagan's state funeral, the FAA failed to share the identity of
the Governor of Kentucky's plane with other authorities. This
resulted in the evacuation of congressional buildings.
Apparently, in early June, according to the 9/11 Commission
members, there was an unidentified aircraft over New York City.
There was great confusion over who had the authority to
respond.
The FAA states that it has taken action to address the
causes of these problems, but it appears that more needs to be
done to boost our air defenses.
Could you tell us, in your judgment and to the extent you
are able to determine, whether air defense measures still need
to be taken by NORAD or by NORTHCOM in order to address these
vulnerabilities that seem to be persistent?
Admiral Keating. Senator, I will do my best. It is my
understanding that there is an investigation ongoing, and I do
not know the results of that investigation within the
Department. The information that has come across my desk as the
Director indicates that it was a relatively simple breakdown in
communication. The fix is in. I do not know the fix, Senator,
and I do not know that we have had time yet to do an exercise
to ensure that the aforementioned fix is in fact appropriate.
But I can promise you that if confirmed, we will continue
to do exercises, both scheduled and random, throughout the
continental United States in all those areas that apply to
NORTHCOM and to NORAD to ensure, to the best of our ability,
that situations as you describe do not occur again.
Senator Levin. Could you give us your opinion as to the
role of the National Guard in homeland defense? Do you have any
ideas as to how we can use them appropriately and what the
balance should be between Active and Reserve Forces?
Admiral Keating. The role of National Guard in homeland
defense is huge. They are the first responders under the DOD,
of course, in their capacity working for the Governors of the
States where they are stationed. However, as you are aware, we
have about 130,000-140,000 guardsmen who are activated and
deployed right now. That is a drain on the total pool of
450,000 or so guardsmen. There are arrangements, I am told, in
place between Governors throughout the States, as coordinated
by Lieutenant General Steve Blum, the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau, to respond if necessary to situations where a
State may be a little bit low on their guardsmen. But NORTHCOM
works very carefully with Lieutenant General Blum on all those
issues attendant to the Guard and their ability to respond.
Senator Levin. The chairman raised the question relative to
maritime homeland defense. There was a study of the Defense
Science Board in the summer of 2003 titled ``DOD Roles and
Missions in Homeland Security.'' It recommended that NORTHCOM
``develop a road map for maritime surveillance.'' Can you tell
us what the status of that study is? Do you know?
Admiral Keating. Senator, I do not know. I will have to
find out for you. I am unaware of the status.
Senator Levin. Okay. If you could check into that right
after your confirmation.
Admiral Keating. I would be happy to.
[The information referred to follows:]
In May 2004, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland
Defense and the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
sponsored a national Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) Summit. As a
result of the Summit, I understand the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard
will serve as their Departments' Executive Agent in developing a way
ahead for MDA. NORTHCOM is represented on the MDA Senior Steering Group
and Working Group.
Senator Levin. On the question of intelligence sharing, the
Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) was created to
assure intelligence sharing among all agencies about threats to
our homeland. There are still inadequate resources for the
TTIC. Are you familiar with the role of TTIC now in the way in
which Northern Command receives intelligence?
Admiral Keating. I am, sir.
Senator Levin. Can you describe that?
Admiral Keating. I will do my best. Northern Command has as
part of their command structure, the physical layout, a
Combined Intelligence and Fusion Center (CIFC) in their
headquarters in Colorado Springs. It is a full-time, 24/7,
manned watch center, and they have hotlines, if you will, to a
number of agencies throughout the interagency, one of those
groups being TTIC. So there is 24/7, real-time communication
between Northern Command and TTIC, as well as other agencies,
CIA, FBI, and some State and local agencies as well. What they
do is fuse intelligence. Northern Command does not collect
intelligence. It is available real-time or near real-time from
those agencies who do gather it, and it is all fused into a
common operational picture.
Now, there are parts of it that are not germane to Northern
Command, and I have not been to TTIC, so I do not know what
they have, nor have I been to Northern Command. But I am
assured that there is sufficient, robust intelligence sharing
and fusion between TTIC and the Northern Command fusion center.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Admiral.
General, as the Senior Military assistant to Secretary
Rumsfeld, can you describe what role you had, if any, regarding
the detainee interrogation procedures for Guantanamo and
elsewhere? You were asked about kind of the future rule, but I
am interested as to what role you have had, if any, and whether
you have had access to documents, for instance, pertaining to
detainees. If so, what is your judgment and assessment of that
situation.
General Craddock. Yes, Senator. The short answer to that is
I had no role in policy formulation for the detainees. I had no
role in policy formulation for the detainee operations or
interrogations.
Now, let me expand on that a bit. My duties as the Senior
Military Assistant for the Secretary of Defense were varied and
ranged based upon the subjects at hand. The key word is
``assistant,'' not advisor. The Senior Military Assistant has
several functions and duties. Throughout the period for which
the issue you are talking about, detainees, I was involved to
the extent of ensuring that meetings were conducted on time
with the right people. But in terms of policy formulation
input, I did not provide any.
The way I ran the job as the assistant was if my training,
background, or education gave me the wherewithal to provide
input and comment on policies at hand, then I would either be
asked or I would volunteer such information and my judgment.
With regard to detainees and detainee operations and
interrogations, I have no experience nor training. So from the
perspective of what were my duties, my duties were to ensure
that the Secretary had the right people at the right time for
those discussions. I participated in some and in others I did
not, in terms of being present during those discussions on
detainee and detainee operations, but in no way formulated or
assisted in policy formulations.
Senator Levin. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This fall, in fact, right now, they are in the process of
putting missiles in the ground for our national missile defense
system so that we can proceed with our test bed testing. Also,
there is going to be some limited defensive capability. In
fact, I think the President is likely to declare the missile
defense system operational this fall.
Admiral Keating, if confirmed, will you support the missile
defense system's plan for concurrent tests and operations?
Admiral Keating. I will, sir.
Senator Allard. Now, are you comfortable with the concept
of operations that have been developed for the ground-based
mid-course missile defense system? Because, if confirmed, you
are going to be responsible for operating our ground-based mid-
course missile defense system when it becomes operational.
There are a number of scenarios that would invariably require
cooperation with other geographic commands.
Admiral Keating. To the extent that I have been briefed in
my current job, Senator, I am comfortable. The way I think
about it is I am kind of at the grade school level right now,
and if confirmed, I will have to ratchet that up in a hurry.
The staff out there, I promise you, is prepared to do that.
Regarding the relationship between the various combatant
commands. I have had the great fortune of serving in a number
of these commands, and I know the guys who are in those
commands now. I am confident that we are going to be able to
develop and sustain the level of cooperation necessary to
ensure successful implementation and execution of a fairly
complex system.
Senator Allard. Now, my understanding is that Northern
Command has reached out to utilize the expertise of a
university consortium to support its missions in homeland
defense and technical training for civilians. How does academia
provide military utility to your overall mission goals? More
importantly, do you plan on continuing this effort?
Admiral Keating. In reverse order, if I could. It is a
healthy program now. It will stay as healthy or get healthier,
if I am confirmed.
I am convinced, as are many others, that there are many
answers to these very challenging situations. As the chairman
discussed, for example, looking at the tens of thousands of
containers that come into our ports on a weekly basis. There
are potential answers outside the DOD. It might be a high
school science fair. It might be the University of Boulder,
Colorado, consortium that you described. If confirmed, I
guarantee Northern Command is going to pursue as many of those
options as we can so as to seek the solution and not be so
reliant on a single source.
Senator Allard. This is a question for both Admiral Keating
and General Craddock. We get rumors out of the Pentagon all the
time. One of the things that we hear is that Secretary Rumsfeld
reviews annually the Unified Command Plan (UCP). There are
rumors that maybe Northern and Southern Commands should be
combined. What is your opinion on whether this effort should be
undertaken? Can Northern Command perform a unified mission if
these commands are consolidated? Since we have both of you
here, I would like to hear both of your perspectives on that.
Admiral Keating. I am aware of the study that is being
conducted, Senator. It is my understanding that it is not
likely that the Secretary will approve a merger in the short
term, but has asked that the Department continue to look at it.
Right now, the missions of the two commands are significantly
different. Over time it may be that we could find a way to
combine the two commands, but my personal opinion is that is
not likely to occur soon.
General Craddock. Senator, I pretty much endorse what Tim
just said. I think studies are always helpful, so the studies
will be ongoing. The UCP is reviewed on a routine basis, and
some of these that are not agreed to this year will be reviewed
again next year.
Having said that, I also agree that it is probably a notion
before its time. It may be in the future, as conditions change
and situations change, something that would have more merit
than today.
I know that the Institute for Defense Analysis recently in
May completed a study of combining the two commands. They
recommended the status quo, and it is my understanding the
Secretary of Defense agrees with that recommendation.
Senator Allard. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
apologize for shaking you up yesterday as I walked past your
chair.
Chairman Warner. That is all right. You got my attention.
Senator Ben Nelson. You were very gracious, and I gave a
great deal of distance when I walked behind your chair this
time. So I appreciate that.
It is a pleasure to see both of you with us here today.
Admiral Keating, I think the President made a very wise choice
in selecting you to succeed General Eberhart. Of course,
General Craddock, I enjoyed our discussion at the office the
other day, and I look forward to continuing our discussions
about Colombia and Venezuela.
Admiral Keating, with respect to missile defense testing
and coordination, with the rudimentary missile defense system
being deployed this year, obviously you are going to be the
person responsible for the actual operation of the system. How
do you see the roles of NORTHCOM and Strategic Command
(STRATCOM) in missile defense? How do you see the relationship
between those two commands and coordination of them?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir. The roles are clearly defined,
and I think clearly understood. Again, from my position as the
Director, I have been able to watch some of this. In fairly
simple fighter pilot terms, Northern Command will be the
supported command, will have the hardware, the doctrine, the
policy, and the rules of engagement. Those will be worked by
Strategic Command. So the heavy lifting is done by Strategic
Command. Northern Command will be apprised and will monitor
throughout. When the system reaches initial defensive
capability, the rules will have been well briefed up through
the President of the United States and Northern Command will
assume the responsibility of the shooter. But throughout all of
this, Northern Command and Strategic Command, in concert with
the Department of Defense, have done a lot of work so that they
are all equally aware of the developments.
Senator Ben Nelson. In the clear delineation and definition
of the lines of demarcation between the two, you think it is
sufficiently understood the two roles being separate but also
being combined for certain purposes and that that is an
appropriate and clearly understood delineation.
Admiral Keating. I believe it is appropriate, Senator, and
I am very confident it is clearly understood.
Senator Ben Nelson. I appreciate that.
In connection with the policies regarding firing on
commercial airlines, when you have a simple breakdown--
fortunately in the last case, we did not end up with a complex
situation. Are you reasonably certain that this sort of
situation can be corrected in the future? Because clearly,
shooting down an airliner or shooting down a private plane in a
breakdown situation would be a terrible tragedy, not fully
understood by the American public, certainly not giving more
confidence to hometown security. Are you sure that we really
are getting closer to solving that breakdown for the future?
Admiral Keating. I am confident that we are, Senator. Now,
it is important to note that it is possible to conceive a
situation where even the most seamless, ready, and cocked
defense position will be unable to mitigate the threat, a
complicit crew, for example. We see planes flying by the
Pentagon many times a day in and out of Washington Reagan
National Airport, and there are many other circumstances. So
against a complicit crew, the best defense in the world is not
going to be able to stop that necessarily.
But it is this system of systems that the Department of
Homeland Security and Department of Defense have implemented
that lead me to believe that we are making good and continuous
progress. We test it and exercise it frequently to be able to
assure you that we are getting better, a lot better.
Senator Ben Nelson. General Craddock, in April this year,
General Hill testified that the narcoterrorists in Colombia
remain the largest and most well-known threat in SOUTHCOM and
their illicit activities still continue but not without a
price. As we deal with this, can you describe the types of
missions that the U.S. soldiers are now conducting in Colombia
under Plan Colombia? Several of us from this committee went to
Colombia in 2001. What is going on there now with these
missions?
General Craddock. Yes, Senator. The military component of
Plan Colombia that the Colombian Government has is Plan
Patriota. That is the military attempt to take on the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), as you say, the
narcoterrorists, the National Liberation Army (ELN), the United
Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), and other terrorist
organizations dependent on narcotrafficking to generate funds
to either, one, control the countryside and the people, or two,
try to assume control of the government.
The progress has been impressive. At this point, the
Colombian Government has made considerable progress in being
able to eliminate a lot of the control that the FARC has
exercised in the past. Even though they are addressing all
three elements of those insurgencies, if you will, that have
transitioned really beyond that to narcotrafficking and
narcoterrorism, the FARC has been the focal point of that
effort. They have taken back the countryside from the FARC.
They have placed government personnel in all the villages now
recently, which is a big plus, and they have instilled
confidence in the Colombians that the government indeed has
control of the country at this time.
Now, the U.S. role here is to provide training assistance
and planning assistance for the Colombian military to be able
to conduct those operations. That is the focal point of the
military effort. So the military trainers and advisors, mostly
Special Operations Forces, in Colombia work very closely with
vetted Colombian units, the battalions, the brigades, the
squadrons, the counterdrug units that the Colombian Army has
developed to ensure that they have planned adequately and they
are trained and prepared to conduct those operations in order
to prevail against the narcoterrorists. It has been very
successful.
The plan, Plan Patriota, is in a bit of a surge phase, so
operations are continuing, and the outlook right now is good.
The confidence in the government is as high as it has been. I
think President Uribe has about an 82 percent confidence
rating, which is unheard of up to this time. But everything is
going very well at this point.
Senator Ben Nelson. My time is expired.
We are seeing, though, where there are some good guys in
the process and among the others, it is bad, worse, and the
worst. Is that a fair characterization of it?
General Craddock. Yes, Senator, I think that is fair. We
are finding that a lot of the narcoterrorists have----
Senator Ben Nelson.--lost sight of their ideology now, and
it seems to be more driven by financial gain.
General Craddock. Absolutely. The ideology in the beginning
has pretty much merged into one of trading drugs for money. The
fact that there is some demobilization of those forces would
indicate, one, that they are being demoralized; two, they are
turning themselves over to Colombian Army units, which in the
past would never happen because of their fear of being killed.
So the human rights aspects are improving. So across the board,
I will not say that it is perfect. I will not say that it is a
done deed, but it is indeed progress.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, thank you, gentlemen, and thank
you to your families for your service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
being late. It appears that the level of water in the pipes of
a water closet over in the garage of Hart has caused an
increase in blood pressure for quite a few staffers and
members.
I do want to thank Admiral Keating for a good conversation
this morning. I will just repeat my concern, and I think your
answer is yes.
I expressed to you previously I have serious concerns about
the resources that DOD has allocated to NORTHCOM to complete
its mission, and I think there may be an unwillingness to
accept the homeland defense mission within DOD. You indicated
in your conversation to me that that is certainly not your
view.
A Defense Science Board study concluded that DOD needed to
develop several homeland defense capabilities including medical
surge capacity, the ability to deal with chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) incidents, and improve
intercommunication capabilities between civilian law
enforcement and military officials at the local, State, and the
Federal level.
The Nation and the DOD's ability to respond to attacks on
the homeland directly affect our ability to maintain our
strategic military flexibility and our domestic control. What
steps do you plan to take to address these shortfalls?
You indicated to me that you are going to be conducting
serious exercises, taking a hard look at that responsibility,
even though normally you might not think that would fall within
DOD. But after the civil support team (CST) arrives in the
area, they are going to need your support. You are going to
have to have the airlift to get the job done.
Have I pretty well described our conversation as of this
morning?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir. I wrote down the answer.
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. Thank you very much, Admiral.
General Craddock, I am an old Wilhelm admirer. I think it
was General Wilhelm who told me several sessions back that
other than drugs and immigration and about 23 to 25 percent of
our energy supply and crime and trade and terrorism, we really
do not have any primary interest in our neighbors to the south.
360 million people, 31 nations, average age of 14, with a lot
of force structure that was taken away from you in the Balkans
and now has never been replaced. So I hope that we can be
supportive to you on this committee. I know that Senator Warner
shares my concern. I wish you well.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, colleague.
The two buildings of the Senate office complex remain
evacuated. Therefore, I am going to ask colleagues to submit
their additional questions for the record of these two
panelists, and we will proceed immediately to the second panel.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your offer and that of
your family to continue in public service in these very
demanding and challenging posts.
Admiral Keating. Thank you, sir.
General Craddock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Congressman Lewis, we welcome you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Your sense of timing is, as always, very
precise.
Ordinarily the chairman reads at some length and speaks to
the biographical achievements of the nominees, but given the
fact that, Chairman Lewis, we have two of our Senate buildings
that have just been evacuated, I am going to put my remarks
into the record and proceed to this second panel.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
On our second panel, we will consider two civilian nominations.
Peter Flory has been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Policy, and Valerie Baldwin has been
nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial
Management and Comptroller.
Peter Flory currently serves as the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and has been
nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Policy. Mr. Flory previously has served with distinction in
the Department of Defense from 1989 to 1992 as the Special Assistant to
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz, and in the
Department of State as an Associate Coordinator for Counterterrorism
from 1992 to 1993. Mr. Flory also served in the legislative branch as
the Chief Investigative Counsel and Special Counsel to the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence.
Ms. Baldwin has been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Financial Management and Comptroller. Ms. Baldwin is highly
qualified for this position, having served in a variety of capacities
in the legislative branch including distinguished service on the House
Appropriations and Veterans Affairs Committees. She served on the staff
of our former colleagues, Senator Kassebaum of Kansas and Senator John
Glenn of Ohio.
Chairman Warner. But I would like now at this time to say
how pleased we are as a committee that you have joined us, and
we look forward to your comments on behalf of this
extraordinary nominee of the President to be Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY LEWIS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I first want
you to know how much we appreciate the courtesy you are
extending to us, giving us this time and the recognition. With
those buildings being evacuated and with my bride was trying to
find a parking place, I was a bit late and Valerie, I am sorry
about that.
But in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I have been noted for
very few things around the House of Representatives. The one
thing that I point to with pride is that, along with the help
of my bride, I am able to find and steal, one way or another,
very talented people to help me with my work.
Today, I am here to extend my recognition and my
appreciation to one, Valerie Baldwin, who is a fabulous young
woman who served the House with great distinction, and me
personally as well. As she goes to serve the Army, with your
blessing, she will make a further great contribution to our
country.
Valerie got her law degree at the University of Kansas.
That is the only shortcoming that I can think of about Valerie.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. That will soon be addressed by two other
distinguished colleagues. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. I understand that.
Senator, I will not talk about tying our shoes. Is that all
right?
Senator Roberts. You have the floor, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Senator.
Valerie came to the House, being attracted by the glitter
of public service. First she came to the Banking Committee
where she was our counsel. We identified that talent and stole
her to serve with me on the Veterans' Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development (VA-HUD) Subcommittee. The Housing Committee
is where she did most of the work for the years I served there
as chairman on the housing side of our effort. She did a
fabulous job at helping us try to figure how to better deliver
money to local communities and made sure that money got to the
people we intended and we wanted to serve in the first place.
That is not always easy, but Valerie was a very important
person in that development of our work.
From there, she became the clerk of the Military
Construction Subcommittee and did a fabulous job for us there.
Valerie Baldwin, as she goes to the Army, will continue her
national service, and I am just proud to come today to present
her to the Members of the Senate for your consideration, and I
appreciate what I hope will be positive results of this panel's
hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just
had the privilege of meeting extensively yesterday with this
distinguished nominee, and I certainly have reason to share
your sentiments. Here in the committee staff, after my meeting
yesterday filtered up the staff evaluation, and one word
emerged: ``tenacious.'' [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. That is a Kansas trademark, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
It is my pleasure to voice my very strong support for
Valerie Baldwin. Valerie is a distinguished graduate of both
Wichita State University, where she graduated magna cum laude,
and the University of Kansas School of Law. As we all know, the
University of Kansas is the home of the ever-optimistic and
fighting Jayhawks. [Laughter.]
Second only to the optimistic and fighting Wild Cats of
Kansas State, but that is another matter. [Laughter.]
She has a distinguished record of service and
accomplishments. She has made a career of serving Congress,
including an early stint with one of our very greatest
Senators, Senator Nancy Kassebaum. Her most recent positions on
the staff of the House Appropriations Committee have
demonstrated her qualifications for the position for which she
is currently being considered, and I want to associate myself
with my distinguished colleague and fellow swimmer and friend,
Chairman Lewis. I trust my colleagues on this committee will
find her as deserving of this post as I do, and it is my
privilege to say these remarks on her behalf.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.
Folks, I apologize for this, but I want to do it because I
have an obligation. We have so many children and families here
with us. We now are advised the Hart and Dirksen buildings have
been cleared for reentry. The problem was much as you described
it, Senator. We exercise a very strong fiduciary obligation in
this committee and throughout the Senate for those who come to
visit us, and in that capacity, I tried to keep you informed.
Would you kindly introduce your colleague here?
Senator Roberts. I would be delighted to. The distinguished
gentlemen from Ohio who is a great friend and colleague and an
outstanding Member of Congress, David Hobson.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID HOBSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Warner,
thank you for your courtesy this morning.
I had the distinction and honor of being Chairman of the
Military Construction Committee for 4 years. Valerie Baldwin
was my clerk for the last 2 years of that. Valerie is tenacious
and is dedicated to this country. She is dedicated to the
troops and their well-being. She proved that many times over by
going out and visiting bases all over the world and looking at
the quality of life of troops there. So I have no hesitancy to
appear today and to recommend her for this position. I know she
has the educational background and the experience and that
wonderful Jayhawk spirit that will make her a very outstanding
public servant should she get the recommendation of this
committee and the approval of the Senate.
So I thank you very much for your courtesy, sir.
Chairman Warner. Well, I think it is very important that
you and Mr. Lewis took the time to join us here, because this
position now straddles both bodies of Congress, and you will be
dealing with the Senate as well as the House. I think it is
important that the record reflect the sentiments of these
distinguished members of the other body who have had the
opportunity to observe your extraordinary professional
capabilities.
I would only mention that she put down on her resume
something that I have seldom seen in my many years here, that
she was a member of St. Alban's Church. It brought great warmth
to my heart, as I showed her the picture of my uncle who was
pastor of that church for 39 years. In that church, I was
raised as a young man and known as a bad boy because I was an
acolyte and then relieved of my command at one point as an
acolyte by my uncle. [Laughter.]
Since we have a clear situation in terms of security here,
I would like to return to the regular order of the matter in
which we were proceeding here.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, I do have some remarks for
Mr. Flory, if that would be appropriate at this time, but I
will yield to your counsel.
Chairman Warner. Fine, and I am going to follow you then.
You go right ahead.
Senator Roberts. I would also like to voice my support for
Peter Flory. Peter, prior to joining the Department of Defense
was a professional staff member on the Senate Intelligence
Committee. He served with distinction as the committee's Chief
Investigative Counsel and Special Counsel. I know that the
committee's former chairman, Senator Shelby, depended a great
deal on Mr. Flory's expertise and counsel, as we all did. I am
confident that he will bring those same skills and insights to
any future position that he might seek.
I stand ready to assist the chair in any way to consider
Ms. Baldwin's and Mr. Flory's nominations as expeditiously as
we can.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Roberts.
I would like to add that Mr. Flory currently serves as the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs. He has been nominated for the
post of the Assistant Secretary. He previously served with
distinction in the Department of Defense from 1989 to 1992 as
the Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy, Mr. Wolfowitz, and in the Department of State as an
Associate Coordinator for Counterterrorism from 1992 to 1993.
Mr. Flory also served in the legislative branch as the
Chief Investigative Counsel and Special Counsel to the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence.
So you bring a very broad and distinguished background of
experience to this post, Mr. Flory. As citizens of this
country, we are fortunate that you and your family once again
are willing to accept an even greater challenge and more
demanding schedule, as it will soon be, in fulfilling these
posts subject to the confirmation of the United States Senate.
I would like at this time to ask each of our nominees the
following. To the nominees, have you adhered to applicable laws
and regulations governing conflicts of interests?
Mr. Flory. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Baldwin. 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. Flory. No, sir.
Ms. Baldwin. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record in the hearings?
Mr. Flory. Yes, sir.
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Flory. Yes, sir.
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. Flory. Yes, sir.
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Mr. Flory. Yes, Senator.
Ms. Baldwin. Yes.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views
when asked before this committee to do so even if those views
differ with the administration in power?
Mr. Flory. Mr. Chairman, as a political appointee, I
consider it my duty to be an advocate for the positions of the
administration. However, I would always be prepared to discuss
with you and with the committee my best professional judgment.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. That is quite satisfactory.
Ms. Baldwin. Senator, that would be my statement as well.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when
requested by this committee or to consult with the committee
regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in
providing such documents?
Mr. Flory. Yes.
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Could I elaborate on that, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Senator McCain. Do you fully understand what the chairman
is asking you?
Mr. Flory. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Do you fully understand that includes e-
mails and other communications?
Mr. Flory. I understand.
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. You fully understand that?
Mr. Flory. I fully understand, sir.
Senator McCain. The reason why I ask that, Mr. Chairman, it
is now over a year since I asked for the communications
concerning the Boeing issue, and after being assured they would
be coming in very quickly, we have still gotten not nearly what
we had expected from them. Included in it is a whole bunch of
duplication and unnecessary documentation to show that they are
providing thousands of pages when, in fact, about two-thirds of
it is duplicative and at best uninformative.
So I think it is important that we not have to go through
this drill again. I would be glad to have the record perfectly
clear about Mr. Flory's and Ms. Baldwin's views. Okay?
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Flory. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
the interruption.
Chairman Warner. Not at all. I think it is very important
because, as a matter of fact, the committee as a whole has
joined with our colleague, who is also chairman of the Commerce
Committee, which has a similar request in. So we are supportive
in every way.
Now, at this juncture, unless others wish to make an
opening statement with regard to either of the nominees, we
will proceed to receive their preliminary comments.
Mr. Flory.
STATEMENT OF PETER CYRIL WYCHE FLORY, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY POLICY
Mr. Flory. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening
statement. I would like to make a few expressions of
appreciation, if I may, first to you and to Senator Roberts for
your kind remarks, and in particular to you and Senator Levin
for scheduling this hearing. I understand that this is a very
busy week for the Senate and I appreciate your finding the time
to hold the hearing.
I have had the privilege, in two tours as a personal and
committee staff member in the Senate, of working with this
committee on a variety of issues, and I have always been
impressed by and admired the bipartisanship and the
professional spirit in which the committee carries out its
work. I look forward, if confirmed as Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Policy, to continuing to
work with the committee in that same spirit.
The record should also note, I think, that even before we
understood the precise nature of the threat that had caused the
evacuation of the other buildings, this committee stood by its
guns.
You have met my family, and I can only say I could not be
here without their love and support. They have seen me through
the last 3 difficult years. I hope, if I am confirmed, that
they will have the patience and forbearance that they have
shown for me in the last 3 years.
I would like to thank the President for his confidence in
me, and express my appreciation to Secretary Rumsfeld for that
same confidence.
Lastly, I would like to recognize someone who is not with
us today. I spoke briefly with Senator Dole earlier about my
maternal grandfather, Ira Thomas Wyche, who graduated from the
United States Military Academy at West Point in 1911. He grew
up on Ocracoke Island and would have been, if the timing had
been right, a constituent of Senator Dole. He served as an
artilleryman in World War I, and he commanded the 79th Infantry
Division of the U.S. Army in World War II. He lived a long and
full life before dying at the age of 93. He was an enormous
presence in my life. He taught me many things, and I know that
he is watching these proceedings with great interest.
Chairman Warner. I thank you for that reference. I think
that is extremely important for each of us, as we go through
life, to acknowledge those who are no longer present with us
and their tremendous contribution to our ability to take on
responsibility.
Mr. Flory. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My grandfather had a
great deal to do with setting me on the path in life that I
have taken, and I wanted to acknowledge him in these chambers.
Lastly, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
Senator Levin once again for holding this hearing. I will be
pleased to answer your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Ms. Baldwin.
STATEMENT OF VALERIE LYNN BALDWIN, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER
Ms. Baldwin. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I, too, would like
to thank a few people, beginning with Jerry Lewis, for those
very kind comments, and also Mr. Hobson and Senator Roberts. It
is always a little overwhelming when you have the people for
whom you have worked and for whom you have so much respect to
say so many kind things. I am deeply honored by their comments.
I wish that Senator Roberts were here so that I could
assure him that if Kansas State University had a law school, I
would have joined him as a fighting Wildcat. [Laughter.]
Senator, I would like to thank the President for nominating
me to this post and Secretary Rumsfeld for recommending me to
the position.
In addition, Les Brownlee, whom many of you here know, was
instrumental in suggesting that I become a candidate for the
job, and he has encouraged me as the nomination moved down the
road.
Chairman Warner. The Acting Secretary of the Army, Mr.
Brownlee, served this committee for many years. For 17 years,
he was either on the committee or on my staff working for me
here on the committee. He is an extraordinary, competent
professional and has discharged his responsibilities in an
exemplary fashion.
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, sir.
In addition to Mr. Lewis, there are some other people on
the Appropriations Committee who have given me many
opportunities, including the chairman, Mr. Young, Mr. Obey, the
ranking member, Mr. Mollohan, and the now retired Lou Stokes
was extremely helpful to me. I learned something from each one
of them and they made me a better staffer as a consequence. I
hope I can take some of what I learned from them and use it in
my work at the Department of Defense.
I would also like to thank Jim Dyer, who is the House
Appropriations Committee clerk. He has been a terrific mentor
to me. He has been a wonderful advocate, great boss, and good
friend.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have been
fortunate to work on the staffs of both an appropriations
committee and an authorization committee. As a consequence, I
have a great deal of appreciation for credible numbers and a
great deal of respect for the importance of well-considered
legislative policy. Linking and integrating these two
congressional functions with serving soldiers is a challenge
that I welcome if I am confirmed. It is a challenge that I
would attempt to carry out using the highest standards.
Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and
Senator Levin for having this hearing today, and should I be
confirmed, I pledge to work with you Chairman Warner, with you,
Senator Levin, and with the other members of the committee and
with all of your staffs. I am prepared to answer any questions
at this time.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Mr. Flory, I will proceed first to a subject we discussed
briefly yesterday, and that is my concern over the future of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its role on
the international scene. NATO is the most extraordinary
military alliance in the history of contemporary mankind, and
it was very successful in its missions to date.
When a group of us here in the Senate visited Afghanistan
recently, we learned of a deepening concern about NATO's
fulfillment of its committed mission in Afghanistan, concerns
ranging from what we call the national caveats. For those that
may not be familiar with that term, it is where a nation
commits its forces under the command of NATO to perform a NATO
mission but, in doing so, they add stipulations as to what
those forces can do and cannot do. That makes it extremely
difficult for the on-scene commander to coordinate and command
and commit those forces in accordance with the mission.
There are severe risks to life and limb in Afghanistan
because of the continued level of insurgency, and some of those
forces under the NATO command specifically could take on tasks
which--I will just put it in the kindest terms I can--to some
extent limit the risks that they must take and thereby putting
on the shoulders of other NATO forces perhaps an added risk.
That to me is just an intolerable situation.
Furthermore, NATO had committed to do a number of things in
Afghanistan. The Secretary General, I understand, has said that
forces will be made available for the elections to provide the
security. I welcome that, but at the time I was there, there
was considerable doubt as to whether or not they would do it.
That seems to have been remedied by the new Secretary General.
But still the NATO forces were to provide a security
situation to allow reconstruction to go on in the four
quadrants in Afghanistan. While I think to some degree they
performed admirably in one quadrant, the time table for the
commitment to the other three quadrants seems to be somewhat in
doubt.
Then we come to Iraq. A number of NATO nations have very
courageously stepped up and contributed their troops to the
overall coalition forces, but at the recent high level meeting
of the NATO officials in Turkey, there was a release to the
effect that they would provide some training for Iraqi security
forces. It was in response to a request from the new Prime
Minister, and that letter specifically said that that training
was to take place inside Iraq. Since that time, there has been
somewhat of a debate within NATO and comments from France and
other countries about where and how that training would take
place. So once again, we have some question marks raised about
the future role of NATO in that theater with regard to the
limited mission of training the Iraqi security forces.
First, I would like to have you describe your work with
NATO in your previous position and now the continued work with
NATO in the position to which the President has appointed you,
subject to confirmation, and how your work relates with that of
other persons in the Department of Defense who also share the
responsibility of NATO and your views as to the likelihood that
NATO can carry forward the commitments both in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Mr. Flory. Mr. Chairman, thank you. You have summed up very
well what I anticipate will be one of the biggest challenges
facing me, if confirmed into my new position.
As Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in International
Security Affairs (ISA), with responsibility for Afghanistan and
Iraq, I have been in the position of working with NATO members
who have contributed to our missions in those countries. We
have worked closely with the NATO office in the Office of
International Security Policy (ISP), and we have a good working
relationship there.
With respect to providing of forces, we in ISA have been,
as it was, the support command, and ISP has worked with NATO to
provide the force of supporting and supported missions in our
office of NATO. I think that it is important to note that
considerable progress has been made. When NATO forces took over
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan,
that was an extraordinary step for an alliance that, as you
well recall, was conceived, created, and spent virtually all of
its life within Europe with a mission that was essentially
confined within Europe. So we have made considerable progress
in getting NATO to Afghanistan, and now obtaining the
commitment with respect to Iraq.
As you say, there is a lot of work still to be done. A lot
of that is a function of continuing the transformation of NATO,
including the NATO Response Force as one example. A lot of good
work was done under Assistant Secretary Crouch with the NATO
Response Force and NATO command restructuring to increase the
capability of the alliance, first, to deploy, and second, to
sustain its forces once they are there.
As you point out, another issue that has arisen is this
question of national caveats. This has been a concern in
Afghanistan. It has been a concern in Kosovo where last March,
as I understand it, I have not been working the Kosovo issue,
but as I understand it, a number of issues came up that General
Jones is working on right now.
Chairman Warner. May I say that I think he has been one of
the most outstanding Supreme Allied Command, Europe (SACEUR)
and NATO Commanders in contemporary history. I have discussed
with him the very same questions that I am propounding to you.
Mr. Flory. Mr. Chairman, I agree with your assessment. I
have watched his work, again from the other side of what we in
policy call the ISA/ISP divide.
All of these questions are questions that I expect to spend
a great deal of time on, and I will look forward to working
with you and Senator Levin and the committee on these. Again, I
think a great deal of good work has been done, but for NATO to
live up to its potential, for NATO to be all it can be, it
needs to develop both the capabilities and the political will,
which translates into an absence of restrictions that will
allow it to carry out the commitments that it makes.
Chairman Warner. I thank you for that response.
Now, Ms. Baldwin, the committee has been concerned about
the pace of modernization of the defense financial management
systems. The current time line calls for completion by 2007.
However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports
that this goal appears too optimistic. If confirmed, what
priority would you assign to achieving modernized financial
systems and fully auditable financial statements?
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, Senator, I understand that this has been
a concern of the committee. It is my goal, as the financial
manager of the Army's budget, to make sure that systems make it
possible for us to adequately track data and to provide
credible numbers to the Senate and to the House. We need
systems that enable us to understand what the requirements are
and to match up those requirements with the resources that we
have. I think we do need to produce better data.
My understanding is that the Department of Defense has put
together a business modernization plan for its financial
management systems, and I feel it will be very important for me
to work closely with them. The DOD's goal is to have auditable
financial statements by 2007. At this point, sir, I do not have
sufficient information to know whether that goal can be met,
but we will certainly try very hard to meet it if we can get
all the data together that would be required.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, let me thank General Craddock for hanging in here
for a few more minutes. We appreciate that.
Mr. Flory, I have questions on a number of nuclear issues.
First, do you support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or the
continuation of the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing?
Mr. Flory. Senator Levin, I support the administration's
position in support of continuing the moratorium.
Senator Levin. Do you believe that there is going to be a
need in the near future to resume nuclear weapons testing?
Mr. Flory. Senator, I do not know the answer to that
question. It is not a question that I have dealt with. I
understand that it is an issue that is in the mind of the
committee, and I will certainly delve into that if confirmed in
my new position.
Senator Levin. Do you support the Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT) and our commitments under it?
Mr. Flory. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Relative to the questions you were asked on
the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, you indicated that the
Department of Defense should be able to provide the President
with options to place certain facilities at risk and that
belong to potential adversaries who are now hardening or
burying facilities that support weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) operations. Would you include Russia in that list of
potential adversaries?
Mr. Flory. Senator, Russia would not be the first country
that came to my mind.
Senator Levin. Would it be on the list?
Mr. Flory. I have not seen a list, and as I mentioned
earlier, I have not worked this issue for some time. Before
making any definitive comment, I need to review the facts, and
I would be happy to discuss it further. I also am concerned
about the classification issue here.
As I say, I think that there are other countries that would
come to mind as being more immediate concerns.
Senator Levin. Just a quick question on missile defense. Is
there an opportunity for U.S.-Russian missile defense
cooperation?
Mr. Flory. I know there have been discussions both within
the U.S. Government and with the Russians on that. I do not
know what the outcome of these discussions has been. My view is
that there is the potential for such cooperation, but again,
that is something I would have to study further.
Senator Levin. The chairman, I believe, asked you about the
possible role of NATO forces in Iraq. I guess my question is,
given the reluctance of many NATO members to have a presence on
the ground in Iraq, do you foresee a role for NATO forces in
Iraq either, one, to provide security for a United Nations
(U.N.) mission that is going to need to aid in the preparation
for elections in Iraq in January, as requested by the foreign
minister in Iraq in his visit to NATO headquarters; or two, at
the formal request of the newly elected Iraqi government after
those elections?
Mr. Flory. Senator, my understanding of where the issue
stands right now is that at the recent Istanbul summit, NATO
agreed to provide training, and the modalities of the training,
the scope and other aspects of that are currently being worked
out.
In terms of what future requests or requirements might be,
if confirmed, I will certainly be dealing with those as they
come in. I would not be surprised if requests are made, and
they will have to be dealt with at the time.
Senator Levin. Mr. Flory, you are in the office that Mr.
Feith heads. Is that correct?
Mr. Flory. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. I have been trying for, I do not know how
many months, to get documents from Mr. Feith for a review that
I am making here, along with the minority staff, of some of the
issues relative to the intelligence failures and the
intelligence characterization prior to the attack on Iraq. It
is, frankly, a painfully long list of letters to Mr. Feith,
partial responses, promises not kept, and I am not going to go
through all of the letters and all of the inadequate, partial
responses or responses and commitments which have not been kept
after the commitments were made.
But I want to alert you to these. I know he has copies, but
since you are in his office, you might want to inform him that
as far as I am concerned, we must have these documents
immediately. The last letter I sent to him was that we expected
these letters no later than July 15. Promises just simply are
not going to do anymore. So we would expect those documents by
the end of business today or by noon tomorrow.
We have actually had to invoke the good offices of our
chairman on this one. Even though this is not a formal
committee inquiry, the chairman has supported the efforts that
I have made to obtain documents and to make my own analysis and
to have minority staff involved in this process. We are
grateful to the chairman for that support, which he has given,
even though it is not a formal committee investigation. We have
kept the chairman informed of all of the requests to Mr. Feith.
I will not go into any more detail, because he is fully aware
of what those requests are or what those documents are. So I
would like to have an answer by noon tomorrow on this issue.
Chairman Warner. If I might comment on that, Mr. Feith
appeared before this committee and responded in the affirmative
to the same questions that you responded to this morning about
the commitment to the committee of the Senate, the Senate as a
whole, and congressional committees to supply on a timely basis
documents. That is a matter of record.
Senator Kennedy, do you wish to question our panel here?
Senator Kennedy. No. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
have no questions.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Flory, the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review
laid out a comprehensive vision for the future of the United
States strategic forces that included conventional and nuclear
forces, active and passive defenses, and a robust defense
structure, all undergirded by improved command, control, and
intelligence. How would you assess the progress that has been
made to date in implementing the recommendations of the Nuclear
Posture Review?
Mr. Flory. Mr. Chairman, I read the Nuclear Posture Review
when it came out. Since that time, I have not worked on, and
have not kept abreast of, our nuclear weapons and related
strategic programs. I am not in a position right now to give
you a good answer on that. It is a significant undertaking. I
know that people have put a lot of time and work into it. If
confirmed, that is another matter that I will be immersing
myself in, and I will be pleased to report to you on where that
stands.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Arms control has been a very prominent feature of the
United States security policy in past years, but clearly the
international security landscape has changed dramatically in
the past decade. What is your view of the proper role of arms
control in the U.S. national security strategy at this time?
Mr. Flory. Mr. Chairman, in my current job, I dealt with
arms control strategy per se. I have dealt with some of the
issues of nuclear proliferation from the regional perspective.
There are a number of lines of defense against the
proliferation of WMD. Senator Levin asked earlier about the
NPT. That treaty and other treaties are among our first line of
defense for defending against WMD. We need a multi-layered
defense. Initiatives such as the President's Proliferation
Security Initiative are designed to help plug gaps in current
regimes and in our ability to enforce current regimes. There
are other military elements, of course, but I consider arms
control to be one of the first lines of defense in preventing
states from actually developing these capabilities in the first
place, and in attempting to prevent them from spreading them to
other countries.
Chairman Warner. Ms. Baldwin, the GAO recently completed a
report that identified extensive problems with the National
Guard's pay system. Modernizing the military payroll system is
part of the longer-term business management modernization
program. However, it is essential that corrections be made
immediately in this system to minimize the personal hardships
on deployed guardsmen, reservists, and their families.
Can you assure this committee that if confirmed you will
make fixing pay problems one of your top priorities?
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, sir, I can assure the committee of that.
Chairman Warner. Are you familiar with the problem?
Ms. Baldwin. I have read a little bit of the GAO report,
Senator. It was not something that I dealt with in my previous
position. So I am not aware of all of the problems. What I
believe GAO concluded was that the existing system is just
overloaded and cannot handle all of the inputs. So I think that
that is the first thing that must be understood.
The business modernization management plan that DOD is
working on should enable systems to speak to one another.
Accurate pay on a timely basis is vital for our troops. It
certainly adds to their morale.
Chairman Warner. And their families. Always remember the
families.
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, sir, absolutely. I think in the newspaper
today there was a story about the morale of the families, and I
think it is very important that they get their pay on time.
Chairman Warner. I thank you for that commitment. I heard
you, and the record reflects it would be your first priority.
Is that correct?
Ms. Baldwin. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Colleagues, at this time I think we will just submit such
additional questions we may have to the panel.
Yes, Mr. Flory?
Mr. Flory. Mr. Chairman, if I might just take a second to
respond to something Senator Levin raised. I will take back
with me the request Senator Levin made with respect to the
materials that have been requested from Mr. Feith. Mr. Feith is
not only out of town today, but he is about as close to
unreachable as he can be. He will be back sometime this
evening. I am not going to be able to communicate directly with
him until then. I will, of course, communicate what you said to
him at my earliest opportunity, but I cannot guarantee a
particular time frame because it is just going to take time for
me to get hold of him and then for people to respond to the
request.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I will just make the June 30
letter to Mr. Feith that I referred to a part of the record, if
I could at this time.
Chairman Warner. Yes, without objection.
[The letter referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
accommodating me.
Chairman Warner. This concludes your part in the nomination
procedures before this committee. The committee will promptly
consider the testimony you have given here today. All members
will have the opportunity to express their support for the
committee's reporting out. I anticipate that it will hopefully
be favorable in both instances and your name will be put on the
executive calendar.
I once again thank each of you, together with your family
and friends who have given you the support through the years
and will hopefully continue to give you the support to fulfill
these important posts to which our President has appointed you.
Thank you very much.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say that my
questions for Ms. Baldwin will have to be for the record, given
the circumstances that we are in. I congratulate both nominees
on their nominations.
As I have indicated, as far as I am concerned, this effort
with the Feith office has to be addressed at this point. We
just cannot delay this any longer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your courtesies.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
We will now ask General Craddock to reappear before the
committee for purposes of more questions.
General Craddock. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, General. The chair advised you
earlier that the balance of the questions would be for the
record, given the somewhat unusual situation of security here
in the complex of the buildings, but now that situation has
abated, fortunately. At the request of the distinguished
ranking member and our distinguished colleague from
Massachusetts, we will resume the questioning in connection
with your confirmation.
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. First of all, I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and Senator Levin for the courtesy, and I want to
thank General Craddock for his willingness to stand by here and
permit me to question him briefly on a matter of some
importance. But I am very grateful to the chair.
I was necessarily absent earlier this morning. The
President signed the Bioshield legislation, which is enormously
important in terms of our whole biodefense legislation. We have
worked on that with our Majority Leader, Senator Frist, and
Senator Gregg. It was appropriate that the President sign that
because, given all of the challenges that we face, it is
extremely important legislation dealing with government and the
private sector and an important way to deal with the challenges
that we are facing in terms of the biodefense issues. So I am
grateful. We came back as rapidly as we could, but I missed the
opportunity to question.
So I just have one area of concern, General, and I thank
you very much for being here.
I recently have reviewed memos from the Department showing
the serious debate and disputes that occurred among the senior
military lawyers around the wisdom and legality of the
Department's post-September 11 interrogation policies. These
memos were referred to in a June 24, 2004, Washington Post
article. These memos were by General Romig in the Army, General
Sandkuhler in the Marine Corps, Admiral Lohr in the Navy, and
General Rives in the Air Force. All of them I find to be
extremely prescient.
Long before the abuses of Abu Ghraib occurred, these
officers vigorously criticized the new interrogation policies
as unlawful, counterproductive, and potentially dangerous to
American soldiers. All of them. They argued that the new
policies contradicted longstanding military practice, would
cause great confusion on the battlefield, would lower the bar
for treatment of our own troops, and they disputed the claim
that the war on terror authorized the President to break the
laws or to violate the Geneva Convention. They accurately
predicted that other nations and human rights observers would
object to our harsher interrogation techniques, thus weakening
the coalition.
Some of these new policies that they referred to involved
the implementation of the harsher interrogation tactics at
Guantanamo. In April you personally signed off on these
memoranda, on these tactics, and recommended them to the
Secretary, or at least forwarded these documents all to the
Secretary.
Were you aware at the time of the serious objections by the
military lawyers to these proposed changes?
General Craddock. Senator, I am not aware, nor can I
recollect the memo you are talking about I signed off on.
Senator Kennedy. There were four memos.
General Craddock. I have never seen those memos.
Senator Kennedy. Well, you signed off here. On April 2003,
your signature is on the face document.
General Craddock. Sir, I cannot recollect. I would have to
see the document. If that is available, that would be helpful.
Senator Kennedy. They are in the next room.
Chairman Warner. They are classified documents.
Senator Kennedy. They are classified documents. They are in
the next room. I shared them with Senator Levin just a few
moments ago, and there is your signature just as clear as can
be on the cover page for these.
You do not have any recollection? Because there are four.
They come from each of the Services, each of the judge
advocates of each of the Services, all of them taking a very
similar position in terms of interrogation techniques. They
were all then sent on to General Counsel Haynes who is the
overall coordinator for the DOD, but they came through you and
your name is on the cover of the documents.
General Craddock. I do not recollect that, sir. I am trying
to recall a situation where a Service general counsel or staff
judge advocate--you mentioned military, so they must be staff
judge advocates, Judge Advocates General (JAGs)--would send a
document through me to the general counsel. I just do not ever
recall that. That document from a Service component would
normally come into the executive secretary and be brought under
control and then sent to the functional office to which it
would be worked unless it came to the Secretary of Defense.
Senator, I do not recall that. Now, that does not mean that
100 documents a day do not come through, and I may put my
initial on it and a date, but I do not ever recall seeing
those.
I was aware of a working group that was established of the
Service general counsels to address those issues. I do not
recall any memos, having ever seen or read, for sure never read
any memos, from the Service JAGs.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I am surprised, because your name is
on the face cover of that, signed off, as clear as I am here. I
mean, I do not know if we can recess----
General Craddock. I need to see the document, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Could the documents be produced?
Senator Kennedy. Yes, they could.
Chairman Warner. We can allow the witness to look at them.
Senator Kennedy. It will take about 2 minutes, I believe.
Chairman Warner. He could do the examination back here in a
secured area since they are classified documents. Why do we not
stand in recess for a few minutes in fairness to the witness
and allow him to look at the documents?
Senator Kennedy. While we are getting the documents, could
I just ask?
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Just so that I have an understanding. The
idea that these documents exist, you are completely unaware of
their existence? You are completely unaware that they were sent
on to the general counsel, or to the task force that the
General Counsel, Mr. Haynes chaired? As far as you know, it is
completely news to you?
General Craddock. Senator, I read what you read in the
paper. So I have read that. I am aware of that. I do not recall
seeing those documents.
Senator Kennedy. What were you aware of in the paper? That
there were what? That there were these memoranda?
General Craddock. There were documents of concern; that
there were procedures that possibly were of concern to the
Services.
Senator Kennedy. Am I right? When you read them in the
paper, you said, well, that did not come across my plate, or
maybe it did come across my plate and I have to take a look?
General Craddock. It did not register, nor do I recall any
concern on my part that I had seen something or signed off on
something.
Senator Kennedy. So your testimony is the only thing that
you know about is what you read in the newspaper?
General Craddock. You are asking me if I am aware of those
documents. I am aware of them from that perspective. I do not
recall reading those documents other than what was reported in
the newspapers.
Senator Kennedy. So you have no further information about
whether they were ever received? Do you have any recollection
whether you heard the Secretary talk about these documents or
the General Counsel talk about these documents? You have no
recollection of these documents or that they existed other than
what you read in the newspaper? I am just trying to get some
feel for it.
General Craddock. My recollection is a concern by Service
general counsels as opposed to staff judge advocates or JAGs
expressed by the DOD general counsel. Beyond that, I have no
recollection of Service----
Chairman Warner. Again, I think if we just give him the
opportunity to examine the documents, it might refresh
recollections. Having had a lifetime of experience dealing with
Secretaries of Defense both in and out of their offices, the
amount of paper, the public should know, and the amount of
memoranda and documents that go through there, is just massive
every day. So I think in fairness to our witness, let us give
him a chance.
General Craddock. I understand this is 2003. Is that the
date of the memo?
Senator Kennedy. April 2003, I believe.
Chairman Warner. Shall we just recess for a few minutes? It
is not an inconvenient matter.
Senator Kennedy. That would be fine.
Chairman Warner. All right. The committee stands in recess
at the call of the chair. [Recess.]
The hearing will resume. Let the record reflect that
General Craddock had an opportunity to examine the documents
referred to by our colleague from Massachusetts, and now having
had the opportunity to see them, General, would you like to
expand on your reply to the question from the Senator from
Massachusetts?
General Craddock. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Upon reviewing the
documents, indeed, my signature was on a slip, a buck slip,
forwarding a memo from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the
Secretary on the topic of interrogation techniques. The
attachment to the memos, which were the memos in question from
the various Service staff judge advocates and general counsels,
to my recollection, were never attached to the memorandum from
the Chairman to the Secretary. I have not seen those prior to
today.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you.
Just finally then, so you have indicated that you never saw
those memoranda. Is that correct?
General Craddock. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. If you had seen those memoranda, do you
think you remember whether you had read them?
General Craddock. I do, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
following through with this. I think it does emphasize the
importance of this issue. We know that all four of these went
up the line of command up to General Counsel Haynes. At some
time I am hopeful that we will be able to inquire of him at an
appropriate time.
Chairman Warner. Senator, you have properly noted to the
chair the desirability of having the committee hear from the
General Counsel of the Department.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, also support
that.
Chairman Warner. Let the record show that the ranking
member has brought that to the attention of the chairman.
We are proceeding apace on the hearings with regard to the
detainee situations. We had the opportunity yesterday to get
some information on that subject. By the way, I will be joining
you and informing the committee of the documents and pictures
in the possession of the committee now, which some members may
wish to examine. We will expand on that later.
Are there any further questions of this witness?
Senator Kennedy. I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your
typical courtesy. Thank you, General.
Chairman Warner. General, do I see that your family have
departed?
General Craddock. They are in the back of the room,
Senator.
Chairman Warner. They went in the back row. I hoped they
had not deserted you. Well, I thank them once again for joining
us here, and thank you, General.
Senator Levin. You realize, more than ever, how important
you are, I hope.
Chairman Warner. I am hopeful that this nomination can be
acted upon by the Senate prior to its period of recess.
General Craddock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to VADM Timothy J. Keating,
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, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command from
February 2002 through October 2003 and as Director of the Joint Staff
since October 2003.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes. The success of military operations in the past several
years is directly linked to the implementation of these reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented, particularly in the U.S. Navy?
Answer. These reforms have been widely implemented with great
success throughout the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Navy.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I believe the most important outcomes are improved joint
warfighting capabilities, clear operational chains of command and more
efficient use of defense resources.
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. At this time, I do not see any need to modify the
Goldwater-Nichols Act. However, if confirmed, I will not hesitate to
make relevant recommendations, if I see a need.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, U.S. Northern Command?
Answer. The Commander, U.S. Northern Command is responsible for
defending the people and territory of the United States against threats
to our homeland. The Commander is also responsible for security
cooperation with Canada and Mexico, as well as providing civil support
as directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. Thirty-three years of military training and experience, to
include numerous command positions, have prepared me for assuming
command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S.
Northern Command. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, as Commander, U.S.
Naval Forces Central Command, I planned and executed joint warfighting
missions. In addition, as Director of the Joint Staff, I have gained
invaluable insights into the conduct of joint operations, the duties of
a combatant commander and interagency cooperation.
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. Northern Command?
Answer. If confirmed, I will take advantage of every opportunity to
improve my knowledge of homeland defense and civil support missions. I
look forward to engaging with key players within the Department of
Defense, including the National Guard, as well as the interagency
community and the newly established homeland defense/homeland security
education consortium.
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. Northern Command, to the following officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Commander, U.S. Northern Command, performs his duties
under the authority, direction and control of the Secretary of Defense.
He is directly responsible to the Secretary of Defense for the ability
of the command to carry out its 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. The Commander, U.S. Northern Command, ensures the Deputy 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 commands'
requirements. The Commander, U.S. Northern Command, coordinates and
exchanges information with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on
strategic policy issues involving homeland defense and civil support.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. The Commander, U.S. Northern Command, coordinates and
exchanges information with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence as needed to set and meet the command's intelligence
requirements.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense.
Answer. Normally, interaction with assistant secretaries is
accomplished through the appropriate under secretary. However, the
Commander, U.S. Northern Command, also works directly with assistant
secretaries, when appropriate. This is frequently the case with the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. While the Chairman is not in the chain of command that runs
from the President and the Secretary of Defense to combatant
commanders, his role as the senior uniformed military advisor is
critical. The Commander, U.S. Northern Command, supports the chain of
command as directed in title 10 and communicates closely with the
Chairman to enable him to perform his duties as the principal military
advisor to the President and the Secretary of Defense.
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 combatant
commands. The Commander, U.S. Northern Command, coordinates closely
with the secretaries to ensure homeland defense and civil support
requirements are met.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. The Commander, U.S. Northern Command, communicates and
exchanges information with the chiefs of staff of the Services to
support their responsibility for organizing, training and equipping
forces. Successful execution of U.S. Northern Command's new force
protection responsibilities also involves close coordination with the
service chiefs. Like the Chairman, the service chiefs are valuable
sources of judgment and advice for combatant commanders.
Question. The other combatant commanders.
Answer. The Commander, U.S. Northern Command, maintains close
relationships with the other combatant commanders. These relationships,
which are critical to the execution of our National Military Strategy,
are characterized by mutual support, frequent contact and productive
exchanges of information on key issues.
Question. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
Answer. National Guard forces are likely to be involved in almost
all homeland defense and civil support missions; close coordination
between U.S. Northern Command and the National Guard Bureau is central
to the success of these operations. The Commander, U.S. Northern
Command, communicates regularly with the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau on issues involving the use of National Guard forces.
Question. If confirmed, in carrying out your duties, how would you
work with the Department of Homeland Security, the Homeland Security
Council, and other Federal agencies, as well as State and local
authorities and representatives from the private sector?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work operational issues with the
Department of Homeland Security, the Homeland Security Council and
other Federal agencies. I understand U.S. Northern Command's Joint
Interagency Coordination Group gives the command a means to communicate
with local, State, and Federal agencies and facilitate appropriate
Department of Defense assistance.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Commander, U.S. Northern Command?
Answer. As we move further from the tragic attacks of September 11,
I believe maintaining the command's focus and intensity in protecting
and defending our homeland will be important. Our enemies today are
like no other we have faced in our Nation's history; U.S. Northern
Command should remain prepared to deter and defeat traditional and
unconventional means of attack.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe a robust exercise program,
involving participants from the Department of Defense, the interagency
community, as well as State and local officials, is the cornerstone to
success. I also believe the information-sharing culture fostered in
U.S. Northern Command is the right approach to help protect Americans
where they live and work.
mission of u.s. northern command
Question. What is the mission of U.S. Northern Command?
Answer. U.S. Northern Command conducts operations to deter,
prevent, and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States,
its territories and interests within its assigned area of
responsibility. As directed by the President or Secretary of Defense,
the command provides civil support. In addition, the U.S. Northern
Command is responsible for theater security cooperation with Mexico and
Canada, with full respect for their sovereignty.
Question. How does U.S. Northern Command's mission relate to the
Department of Homeland Security's mission?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has overall
responsibility for civil aspects of protecting our Nation. U.S.
Northern Command works closely with elements of the Department of
Homeland Security at the tactical and operational level to plan, train
for, and execute homeland defense and civil support missions.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, would you anticipate
U.S. Northern Command would have the lead role in responding to a
terrorist incident?
Answer. I believe the President or Secretary of Defense would
assign U.S. Northern Command the lead role in defending our Nation
against a major terrorist attack. They may also assign U.S. Northern
Command the lead in the case of an attack by weapons of mass
destruction, or in the event that a terrorist incident occurs on a
Department of Defense installation.
Question. What responsibility, if any, does U.S. Northern Command
have with respect to the Critical Asset Assurance Program (CAAP)?
Answer. Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7, published in
December 2003, assigns the Department of Homeland Security primary
responsibility for critical infrastructure protection (the successor
program to CAAP) within the United States. It also assigns the
Secretary of Defense responsibilities for the protection of the defense
industrial base. It is my understanding that the Office of the
Secretary of Defense is drafting policy guidance for U.S. Northern
Command regarding its responsibilities for critical infrastructure
protection.
organization and authority
Question. U.S. Northern Command has recently been assigned
responsibility for force protection and antiterrorism within its area
of responsibility.
What actions would you take, if confirmed, to mitigate force
protection vulnerabilities, and what force protection challenges do you
anticipate you would face within U.S. Northern Command theater of
responsibility?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure U.S. Northern Command's force
protection and antiterrorism program, which will achieve full program
execution on 1 October 2004, includes an aggressive vulnerability
assessment process that involves the Joint Staff and Service/Department
of Defense Agencies' headquarters. Vulnerabilities will be measured
against established standards and risk mitigated throughout the U.S.
Northern Command area of responsibility. Spot checks will performed as
needed to verify fixes. This standardization of the various force
protection and antiterrorism programs will be a challenge due to the
diversity and vastness of U.S. Northern Command's area of
responsibility.
Question. What specific forces, if any, have been assigned to U.S.
Northern Command?
Answer. Forces assigned to U.S. Northern Command include Joint Task
Force Civil Support, Joint Task Force Six, Joint Force Headquarters
National Capital Region, and the Commanders of the four Service
components (Army North, Northern Air Force, Marine Forces North, and
Navy North).
Question. How has the assignment of forces to U.S. Northern Command
changed since U.S. Northern Command was established on October 1, 2002?
Answer. Since 1 October 2002, U.S. Northern Command has stood up a
Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region. In addition, they
deactivated Joint Force Headquarters Homeland Security.
norad
Question. What is the mission of the North American Aerospace
Defense Command?
Answer. The missions of the North American Aerospace Defense
Command are aerospace warning and aerospace control. Aerospace warning
consists of detection, validation, and warning of an attack against
North America. Aerospace control consists of air sovereignty and air
defense of United States and Canadian airspace.
Question. How does NORAD's mission relate to U.S. Northern
Command's mission?
Answer. The missions of the North American Aerospace Defense
Command and U.S. Northern Command are complementary. The North American
Aerospace Defense Command conducts operations in the air domain and
provides warning of ballistic missile attack. U.S. Northern Command
conducts land and maritime defense, U.S.-only air missions and civil
support. The commands coordinate on many issues and work side-by-side.
Question. How does NORAD's mission relate to DHS's mission?
Answer. The North American Aerospace Defense Command provides a
layer of deterrence that supports the Department of Homeland Security's
mission.
jtf-cs and jtf-6
Question. Since the establishment of U.S. Northern Command, several
multi-service commands, e. g., Joint Task Force-Civil Support (JTF-CS),
Joint Task Force-Six (JTF-6), have been placed under its authority.
What is the current status of the transfer of command of these
organizations?
Answer. The transfer of command for JTF-CS and JTF-6 occurred on 1
October 2002 when U.S. Northern Command was activated. These
organizations serve as subordinate commands under U.S Northern Command.
Question. At the present time, various units with responsibilities
relating to the counter-drug mission, including Joint Interagency Task
Force-East, and Joint Interagency Task Force-West are assigned to
various combatant commanders.
Do you anticipate that either of these units will eventually be
assigned to U.S. Northern Command? Are there any plans to merge these
joint interagency task forces?
Answer. I would not anticipate the assignment of Joint Interagency
Task Force South (which includes the former Joint Interagency Task
Force East) or Joint Interagency Task Force West to U.S. Northern
Command, and I am not aware of any plan to merge these task forces.
Question. What role does U.S. Northern Command play in the
Department's overall counterdrug mission and organization?
Answer. U.S. Northern Command, through Joint Task Force Six,
synchronizes and integrates Department of Defense operational,
training, and intelligence support to domestic law enforcement agency
counterdrug efforts in the continental United States. It serves as a
force multiplier by enhancing law enforcement agency effectiveness.
Question. How are counterdrug operations coordinated across
combatant command boundaries, particularly with U.S. Southern Command?
Answer. U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command have a
Command Arrangement Agreement that facilitates counterdrug operations
across area of responsibility boundaries. This agreement provides for a
shared common operational picture and notification procedures when
forces transit areas of responsibilities in the conduct of their
mission. Intelligence information is routinely exchanged to eliminate
border seams.
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004 included a provision (section 1022) that authorizes forces
providing support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-drug
activities to also provide, subject to all applicable laws and
regulations, support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-
terrorism activities.
How has this authority been implemented, and what financial
resources do these task forces have to conduct counter-terrorism
missions?
Answer. My understanding is that JTF-6 will become Joint Task Force
North by 1 October 2004 and expand beyond counterdrug activities into
counterterrorism. It will still be aligned under U.S. Northern Command.
Its mission will include the detection, monitoring, and support of the
interdiction of suspected transnational threats in the approaches to
the continental United States. Similar to the counterdrug mission,
Department of Defense forces will be in support of law enforcement
agencies and follow all applicable laws and restrictions. There are
currently no additional resources provided exclusively to JTF-6 for the
counterterrorism mission. At the present time, the only
counterterrorism missions are those conducted in conjunction with a
counterdrug operation.
national guard
Question. There is still considerable debate about the role the
National Guard should play in defending the homeland.
Do you believe that defending the homeland should become the
National Guard's primary mission?
Answer. The National Guard is fundamental to homeland defense and
plays an important role in planning for and responding to terrorist
attacks in the United States. If confirmed, I am confident National
Guard forces will be available when needed to defend our Nation.
Question. What is the current status of the working relationship
between U.S. Northern Command, the National Guard Bureau, and
individual state National Guard headquarters?
Answer. U.S. Northern Command and the National Guard Bureau have a
strong relationship. Through the National Guard Bureau, U.S. Northern
Command coordinates with state headquarters for planning purposes and
maintains situational awareness of National Guard actions and
commitments.
Question. If confirmed, what type of liaison relationships for
planning and operational purposes would you advocate between U.S.
Northern Command, the Department of Homeland Security, Federal, State,
and local first responders, and National Guard units under State
authority?
Answer. If confirmed, U.S. Northern Command will continue to work
with the Department of Homeland Security on operational planning,
training, and execution of homeland defense and civil support missions.
U.S. Northern Command will support the Department of Homeland
Security's efforts to assist governors and civil authorities in
executing homeland security responsibilities. The Department of Defense
does not engage directly with State governors on the role of National
Guard forces operating under State authority. However, the National
Guard Bureau keeps U.S. Northern Command informed of State-level
homeland security activities involving National Guard forces.
Question. Do you believe that changes to the ``posse comitatus''
doctrine under section 1385 of title 10, United States Code, and
implementing DOD and Service regulations, would enhance U.S. Northern
Command's ability to accomplish its mission?
Answer. No, my understanding is that the Posse Comitatus Act has in
no way hampered U.S. Northern Command's ability to accomplish its
missions.
weapons of mass destruction--civil support teams
Question. In recent years, legislation has been enacted to
establish additional Weapons of Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams
(WMD-CST) with the goal of ensuring that all 54 states and territories
have a WMD-CST within their borders. The Department is currently
reviewing the mission, doctrine, organization, and equipping of these
teams.
In your view, do the WMD-CSTs need more robust capabilities to not
only diagnose but also manage the response to a WMD attack, including
decontamination functions?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you think that the WMD-CSTs have adequate
transportation support to respond to an event within an appropriate
time frame?
Answer. Yes. To the best of my knowledge, the WMD-CSTs have not
encountered any transportation difficulties in responding to events.
Question. Do you believe it is advisable for at least some of the
teams to have a chemical-biological response capability similar to that
of the U.S. Marine Corps' Chemical Biological Incident Response Force
(CBIRF)?
Answer. Yes. I fully support the establishment of National Guard
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High-Yield Explosive
Enhanced Response Force Packages.
maritime norad
Question. Several proposals have been made to expand NORAD's focus
from air to air, land, and sea. The Chief of Naval Operations has
suggested creating a ``maritime NORAD,'' and a recent Defense Science
Board study recommended that the Department improve and integrate its
maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets with
those of the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation, the
CIA, and the FBI.
What do you think would be the advantages and disadvantages of such
an approach?
Answer. I believe that improving our awareness of the maritime
domain is critical to the security of the United States. There are
vulnerabilities in our maritime approaches. Numerous initiatives,
including the 96-hour notice of arrival requirement to offload at a
U.S. or Canadian port and the automatic identification system--a
maritime equivalent to Federal Aviation Administration transponders--
are being implemented to improve our maritime awareness. However, these
initiatives will only affect large vessels, which still leaves a
significant gap in our maritime awareness. Therefore, it is to our
advantage to ensure information and intelligence are shared regardless
of the source agency. I believe a cooperative approach is an optimal
solution to this dynamic problem, and I see no disadvantage to such a
pursuit.
Question. What are your views on potential cooperative Canadian-
U.S. maritime activities?
Answer. Continuing cooperation between Canada and the United States
on maritime activities would improve our national security. There is
currently a robust information-sharing network among our maritime
agencies. Security could be further enhanced by a NORAD-like agreement
in the maritime domain.
information sharing
Question. On June 9, 2004, an incident involving a private aircraft
entering the National Capital Region airspace led to the evacuation of
the U.S. Capitol. The emergency apparently resulted from shortfalls in
the ability of various government agencies, including the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and the
Department of Defense to share information. The mission of U.S.
Northern Command requires rapid, secure, and effective communication
with a variety of Federal, State, and local entities.
What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that rapid
communication is possible?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to improve communication during
times of crisis. My experience as Commander of Carrier Group Five in
Yokosuka Japan taught me the importance of exercises that are designed
to enhance communications. This is clearly a challenging issue that I
believe warrants continued close attention.
Question. Are there any legal impediments that exist that slow or
prevent the rapid dissemination of information gained by military
components with other Federal, State, or local entities, or the private
sector?
Answer. I am not aware of any.
intelligence sharing/ttic
Question. What is the U.S. Northern Command's role and involvement
in developing intelligence assessments regarding terrorist threats?
Answer. U.S. Northern Command does not collect intelligence data.
The Command's Combined Intelligence and Fusion Center coordinates the
analysis and fusion of intelligence and collaborates with intelligence
and law enforcement agencies to develop terrorist threat assessments.
These assessments are shared with decisionmakers, the Intelligence
Community, and law enforcement agencies.
Question. What intelligence agencies are involved in providing
input to U.S. NORTHCOM's staff for the development of intelligence
assessments?
Answer. U.S. Northern Command has representatives from many of the
Federal intelligence agencies in its headquarters, to include the
National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, who collaborate in the
development of intelligence assessments. In addition, U.S. Northern
Command receives information from the Joint Intelligence Task Force
Combating Terrorism, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the Coast Guard
Intelligence Coordination Center, the Department of Homeland Security,
and the Government of Canada.
Question. What is the current nature of the relationship between
U.S. Northcom and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), and
what will that relationship be in the future?
Answer. U.S. Northern Command and the TTIC exchange analyses and
collaborate on key issues daily. I understand the command plans to
assign an Intelligence Liaison Officer to the TTIC to facilitate the
exchange of information.
Question. How do posse comitatus, privacy restrictions, and other
laws and regulations concerning the collection of intelligence within
the U.S. affect the way U.S. NORTHCOM receives and uses intelligence?
Answer. U.S. Northern Command leverages the authorized intelligence
collection activities already performed by national-level agencies,
which are responsive to the command's information requirements. U.S.
Northern Command fuses the information to develop comprehensive
situational awareness of current and potential terrorist threats,
facilitating timely notification to decisionmakers.
cruise missile defense
Question. How serious do you believe the cruise missile threat is
to the United States and its territories?
Answer. I do believe there is a threat from low altitude fliers, to
include cruise missiles.
Question. If confirmed, what capabilities would you prioritize to
address this threat?
Answer. The ability to detect and track objects over-the-horizon,
as well as above, on and below the surface is critical. If confirmed, I
will advocate for a persistent wide area low-altitude surveillance
capability. I understand the high altitude airship shows promise as a
cost-effective solution to this challenge.
continental air defense
Question. How has the continental air defense mission changed since
the end of the Cold War and the events of September 11, 2001?
Answer. Prior to 11 September 2001, the North American Aerospace
Defense Command's air defense posture was aligned to counter external
threats to North America. In response to the attacks on 11 September
2001, the command's mission was expanded to protect against domestic
airborne threats.
Question. Do you believe that current U.S. continental air defense
capabilities are adequate to meet national security needs? If
confirmed, what capabilities and programs would prioritize to address
any identified deficiencies?
Answer. Yes, the North American Aerospace Defense Command has
adequate air defense capabilities. If confirmed, my priorities will be
to support Operation Noble Eagle, integrate missile defense, and
improve the North American Aerospace Defense Command's common
operational picture.
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, U.S. Northern
Command, and Commander, NORAD?
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
northcom/national guard relationship
1. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Keating, you outline in your
responses to advanced policy questions the relationship between U.S.
Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and the National Guard Bureau. This is a
key relationship since, in the event of a terrorist attack or imminent
threat to our homeland security, personnel from NORTHCOM and the
National Guard will need to work very closely together. Can you outline
for me what types of personnel relationships NORTHCOM and the Guard
Bureau have now?
Admiral Keating. There has always been a strong relationship
between the National Guard and NORTHCOM. As you may recall the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau, Lieutenant General Blum, served as the
NORTHCOM Chief of Staff during our initial standup. There is a National
Guard liaison office within the command to coordinate homeland defense
and civil support action. In addition, the National Guard Bureau and
NORTHCOM share operational information daily to ensure situational
awareness and to synchronize operations, planning and exercising.
2. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Keating, are personnel from the
National Guard assigned to NORTHCOM and, if so, what types of roles do
the National Guard personnel fulfill?
Admiral Keating. Forty-one full-time Army and Air National
Guardsmen are assigned to NORTHCOM from senior noncommissioned officers
to major general. National Guardsmen serve in a wide range of positions
from action officers and division chiefs to the Command's Chief of
Staff.
3. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Keating, do you envision a greater
need for National Guard representation at NORTHCOM Headquarters and
subordinate units?
Admiral Keating. Not at this time. However, NORTHCOM will continue
to assess its force structure in light of changing threats.
intelligence needs
4. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Keating, you mention that NORTHCOM
does not collect intelligence data, but instead coordinates the
analysis and fusion of intelligence which is collected by other Federal
and military departments. However, I am sure NORTHCOM does generate
intelligence collection requirements, and my question is are you
satisfied with the Intelligence Community's responsiveness to your
requirements and what types of intelligence information does NORTHCOM
not have that you believe would make you better able to execute your
mission?
Admiral Keating. The NORTHCOM Intelligence Directorate does
generate intelligence collection requirements for action by other
agencies. I understand the command receives the intelligence and
information they need to develop threat characterization and provide
warning. However, the use of ``restrictive caveats'' and ``data
ownership'' by collecting agencies can slow data dissemination and
impede usability in some instances.
5. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Keating, reforming the Intelligence
Community is a very high priority for Congress and it has been
highlighted recently by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and
the 9/11 Commission. As a principle user of intelligence, do you have
any concerns or recommendations about intelligence reform?
Specifically, are you concerned that there is a possibility that a
stronger civilian Director of National Intelligence might negatively
impact the timeliness and quality of intelligence support that your
respective command is now getting from the Department of Defense (DOD)?
Admiral Keating. We do not anticipate a negative impact from the
creation of a strong Director of National Intelligence. However, we
believe care should be taken to ensure any change in the structure of
the Intelligence Community results in enhanced intelligence and
information flow. The focus should be on eliminating collector agency
``data ownership'' to ensure usability in the field.
6. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Keating, the Intelligence Community
is made of 15 agencies, 8 of which are in the DOD. Do you see
advantages of putting these eight DOD agencies under a new four-star
Unified Commander for Intelligence who would then provide centralized
intelligence support to your command in a similar fashion that
transportation support and special operations support are provided by
U.S. Transportation Command and U.S. Special Operations Command
respectively?
Admiral Keating. We see no advantage in combining the eight
intelligence agencies under a new Unified Commander for Intelligence,
since each combatant commander has unique missions and geographic
responsibilities.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
northern command antiterrorism/force protection
7. Senator Levin. Admiral Keating, NORTHCOM was recently authorized
to establish baseline antiterrorism/force protection levels within the
United States for military installations, and to integrate the numerous
disparate assessments and enforcement standards for installation
security among Services, agencies, other combatant commands, and
States. Two years ago the National Defense Authorization Act directed
the Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive plan for
protecting installations against terrorist attacks in a manner that
reduces redundancy and encourages efficiency. The comprehensive,
rigorous strategy we requested has yet to be submitted to Congress. If
confirmed, will you work on this military installation security plan
with Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense McHale?
Admiral Keating. Yes, I look forward to working with Secretary
McHale on a comprehensive plan for protecting installations against
terrorist attacks.
______
[The nomination reference of VADM Timothy J. Keating, USN,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 15, 2004.
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
VADM Timothy J. Keating, 8508.
______
[The biographical sketch of VADM Tmothy J. Keating, USN,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
resume of career service of vadm timothy j. keating, usn
Date and place of birth: November 16, 1948; Dayton, Ohio.
Promotions:
Midshipman, U.S. Naval Academy..................... 28 Jun. 1967
Ensign, U.S. Navy.................................. 09 Jun. 1971
Lieutenant (junior grade).......................... 09 Dec. 1972
Lieutenant......................................... 01 Jul. 1975
Lieutenant Commander............................... 01 Jun. 1980
Commander.......................................... 01 Jun. 1986
Captain............................................ 01 Sep. 1992
Rear Admiral (lower half).......................... 01 Jul. 1997
Designated Rear Admiral while serving in billets Mar. 1999
commensurate with that grade......................
Rear Admiral....................................... 01 Aug. 2000
Designated Vice Admiral while serving in billets 06 Oct. 2000
commensurate with that grade......................
Vice Admiral, service continuous to date........... 01 Nov. 2000
Assignments and duties:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.S. Leonard F. Mason (DD 852) Jun. 1971......... Jun. 1971
(Assistant Navigator).
Naval Aviation Schools Command, Jan. 1972......... May 1972
Naval Air Station, Pensacola,
FL (DUINS).
Training Squadron ONE NINE Jun. 1972......... Sep. 1972
(DUINS).
Training Squadron TWO TWO Sep. 1972......... Aug. 1973
(DUINS).
Training Squadron TWO TWO Aug. 1973......... Sep. 1974
(Assistant Schedules/Advanced
Jet Flight Instructor).
Training Wing TWO, NAS Sep. 1974......... Jul. 1975
Kingsville, TX (Staff Training
Records/Stats Officer).
Attack Squadron ONE SEVEN FOUR Aug. 1975......... Mar. 1976
(Ready Replacement Officer).
Attack Squadron EIGHT TWO Mar. 1976......... Sep. 1978
(Assistant Aircraft Officer).
Attack Squadron ONE TWO TWO Sep. 1978......... May 1980
(Landing Signal Officer/
Navigation Phase Instructor).
Commander, Carrier Air Wing ONE May 1980.......... May 1982
FIVE (Landing Signal Officer/
Assistant Safety Officer).
Attack Squadron NINE FOUR May 1982.......... Jul. 1984
(Administrative/Operations/
Maintenance Officer).
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command Aug. 1984......... Aug. 1985
(Flag Lieutenant).
Attack Squadron ONE SEVEN FOUR Aug. 1985......... Nov. 1985
(Replacement Pilot).
XO, Strike Fighter Squadron Nov. 1985......... May 1987
EIGHT SEVEN.
CO, Strike Fighter Squadron May 1987.......... Jan. 1989
EIGHT SEVEN.
Commander, Naval Military Feb. 1989......... Sep. 1990
Personnel Command (Head
Aviation LCDR/JO Assignment
Branch).
Commander, Carrier Air Wing ONE Jan. 1991......... Jul. 1991
SEVEN (Deputy (Air Wing
Commander).
Strategic Studies Group Fellow.. Aug. 1991......... Jun. 1992
CJTF-SWA (Deputy Director of Oct. 1992......... Dec. 1992
Operations).
Commander, Carrier Air Wing NINE Dec. 1992......... Nov. 1994
CO, Strike Warfare Center, Nov. 1994......... Sep. 1995
Fallon, NV.
Bureau of Naval Personnel Sep. 1995......... Aug. 1996
(Director, Aviation Officer
Distribution Division (PERS-
43)).
Joint Staff (Deputy Director for Aug. 1996......... Jun. 1998
Operations (Current
Operations)) (J-33).
Commander, Carrier Group FIVE... Jun. 1998......... Oct. 2000
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Oct. 2000......... Jan. 2002
(Plans, Policy and Operations)
(N3/N5).
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Feb. 2002......... Oct. 2003
Central Command/Commander,
FIFTH Fleet.
Joint Staff (Director).......... Oct. 2003......... To Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medals and awards:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Legion of Merit with two Gold Stars
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal with one Gold Star
Air Medal with Second and Third Strike/Flight Awards
Navy and Marine Corps Commendation with Combat ``V'' and two Gold
Stars
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with one Silver Star
Joint Meritorious Unit Award
Navy Unit Commendation with two Bronze Stars
Meritorious Unit Commendation
Navy ``E'' Ribbon
Navy Expeditionary Medal
National Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Star
Vietnam Service Medal
Southwest Asia Service Medal
Humanitarian Service Medal
Sea Service Deployment Ribbon
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal
Kuwait Liberation Medal
Pistol Marksmanship Medal with Silver ``E''
Special qualifications:
BA (Physics) U.S. Naval Academy, 1971.
Designated Naval Aviator, 3 August 1973.
Designated Joint Specialty Officer, 1988.
Personal data:
Wife:
Wanda Lee Keating of Alexandria, Virginia
Children:
Daniel Patrick Martin (Stepson); Born: 6 February 1969.
Julie Cathryn Martin Camardella (Stepdaughter); Born: 7 December
1972.
Summary of joint duty assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment Dates Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command (Flag Aug. 1984-Aug. 1985.... LCDR
Lieutenant).
Joint Staff (Deputy Director for Aug. 1996-Jun. 1998.... RDML
Operations (Current Operations)) (J-
33).
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Central Feb. 2002-Oct. 2003.... VADM
Command/Commander, Fifth Fleet.
Joint Staff (Director)............... Oct. 2003-To Date...... VADM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
[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 VADM Timothy
J. Keating, 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.)
Timothy John Keating.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, Northern Command/Commander, North American Aerospace
Defense Command.
3. Date of nomination:
15 June 2004.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
16 November 1948; Dayton, Ohio.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Wandalee Keating.
7. Names and ages of children:
Stepson: Daniel Pratt Martin (34)
Stepdaughter: Julie Catherine Camardella (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, 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.
Association of Naval Aviation, Veterans of Foreign Wars.
11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements other than those listed on the service record
extract provided to the committee by the executive branch.
None.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-E of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-E are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Timothy J. Keating.
This 27th day of May, 2004.
[The nomination of VADM Timothy J. Keating, USN, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Warner on July 22, 2004,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on July 22, 2004.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to LTG Bantz J. Craddock,
USA, 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 Assistant Deputy Director for Strategy, J-5, on the
Joint Staff and Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes I do.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented, particularly in the U.S. Army?
Answer. The Defense Authorization Act of 1986 accelerated the
integration and synchronization of all our military's capabilities to
fight and win all of our wars decisively. The legislation strengthened
the authority of civilian control over the Armed Forces while at the
same time provided the combatant commander the authority and
flexibility to perform his mission. More specifically, the Goldwater-
Nichols reforms have improved military operations by not only the Army,
but the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I believe the most important aspect of these reforms is the
expansion of the combatant commander's responsibilities. The Goldwater-
Nichols Act revised the authority of the regional combatant commander
and clearly defined his responsibilities.
These changes simplified the chain of command and improved the
planning and execution of assigned missions during times of crises.
While providing for more efficient use of DOD resources these reforms
have also resulted in far more effective joint military activities and
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 completely agree with these goals.
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. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has
conducted a study which is under review by the Department of Defense
with the intent of strengthening Goldwater-Nichols. This study provides
options for change including actions taken within the department, those
requiring interagency coordination and those requiring statutory
change.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, U.S. Southern Command?
Answer. The Commander of U.S. Southern Command is assigned the
geographical area of responsibility (AOR) and reports directly to the
Secretary of Defense. The commander is responsible for U.S. military
forces assigned to the AOR--which includes 30 countries throughout
Latin America and the Caribbean. The duties and functions of a
combatant commander include, but are not limited to: prescribing the
chain of command, including authoritative direction over all aspects of
military operations, joint training and logistics; organizing commands
and forces and employing them within his command as necessary to carry
out the command's assigned missions; and assigning command functions to
subordinate commanders.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I am indeed honored by the President's nomination to be the
Commander of U.S. Southern Command. Over the last several years, I have
served in both Joint and Army assignments involved in planning and the
actual conduct of operations, and while not in the U.S. Southern
Command's geographical area, are similar to many of the operations and
activities found in Latin America today. While serving as the Senior
Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, I have had the
opportunity to observe and participate in international, interagency,
joint and combined strategy, and policy formulation across the spectrum
of conflict. As the Commanding General of the 1st Infantry Division of
the U.S. Army in Europe, I deployed forces to Kosovo in support of the
U.S. European Command. Prior to that assignment, as a Brigadier General
and Assistant Division Commander of that same Division, I commanded
Joint Task Forces in Macedonia and Kosovo, both commands providing
enormous insights into the challenges associated with coalition,
combined and joint operations.
While assigned to the Joint Staff as the Assistant Deputy Director
for Strategy and Policy, J-5, I gained great understanding of the
interagency process and the relationships between the office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, the Joint Staff, and the
combatant commanders. The privilege of commanding U.S. forces, from
platoon through division level, to include in combat in Operation
Desert Storm, has provided me the keen perspectives on training, caring
for, and leading the superb men and women of our Armed Forces.
These assignments have provided me a strong foundation and a
diversity of experiences that will serve me well if confirmed as the
Commander of U.S. Southern Command.
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. Southern Command?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with the governments and
militaries of partner nations to fully understand the complex issues in
this region. Further, I will work closely with key officials and
personnel within the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S.
government to analyze and address these complex issues.
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. Southern Command to the following offices:
Question. The Secretary of Defense
Answer. The commander is responsible to the President and the
Secretary of Defense for accomplishing the military missions assigned
to him and exercises command authority over forces assigned to the
combatant commander as directed by the Secretary of Defense. The
combatant commander has the obligation to promptly inform the Secretary
of Defense on accountable matters within his regional or functional
AOR.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense
Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Defense is the second ranking
senior official within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. On those
matters delegated by the Secretary to his Deputy Secretary, the
commander coordinates and exchanges information with the Deputy
Secretary. In practice, responsibility for significant matters has been
so delegated to the Deputy Secretary, which requires direct
communication on a regular basis between the combatant commander and
the Deputy Secretary.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Answer. There is no direct command relationship between the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Combatant Commander. The Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy coordinates and exchanges information
with Department of Defense components such as Combatant Commanders.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Answer. There is no direct command relationship between the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the combatant commander. The
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the combatant commander
coordinate and exchange information regularly.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs
Answer. A direct command relationship does not exist between the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and
the combatant commander. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs works with the combatant commander on
mutual issues of concern.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense
Answer. There is no direct command relationship between the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and the combatant
commander. The Assistant Secretary of Defense works closely with all
Department of Defense components, to include combatant commanders.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Answer. The Chairman is not in the direct chain of command from the
President and Secretary of Defense to the commander and has no command
authority over the combatant commander. However, the Chairman is the
principal military advisor to the President and the Secretary of
Defense and a key conduit between the combatant commander, Interagency
and Service Chiefs. Communications to the combatant commanders from the
President or the Secretary of Defense are transmitted through the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The combatant commander keeps
the Chairman and his staff advised of accountable matters and critical
issues that affect his unified command.
Question. The secretaries of the military departments
Answer. The secretaries of military departments are responsible for
administration and support of forces that are assigned to unified and
specified commands. Additionally, at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, U.S. Southern
Command provides support to the Secretary of the Navy in his role as
the Department of Defense's executive agent for the Combatant Status
Review Tribunals.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services
Answer. As advisors to the Chairman and the Secretary of Defense,
and as the senior uniformed leaders of their respective Services, the
Service Chiefs play a critical role in transforming their Services'
force structure and capabilities--an issue of high interest to the
combatant commander. The combatant commander must rely upon the Service
Chiefs to provide properly equipped and capable forces to accomplish
missions in his assigned AOR.
Question. The other combatant commanders
Answer. Formal relationships between the combatant commanders are
based upon operational plans. The plans lay out clearly the roles of
the commanders as ``supporting'' or ``supported.'' These planned
relationships mandate close coordination in peacetime and training.
Question. U.S. Chiefs of Mission within the U.S. Southern Command
area of responsibility
Answer. There is no command relationship between the Chiefs of
Mission and the commander. However, the commander coordinates and
exchanges information with Chiefs of Mission on matters of common
interest, to include assessments, military operations and engagement
efforts with foreign defense officials.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Commander, U.S. Southern Command?
Answer. Currently, all 30 of the countries in the U.S. Southern
Command AOR are led by democratically elected leaders, many of whom are
faced with threats that are undermining the security and stability of
their nations. These threats include: 1) terrorism, 2) transnational
threats, and 3) the challenges of supporting partner nations in their
efforts to deal with the threats they face.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to ensure that U.S. Southern
Command's ``Theater Strategy'' incorporates as a central theme the
collective security of our partner nations. I will foster improved
security relationships to promote regional solutions to shared regional
challenges. I will ensure prioritization of security activities to
areas that offer the greatest leverage for protecting and advancing
U.S. regional and global interests. Further, I will continue to promote
military-to-military contacts to enhance the professionalism of the
region's militaries. Finally, I will work diligently to ensure our
military efforts are fully coordinated and synchronized with other U.S.
government agencies.
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. Southern
Command?
Answer. Dealing with weak states whose transition to a democratic
form of government is not satisfying the economic and social
expectations of the citizens. Narcoterrorism, drug-funded gangs,
kidnapping, and crime combine to make Latin America the world's most
violent region as measured by homicides. It is imperative to remain
active in assisting countries to maintain stability, promote
prosperity, and enhance regional cooperation in this area of
significant strategic importance to the U.S.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will immediately conduct a thorough
assessment to build upon and modify where necessary current initiatives
and programs that effectively address these challenges. I will work
through established Department of Defense venues and processes and
continue to engage Congress for appropriate resources and support to
the region.
panama canal
Question. It has been several years since the United States turned
operation of the Panama Canal over to the Panamanian Government.
What is the current political and economic situation in Panama?
Answer. Economically, Panama's economy grew 4.1 percent in 2003 and
is expected to exceed 4 percent again in 2004. The current government,
although plagued by alleged ineffectiveness and corruption, remains
politically stable. But there are enormous social challenges. The new
President-elect, Martin Torrijos, assumes office on September 1 of this
year. Hopefully his strong mandate will aid his administration in
fighting corruption, addressing the high level of public debt, reducing
unemployment and tackling widespread poverty.
Question. To what extent does the Panamanian government attempt to
interdict the drug flow out of South America through Panama?
Answer. Despite limited capabilities, the Government of Panama
continues to demonstrate its willingness to combat drug trafficking and
improve efforts to interdict the drug flow from South America. The
Panamanian Air Service (SAN) and Maritime Service (SMN) are actively
engaged in disrupting the flow of illicit drugs through their sovereign
territory. Since 2003, the SMN has supported U.S. sponsored
multilateral counterdrug operations. This has significantly improved
the mutual coordination and independent cooperation between the
Colombian Navy and the SMN.
Question. What is your assessment of how Panama is protecting and
maintaining the Panama Canal?
Answer. Following the turnover of the Panama Canal in 1999, the
Government of Panama formed the Panama Canal Authority (PCA) to oversee
its operation. The PCA's efforts to date have been remarkable,
exceeding expectations by improving efficiency, security and safety
while simultaneously increasing its tonnage, and profitability. A very
professional and dedicated workforce, overseen by an experienced and
competent management structure, operates the Panama Canal. Panamanians
understand how critical the canal is to their economy and take their
enormous responsibility in the context of global commerce very
seriously. The Government of Panama and the Panama Canal Authority have
achieved a high level of efficiency and security and continually strive
to improve.
Last year, Southern Command sponsored PANAMAX, an exercise designed
to focus on the defense of the Panama Canal against terrorism. PANAMAX
has become an annual endeavor in which a growing number of countries
participate. This year, we expect the participation of nine partner
nations to secure both the Pacific and Caribbean approaches to the
Canal.
Question. How vulnerable is the Panama Canal to attack by
terrorists, and what would be the consequences of an attack to U.S.
national security interests?
Answer. The foundation of the Canal is a watershed that is formed
by man-made lakes and dams, but relies on the natural rainfall in the
region to maintain water levels necessary for Canal operations. It is
dependent on a series of man-made locks, a large labor force,
electrical power, telecommunications, oil, maintenance, and security to
ensure its continued operation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Because
of its complexity, and because it must remain open to cargo and
shipping from all over the world, there will always be some risk that
its many infrastructure systems and facilities are vulnerable to
sabotage or terrorist attack. The only way to eliminate risk altogether
would be to shut it down. Therefore, it is important to assess risks
from the security, economic, and safety standpoints and apply
protections and/or mitigations where feasible. Even more important, is
the need to build redundancy in infrastructures, provide for adequate
response to incidents, and ensure the capability of effective recovery,
if required.
The Panama Canal is the most important infrastructure in Southern
Command's area of responsibility. The Canal is of significant economic
importance to the world and critical to the people of Panama. Two-
thirds of the goods that transit the canal are coming from or going to
U.S. ports. Disruption of Canal operations could create a significant
impact on global commerce as well as the U.S. economy.
role of u.s. southern command
Question. If confirmed as the Commander of the U.S. Southern
Command, you will be responsible for all military operations in that
region. These include the Department's counternarcotics efforts in the
source nations and transit zone, detainee and interrogation operations
at Guantanamo Bay, security of the Panama Canal, and enhancing
relationships between the military personnel of the United States,
Latin America, and the Caribbean in order to instill democratic values
in the military organizations of the region. If confirmed, you will
face the challenge of pursuing these missions at a time when there
appears to be movement away from democracy in some nations, and
increasing instability in other nations.
If confirmed, what will be your highest priorities and what actions
would you propose to counter the growing threat to democracy in the
region?
Answer. If confirmed, my highest priorities will be to: 1) continue
to prosecute the war on terrorism in the AOR; 2) enhance regional
security cooperation to counter transnational threats; and 3) closely
coordinate Southern Command's efforts with the interagency in assisting
partner nations' efforts to address the threats they face in
maintaining effective democracies.
stability of the region
Question. Instability in one nation in the U.S. Southern Command
area of responsibility has often ``spilled over'' into neighboring
countries. An example is Colombia where insurgents have used the
neighboring countries of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama to escape
detection. These groups have even engaged in illegal activities in
those countries, such as kidnapping for ransom.
What additional actions can be taken to improve regional
cooperation and coordination to avoid this ``spillover'' effect?
Answer. It may help to first clarify terminology--the terms
``insurgents'' or ``guerrillas'' are less applicable today than in the
past. I believe the term ``narcoterrorists'' is more appropriate, given
the fact that the center of gravity for these groups is the incredible
financial support they get from illicit drug trafficking, which
motivates them to protect and manage the entire process of growing,
processing, and trafficking illicit drugs.
Southern Command, through its Theater Security Cooperation Strategy
(TSC), seeks to build and/or improve defense relationships and partner
nation (PN) capabilities, including interoperability, and promote
regional cooperation to meet the variety of transnational challenges
that confront the region. I will build on General Hill's successes in
changing the TSC model from a bilateral approach to a multilateral
scheme, which encourages neighbors to work together as much as they
work with the United States. This approach will minimize the
narcoterrorists' ability to use borders between countries as seams for
illicit activities.
counternarcotics--overall importance and effort
Question. Each year the Department of Defense spends several
hundred million dollars for counternarcotics programs. These programs
range from outreach programs to teach children the dangers of drugs, to
assistance to foreign governments to interdict the flow of drugs
through their territory. Despite the expenditure of these funds and the
several billion dollars that the Federal Government spends for this
purpose each year, the flow of drugs into the United States and the
price of drugs on the street have not been significantly reduced, and
countries such as Colombia and Peru face tremendous internal security
challenges. This has led many to question the effectiveness and focus
of our counternarcotics programs.
How should we measure the success of each of the Department's
counternarcotics programs?
Answer. Success should be measured by performance and results of
mutually supportive eradication, interdiction, and demand reduction
operations and programs.
Question. Do you believe that the current programs that the
Department is pursuing are the most effective for the region or should
we focus the Department's efforts elsewhere?
Answer. Department of Defense programs are designed to enhance
partner nations existing capabilities and create new capabilities to
combat narcotrafficking within the region. Colombia is the center of
gravity and the largest cultivator, processor and exporter of narcotics
in the region. Increasingly, terrorist organizations fund their
activities through drug trafficking. This trend is particularly
troubling in Colombia where there are clear connections between drug
traffickers and Department of State designated Terrorist Organizations
(FARC, ELN, AUC). Supporting the Government of Colombia's efforts to
defeat illicit narcotrafficking also directly supports the global war
on terror. There are concerns that coca cultivation in Peru may also
fund terrorist organizations, and coca cultivation remains problematic
in Bolivia. Success in Colombia is of marginal value if illicit
narcotrafficking migrates to other countries within the region.
Consequently, it is important to build upon our past efforts and ensure
an approach that addresses the regional situation.
Question. Compared to other missions that you would be responsible
for as Commander, U.S. Southern Command, if confirmed, where would you
rank counternarcotics in terms of its contribution to our national
security and the ability of the Department of Defense to make a
meaningful contribution?
Answer. Narcoterrorism is one of the fundamental contributors to
the problems within the region. Democratic instability, corruption, and
radical populism present significant threats to security throughout the
region, and narcotrafficking directly contributes to all of these
threats. There is also a problem of fundraising for international
terrorist organizations. Southern Command's detection and monitoring
role helps keep illicit drugs from reaching U.S. markets and attacks a
primary funding source for international terrorists. Counternarcotics
operations, therefore, contribute significantly to U.S. national
security.
forward operating locations
Question. One of the elements of the regional counternarcotics
strategy is the United States Southern Command's establishment of
forward operating locations (FOLs) in the source and transit zone.
There is some concern that the Department has not deployed sufficient
aircraft and other resources to these FOLs to justify sustainment costs
and continued improvements. There is also concern that after U.S.
investment of several million dollars on these facilities, the host
nations will restrict our use of these facilities.
What is the role that these FOLs play in the Department's counter-
drug efforts?
Answer. Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) compensated for the loss
of coverage that was previously provided by operations conducted from
Howard Air Force Base (AFB), Panama. The previous term, FOLs, was
subsequently changed to Cooperative Security Location (CSL) to better
reflect U.S. Southern Command's relationship with partner nations in
the establishment and operation of these sites.
Question. Does current use justify the costs of sustaining these
locations?
Answer. Yes, the current use justifies the costs of sustaining
these CSLs. CSLs play a significant role in stemming the flow of
illicit narcotics to the U.S. CSLs are essential to the D&M missions,
which result in significant endgame operations.
Question. What assurance do we have from host nations that these
locations will continue to be available to us, and under what
conditions?
Answer. The agreement of cooperation with Ecuador is valid through
2009; the U.S. government's agreements with the Netherlands and El
Salvador are valid through 2010. Current relations between the U.S. and
all of these nations are favorable. Southern Command fully expects the
agreements to be renewed before the current agreements expire. The
agreements of cooperation for the use of the CSLs were specifically
written to foster cooperative efforts to counter illicit drug
trafficking.
andean region
Question. Internal political dynamics and lack of effective border
control have resulted in the potential for a significant increase in
drug production and trafficking in Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador.
What do you think the U.S. military can or should do to prevent
such developments?
Answer. Our security cooperation objectives support our overall
policy objectives in a holistic approach. Southern Command needs to
ensure a regional approach that directly contributes to Partner Nation
cooperation and capability to defeat narcoterrorism. Programs in
Colombia have proven effective; however, limited resources hamper our
ability to approach the problem regionally.
A very small U.S. military training unit in Bolivia has
demonstrated significant improvement in their forces and the successful
development of a national antiterrorism force, while expanding Southern
Command's opportunities to promote human rights training and awareness.
Both Peru and Ecuador have porous borders along southern Colombia, the
major cultivation area of coca. Training should focus on
professionalization of their respective military forces, strengthening
border security, information/intelligence gathering as well as
analytical capabilities, and integration of forces from different
services.
All of these training efforts would be infused with respect for
human rights to ensure compliance with U.S. statutes.
colombia: human rights
Question. When the U.S. began providing increased support through
Plan Colombia for Colombia's efforts to significantly reduce or
eliminate narcoterrorists operating in their country, much concern was
expressed about human rights abuses that the Colombian military forces
had committed.
What is your assessment of the record of the Colombian military
with regard to respect for human rights over the past 3 years?
Answer. The Colombian military is the second most respected
institution in Colombia today--first is the Catholic Church. The
overall record of the Colombian military on human rights is positive.
The Colombian government and military leadership have established a
comprehensive human rights and international humanitarian law program.
Every officer and soldier receives mandatory human rights training.
Every military unit down to the battalion level has a human rights
office responsible for providing human rights training, advising the
unit commander on human rights issues, and tracking any credible
allegations of human rights abuses against a member of the unit. Every
member of every unit the U.S. military trains is vetted for human
rights violations.
The Colombian military program includes partnerships with civil
society groups, universities, and international organizations to
collaborate on strengthening their human rights programs. In the past 3
years, human rights groups have accused these forces of committing less
than 5 percent of gross human rights violations in country, a
percentage far less than those of the 1980s and early 1990s. Another
indicator of success is the fact that approximately 75 percent of the
FARC, ELN, and AUC who demobilized--about 3,000 people--surrendered to
military units, which they would not do if they thought that their
human rights would be violated.
Question. What progress has been made in reducing the links between
Colombian military units and commanders, and paramilitary organizations
that have had a record of human rights abuses?
Answer. The Colombian military understands that illegal armed
groups (IAGs), including the AUC forces, are an impediment to security
and, ultimately, to peace in the country. While there is room for
improvement in severing the Colombian military's links to the AUC,
progress has been made in the areas of prosecution and censure of
military officers, noncommissioned officers, and enlisted personnel
with such ties. The Colombian government and the military have also
instituted a variety of policies designed to fight collusion between
government security forces and illegal armed groups. Prior to the peace
process currently underway, the Colombian military actively pursued and
engaged illegal armed groups, increasing the numbers of AUC killed in
action or arrested. In part, it was this pressure that helped bring the
AUC to the negotiating table.
Question. What more remains to be done and how would you approach
the issue of respect for human rights in the Colombian military?
Answer. The Colombian military has made significant advances on
human rights and has conducted its operations against terrorist
violence in accordance with human rights and international humanitarian
law principles. Without security, the full exercise of human rights
cannot be guaranteed. Colleagues in the human rights community are
concerned that the balance in Colombia will tilt too far toward the
guarantee of security at the expense of political and civil liberties.
I understand this concern.
If confirmed, I will continue to help the Colombian military
strengthen its judicial system and encourage prosecution of military
members credibly accused of committing crimes or human rights
violations. I will support further strengthening of human rights
training programs, while at the same time encouraging the Colombian
military to play a greater role in regional military human rights
initiatives. Additionally, I will ensure that Southern Command
continues its human rights policies throughout the region as a key
component of Theater Security Cooperation.
colombia: force protection
Question. Plan Colombia and related efforts will involve the
continued deployment of a number of U.S. service members and civilians
to the region.
What measures are being taken to ensure the protection of U.S.
military and civilian personnel in the country in the case that they
become targets of the insurgents, or narcotraffickers?
Answer. U.S. military personnel are only permitted to operate from
secure locations. The U.S. Military Group (USMILGP) Commander, who also
serves as the U.S. Defense Representative, is charged with certifying
the security of these locations prior to any deployment of U.S.
personnel. In addition to the protection afforded by the Colombian
Military, U.S. forces receive threat updates and antiterrorism training
prior to deployment. The USMILGP Commander possesses the means to
contact deployed units at any time to provide early warning or
additional Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection guidance as necessary, and
can initiate coordinated actions with the Colombian Military to
safeguard U.S. Department of Defense personnel (evacuation, etc.). U.S.
Department of Defense personnel usually do not leave the safety of the
Colombian Military base. Standard rules of engagement are in effect for
all U.S. DOD forces operating in Colombia, including the right of self-
defense.
Question. What legal protections, if any, are provided for civilian
contractors captured or accused of criminal behavior in Colombia?
Answer. The U.S. Government does not have any agreement with the
Government of Colombia that provides legal status protection for
civilian contractors from Colombian laws. If civilian contractors
violate Colombian laws, they are subject to prosecution by Colombian
authorities. I would note that U.S. military personnel deployed in
Colombia are routinely afforded legal status protection with the
approval of the Colombian Armed Forces Commander under the Military
Missions Agreement of 1974.
As for the legal protections of civilian contractors captured by
IAGs in Colombia, they are not prisoners of war under the Geneva
Conventions since the IAGs are narcoterrorist organizations and not
party to the Geneva Conventions. The three U.S. civilian contractors
currently held by the FARC are considered hostages illegally held by
these narcoterrorists since February 2003.
colombia
Question. Recent reporting from Colombia indicates improved
military performance by the Colombian Armed Forces in pursuing the
narcoterrorist groups, and an increased willingness and commitment by
the Government of Colombia to decisively address the terrorist
insurgency in their country.
Please outline your views regarding the current situation in
Colombia focusing upon:
(1) the current military and political situation in Colombia;
Answer. The Colombian military is becoming a professional and
competent force, subordinate to civilian leadership, respectful of
human rights and mindful of the rule of law. Under their national
security strategy, the military has undertaken an ambitious new combat
offensive to retake their national territory. The determination and
progress demonstrated by the military to bring security, stability and
the rule of law to the Nation make the likelihood of a negotiated end-
state greater than anytime in recent history.
President Uribe has provided much of the momentum for this window
of opportunity. It is important to note that his efforts are
resoundingly backed by the Colombian people, as demonstrated not only
by his public approval ratings, but those of the Armed Forces. He has
ensured much-needed political support for the Colombian military's
efforts against illegal armed groups. His determination to make
substantial progress in Colombia's war against narcoterrorism is
admirable and is just what Colombia needs. He is taking the fight to
the FARC, is making a concerted effort to achieve peace and demobilize
the AUC, and is engaged in preliminary peace talks with the ELN. Since
his inauguration in 2002, President Uribe has significantly enhanced
security force capabilities, restored state presence to every
municipality, and mobilized the citizenry to support state efforts.
Question. (2) the ability of the Colombian military to regain
control of its territory; and
Answer. The Government of Colombia has demonstrated an
unprecedented ability to extend presence and rule of law throughout its
sovereign territory. Recent military operations are being executed on a
scale and duration far beyond previous efforts. This is largely
attributable to the political will of the current administration and
the level of training and professionalism of the Colombian military.
Question. (3) ongoing DOD programs, including the request to
increase the U.S. troop cap to 800 military personnel and 600
contractor personnel, to assist the Colombian government in its
counternarcotics/counterterrorism efforts specifically, and its
military training and military professionalism in general.
Answer. As stated earlier, Colombia's security forces are
undertaking an ambitious new combat offensive to retake their national
territory. U.S. military and developmental assistance, diplomatic
support and training are helping the Government of Colombia achieve
this goal.
Having the authority to increase personnel levels to 800 military
and 600 civilian contractors, consistent with our own operations and
personnel tempo and the success of the Colombian military, will add
flexibility which enables the U.S. to methodically provide trainers,
technical assistance and maximize every opportunity.
venezuela
Question. With the upcoming referendum on President Chavez'
leadership, politics in Venezuela remains volatile.
Please describe the U.S.-Venezuelan military relationship.
Answer. Southern Command maintains a current policy of fostering
institutional ties with the Venezuelan military. This policy includes
training and seminar activities in Venezuela, attendance at
Professional Military Education (PME) training and conferences,
invitations to regional exercises in which it has traditionally
participated, and Traditional Commander Activities (TCA) by Venezuelan
military members and government officials to the U.S.
The military relationship between the United States military and
the Venezuelan military is at a historical low point. Despite Southern
Command's efforts to maintain institutional ties with the Venezuelan
military, pressure from President Chavez and his senior leadership has
reduced our security cooperation activities with Venezuela to a
minimum. Venezuela has recently cancelled planned participation in
numerous Southern Command sponsored exercises. The Venezuelan military
sends very few PME students to the U.S., has reduced the number of
guest instructors it has in the U.S., and declined to participate in
TCA Venezuela since January 2004. The U.S. Military Group moved from
its offices on Venezuelan military bases to the U.S. embassy due to a
request from the Venezuelan Minister of Defense. This negative trend in
our relationship will probably not change in the near future.
Question. What, if any, aspect of this relationship do you believe
should be altered?
Answer. I believe it is in the interest of the United States to
maintain institutional ties with the Venezuelan military. We cannot
influence them if we detach from them, but our engagement must be
consistent with U.S. policy.
intelligence requirements
Question. U.S. Southern Command has often reported reduced
readiness levels of its intelligence capabilities because of the lack
of airborne assets to adequately execute the counter-narcotics
detection and monitoring mission. Part of the reason is the competition
for assets with other theaters of operations.
In your view, does U.S. Southern Command have adequate
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets available to it
to accomplish its missions?
Answer. While most commanders would prefer to have unlimited
resources, the Department of Defense has mechanisms in place to
continuously evaluate threats to U.S. security and assign assets
consistent with Global Force Management procedures.
Southern Command has stated their requirements through the
Integrated Priority List, which requires an integrated mixture of
airborne, maritime and ground systems capable of detecting, monitoring
and collecting intelligence. I have every confidence Southern Command
will be awarded additional assets consistent with global threats to
U.S. national security where the threats warrant these assets.
Meanwhile, Southern Command will continue to optimize the assets
assigned and work with both the Department of Defense and Congress to
ensure our requirements are known.
whinsec
Question. What is the relationship between U.S. Southern Command
and the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
(WHINSEC)?
Answer. Although U.S. Southern Command is clearly a stakeholder,
there is no formal command relationship between the U.S. Southern
Command and WHINSEC. WHINSEC is directly subordinate to the Commander,
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (CAC). CAC Commander has oversight
responsibility for WHINSEC and will ensure WHINSEC curriculum is in
accordance with the intent of Congress, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of the Army and U.S. Southern Command's Theater
Security Cooperation (TSC) Plan. The Commander, U.S. Army Infantry
Center and Fort Benning provide base operations support to WHINSEC as a
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) school. WHINSEC
provides education and training to students from countries in the U.S.
Southern Command's AOR.
Question. What more, if anything, does WHINSEC need to do to
emphasize human rights in its curriculum?
Answer. WHINSEC is extremely proactive in the issue of human rights
training. They have modified their curriculum to include historical
case studies of human rights violations where students discuss what
went wrong and ways violations could have been prevented. The cases
reviewed include: My Lai, Srebrenitza, El Mozote (El Salvador), and the
Jesuit Murders (El Salvador). Additionally, WHINSEC conducts a Human
Rights instructor course, which this year has the highest-ever number
of graduates.
Question. In your view, how can WHINSEC improve its outreach
efforts to individuals or groups interested in their activities?
Answer. Since WHINSEC does not work for U.S. Southern Command, this
question may best be reserved for the Department of the Army. We
continue to rely upon WHINSEC as an educational institution to provide
quality education to foreign military personnel from countries in our
AOR.
detainee and interrogation operations
Question. U.S. Southern Command has been given significant
responsibility for managing detainee and interrogation operations in
the global war on terrorism, and is responsible for these operations at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
What is U.S. Southern Command's overall role in managing detainee
and interrogation operations, not only at Guantanamo Bay, but in the
larger global war on terrorism?
Answer. U.S. Southern Command provides command, control and
coordination that enables Joint Task Force (JTF)-Guantanamo to conduct
detention and interrogation operations. These operations are to collect
intelligence in support of the global war on terrorism. They also
support law enforcement in conducting war crimes investigations. U.S.
Southern Command through JTF-Guantanamo also supports the conduct of
military tribunals. Additionally, JTF-Guantanamo conducts detainee
screening operations, as requested, through the employment of Mobile
Detainee Review and Screening Teams.
haiti
Question. Haiti continues to experience turmoil and instability.
What is the current military, economic, and political situation in
Haiti, including the role of the U.N. multinational peacekeeping force
and the U.S. military?
Answer. Unquestionably, the current situation in Haiti is more
stable than it was in February of this year. The U.S. Southern Command-
led Multinational Interim Force-Haiti did a tremendous job stabilizing
the tenuous situation and providing a smooth transition to the United
Nations Stabilization Mission (MINUSTAH) under United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1542 which authorizes the United Nations, acting
under Chapter VII of the Charter (Peace Enforcement), to ensure a
secure and stable environment for the constitutional and political
process in Haiti to take place. The partner nations in Southern
Command's AOR should be applauded for actively supporting the MINUSTAH.
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay have forces on the ground
in MINUSTAH, with Brazil as the lead country. Several other countries
plan to deploy forces in the near future.
Haiti does not currently have a military, and security functions
are accomplished by the Haitian National Police (HNP). The U.S.
government is awaiting a decision from the Haitian Government to
transform the HNP into a Haitian Defense Force. In coordination with
U.S. Government initiatives, and in synchronization with United Nations
activities, the U.S. military maintains a role in the continued
transition in Haiti through security cooperation activities.
The current political situation in Haiti is relatively stable, with
MINUSTAH lending credence to the political process, which is being
conducted in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Haiti.
While Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, the
country's economic situation is improving. However, a viable economy
from foreign investment is dependent upon the continued stability of
the political situation.
Question. What trends are apparent with regard to the potential for
any mass migration of Haitians to the U.S. mainland?
Answer. There are no recent indications of a potential mass
migration of Haitians to the U.S.
Question. What role, if any, does Haiti play in the transshipment
of drugs en route to the United States, and what capabilities does the
Government of Haiti have to disrupt these illegal activities?
Answer. Under the failing Aristide government, Haiti was a key
transshipment point for drugs entering the U.S. due to its proximity,
endemic political corruption, and extreme poverty. Current and future
security operations will need to concentrate on this vulnerability in
order for Haiti to cease being a haven for international drug
traffickers.
The Government of Haiti has a very limited capability to deal with
sophisticated drug trafficking organizations. Prime Minister Latortue
has publicly stated the importance of disrupting the illicit drug trade
in Haiti. Latortue has cooperated with U.S. efforts to arrest Haitian
drug traffickers and attempted to increase counterdrug cooperation
between Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
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. Southern
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.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
whinsec
1. Senator Chambliss. General Craddock, you responded to several
questions related to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
Cooperation (WHINSEC) in your responses to the advance policy
questions. While it is clear WHINSEC is not under the authority of U.S.
Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), SOUTHCOM is clearly a large stakeholder in
WHINSEC's activities and benefits greatly from the educational programs
WHINSEC offers. I believe there might be greater appreciation of
WHINSEC's contribution to regional security if there were some readily
available ``success stories'' resulting from WHINSEC's training of
Latin American military personnel. Do you agree with this assessment,
and, if confirmed, what steps will you take to make available this type
of information to the extent you are aware of it?
General Craddock. I agree that success stories would help the
general public appreciate WHINSEC's contribution to regional security.
I believe it is also important to note that WHINSEC is one of many
institutions that contribute to regional security. Success stories are
already reported within the Federal Government. SOUTHCOM's
International Military Education and Training 5-year training plans
include success stories that are reported to the Departments of Defense
and State. Additionally, success stories are included in annual report
to Congress on WHINSEC's previous year's activities.
The Institute's Board of Visitors has expressed interest in making
more success stories available to the general public. The next WHINSEC
Board of Visitors meeting scheduled for November 2004 will address this
subject and provide recommendations for the Institute to implement. The
Commander of SOUTHCOM is a Member of the Board of Visitors. As a Member
of the Board, I will ensure that this issue is raised and properly
addressed.
2. Senator Chambliss. General Craddock, reforming the Intelligence
Community is a very high priority for Congress and it has been
highlighted recently by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and
the 9/11 Commission. As a principal user of intelligence, do you have
any concerns or recommendations about intelligence reform?
Specifically, are you concerned that there is a possibility that a
stronger civilian Director of National Intelligence might negatively
impact the timeliness and quality of intelligence support that your
respective command is now getting from the Department of Defense (DOD)?
General Craddock. At this stage in the process, not knowing with
certainty what the Director of National Intelligence authorities might
be, it is difficult to say how that new position may ultimately impact
intelligence support. In broad terms however, every commander requires
timely and accurate intelligence to support decisionmaking. Commanders
focus on the Intelligence Community results, not necessarily on its
construct. Reorganization requires careful and thoughtful
consideration. However, regardless of the final Intelligence Community
structure, combatant commanders must have the ability to influence
national intelligence priorities and intelligence asset allocation to
satisfy the full spectrum of military planning and operations, from
combat to peacekeeping to theater security cooperation activities.
3. Senator Chambliss. General Craddock, the Intelligence Community
is made of 15 agencies, 8 of which are in the DOD. Do you see
advantages of putting these eight DOD agencies under a new four-star
Unified Commander for Intelligence who would then provide centralized
intelligence support to your command in a similar fashion that
transportation support and special operations support are provided by
U.S. Transportation Command and U.S. Special Operations Command
respectively?
General Craddock. Establishing a Unified Command comprised of the
DOD intelligence Combat Support Agencies might assist in this process
and is an idea that merits assessment and consideration. It would be
important, I believe, to study such a recommendation thoroughly to
ensure the potential benefits are well understood, and to consider such
a possible approach along with the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
colombian drug trade
4. Senator Levin. General Craddock, Colombia has made great
progress in their military campaign against the narcoterrorist
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), National Liberation
Army, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the paramilitaries. What is
your impression of the military campaign in Colombia? Do you believe we
have reached some sort of ``turning point?''
General Craddock. Plan Patriota is a Colombian government plan
focused on bringing the FARC and other illegal armed groups to the
negotiating table by conducting a full range of operations against
them. To date, supporting military and police efforts nationwide have
prevented the narcoterrorist groups from regenerating their strength
elsewhere. The Government of Colombia has reestablished government
presence in every municipality in the country. Overall, there has been
a 30-percent decrease in attacks against the economic infrastructure; a
16-percent decrease in homicides; a 30-percent decrease in robberies; a
45-percent decrease in kidnappings and a general decrease in terrorist
activities.
The ultimate objective is to render these illegal armed groups
ineffective by 2006. However, Colombia is at a decisive point in their
military campaign. The momentum built by President Uribe and the
Colombian Armed Forces in Plan Patriota is unfortunately, reversible.
Consequently, we must maintain our steady, patient support in order to
reinforce the Government of Colombia's successes and to guarantee a
tangible return on the significant investment our country has made to
our democratic neighbor.
5. Senator Levin. General Craddock, when would you expect
measurable progress to manifest itself in higher street prices for
cocaine?
General Craddock. According to the Interagency Assessment of
Cocaine Movement coordinated by the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP), there is not a precise time frame or estimate as to
when interdiction efforts might result in higher street prices for
cocaine. Despite the estimated overall reduction in cocaine flow, ONDCP
has not seen expected indications of tension between supply and demand.
6. Senator Levin. General Craddock, do you believe that President
Uribe's leadership is essential to Colombian military and political
success against the narcoterrorists?
General Craddock. President Uribe's leadership has been an
essential component to Colombian military and political success against
the narcoterrorists. The Government of Colombia, under President Uribe,
has shown the political will to strengthen Colombia's democracy,
respect for human rights and the rule of law, and to reduce the threat
of narcoterrorism. His approval rating has remained around 80 percent.
Currently, Colombia's Congress is reviewing a proposal to allow him to
run for re-election. President Uribe has mobilized the Colombian
populace and provided guidance and resources for the Colombian Armed
Forces to prevail in the fight with the illegal armed groups.
Continued strong leadership from Uribe's successor remains
essential to uphold the institutions and initiatives that President
Uribe has put into place.
colombian paramilitaries
7. Senator Levin. General Craddock, once your nomination is
approved and you are sworn in, will you speak to the Colombians about
making, or stepping up, efforts to apprehend the top paramilitary
leadership, especially those who are refusing to participate in
negotiations with the Colombian government?
General Craddock. I intend to travel to Colombia and meet with
high-ranking government officials soon after assuming command of U.S.
Southern Command. During these meetings, I will emphasize the
importance of building upon current successes and reducing the threat
of all illegal armed groups. I will encourage aggressive action to
apprehend the top paramilitary leadership.
andean region
8. Senator Levin. General Craddock, we continue to receive reports
that Colombian narcotraffickers are operating in the territories of
countries bordering Colombia--Panama, Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, and
Venezuela. In the latter case, the Chavez government may be assisting
the narcotraffickers. Meanwhile, in Peru and Bolivia, coca farmers are
becoming more politically assertive, raising the possibility that drug
cultivation will increase in those countries. What, in your opinion,
should the United States do to ensure that our counternarcotics
strategy in Central America encompasses the entire Andean region,
addressing the potential for spillover from Colombia, as well as
increased domestically-based production in other Andean countries?
General Craddock. U.S. Southern Command is vigorously pursuing a
strategy to promote stability for the entire Andean Region in the
forthcoming ``post-Plan Colombia'' era. It is vitally important that we
maximize our current regional approach and mature key regional
initiatives that contribute to counternarcoterrorism efforts of partner
nations in the region. Some examples of initiatives undertaken by
Colombia's neighbors in the Andean Ridge to this effect include:
1. Brazil. Implementation of their Aerial Shoot down program, which
should go into effect around October 14, 2004. Brazil has initiated
discussions with its Andean Ridge neighbors to discuss the spillover
problem; has conducted well-publicized joint and combined exercises,
Timbo I and II, along its borders with Colombia and Peru and has
established Federal Police offices along its borders with those nations
to coordinate cross-border police activities.
2. Peru. Peru has a liaison officer in Leticia, Colombia and has a
liaison officer in Iquitos, Peru to facilitate cross-border cooperation
and security; Peruvian Coast Guard forces are communicating and
coordinating with Colombian Army forces across the Putumayo River,
along the Peru-Colombia border; and Peru and Brazil are collaborating
on air defense cooperation exercises.
3. Ecuador. Ecuador significantly increased its troop strength by
one-third along the northern border with Colombia and has plans to
continue increasing this presence with an additional Special Forces
Group.
U.S. Southern Command will continue to assist in facilitating and
developing a regional approach to security cooperation in the Andean
Ridge. It is my intention, to explore new and additional measures to
work with and fortify Southern Command's partner nations capabilities
in the fight against narcoterrorism in order to protect, prevent, and
prevail against transnational threats.
haiti
9. Senator Levin. General Craddock, a few days ago the Washington
Post editorial page asserted, ``Haiti's recovery [nevertheless] remains
precariously weak--largely because of an underpowered international
effort. The small number of peacekeepers in the country--2,000,
compared with the more than 6,000 that a U.N. plan calls for--means
that large parts of the countryside remain in the hands of ``armed
gangs.'' Haitian Prime Minister Latortue attended the World Bank Donors
Conference in Washington this week and called for international
assistance in training the Haitian police forces. I note that the
United States already provided such training for over 5 years in the
1990s. What do you believe the United States should do to improve the
security situation in Haiti? Should the United States get involved
training police, and if so, how can we ensure that this time it is an
enduring success?
General Craddock. Sustained international engagement with the
Haitian Government and its people is key to future success in Haiti and
is consistent with our own national interests.
In 1994, training of the Haitian National Police was a U.N./U.S.
bilateral effort. The Department of Defense made facilities available
to the Department of Justice to conduct training, but conducted no
training itself. An updated version of the training used then is being
used by the Haitian National Police Academy. It is not essential that
the U.S. train Haiti's police, only that it be done in a manner that
sustains professionalism. Southern Command does not presently have the
legal authority to conduct training for the police.
Since 2000, public law has limited Southern Command's engagement
with Haiti to only the Haitian Coast Guard. During the most recent
Haitian crisis, the Haitian Coast Guard was the only Haitian
governmental organization able to function. The Haitian Coast Guard,
working together with the U.S. Coast Guard, stemmed the flow of
migrants from Haiti, so that immediate repatriation could be
accomplished without having to establish migrant camps, or without
seeing large flotillas of migrants arriving on U.S. shores during the
crisis.
I believe that the reliability and professionalism of the Haitian
Coast Guard is due in great part to their continued, close relationship
with the U.S. Coast Guard. One of the key areas that will determine
success in Haiti is the reestablishment of the rule of law, which
requires a properly trained and equipped security force. It is vital
that the U.S. assists with this effort and remains engaged in the
effort for the long term.
whinsec
10. Senator Levin. General Craddock, despite changes in the
curriculum, and State Department and Department of Defense vetting of
its foreign students, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
Cooperation (WHINSEC) still has opponents who assert that the school
trains human rights violators. One proposal is to bring experts in
human rights and civil-military relations to the Institute to assess
their work and to help bring outside lecturers from the non-
governmental communities and civilian academic communities to WHINSEC.
What, if anything, do you believe that the WHINSEC leadership needs to
do to further improve its curriculum, and what should be done to better
educate critics of the school, who appear unable to end public and
legislative criticism of their Institute?
General Craddock. When WHINSEC was established in 2001, its
leadership took measures to establish a curriculum that supports the
infusion of not only military skills, but respects civilian authority
and human rights. WHINSEC implements a culture of continuous review,
improvement, and vigilance. The Institute's curriculum is prepared,
presented and evaluated to demanding Army Training and Doctrine Command
standards. Its Democracy and Human Rights program is second to none and
even Amnesty International--USA noted in one of its recommendations
contained in a 2002 report that the ``core human rights program . . .
could serve as a model. . .''
WHINSEC continually provides opportunities to the general public to
learn more about the Institute. For example, WHINSEC conducts an annual
Democracy and Human Rights week and consistently invites up to 50 Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs), including those focused on human
rights. Typically, only five or six NGOs accept the invitation, attend,
and participate. Of note, The International Committee of the Red Cross
is a participant. All NGOs that do participate have encouraged others
to attend.
Additionally, during the annual Board of Visitors (BOV) meetings,
the general public to include NGOs and members of the civilian academic
communities are provided opportunities to visit, participate, and learn
more about the Institute. During the aforementioned meetings, members
of the general public are also provided a forum to express their
concerns to the BOV.
11. Senator Levin. General Craddock, if confirmed, will you work
with the Army and the State Department to ensure that they increase
their outreach efforts to outside experts and public critics?
General Craddock. I will work with the Army and the State
Department to explore new opportunities and initiatives to expand
current outreach efforts.
______
[The nomination reference of LTG Bantz J. Craddock, USA,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 16, 2004.
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
LTG Bantz J. Craddock, 7782.
______
[The biographical sketch of LTG Bantz J. Craddock, USA,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Resume of Service Career of LTG Bantz J. Craddock, USA,
Source of commissioned service: ROTC.
Military schools attended:
Armor Officer Basic and Advanced Courses.
United States Army Command and General Staff College.
United States Army War College.
Educational degrees:
West Virginia University--BA--Political Science.
United States Army Command and General Staff College--MMAS--
Military Art and Science.
Foreign Language(s): None recorded.
Promotions:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotions Dates of appointment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2LT....................................... 15 Aug 71
1LT....................................... 20 Apr 73
CPT....................................... 20 Aug 75
MAJ....................................... 1 Apr 83
LTC....................................... 1 May 89
COL....................................... 1 Sep 93
BG........................................ 1 Aug 98
MG........................................ 1 Dec 01
LTG....................................... 21 Aug 02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major duty assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Assignment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 72.......................... Jun 74............ Platoon Leader, C
Company, later
Assistant S-3
(Operations), 1st
Battalion, 36th
Infantry, 3d
Armored Division,
United States
Army Europe and
Seventh Army,
Germany.
Jun 74.......................... Dec 74............ Anti-Tank Platoon
Leader, Combat
Support Company,
1st Battalion,
36th Infantry, 3d
Armored Division,
United States
Army Europe and
Seventh Army,
Germany.
Jan 75.......................... Aug 78............ Service Test
Project Officer,
Armor Test
Division, United
States Army Armor
and Engineer
Board, Fort Knox,
Kentucky
Aug 78.......................... Mar 79............ Student, Armor
Officer Advanced
Course, Fort
Knox, Kentucky
Apr 79.......................... Oct 81............ S-3 Air
(Operations),
later Commander,
C Company, 1st
Battalion, 32d
Armor, 3d Armored
Division, United
States Army
Europe and
Seventh Army,
Germany
Nov 81.......................... May 84............ Systems Analyst,
later Executive
Officer, Office
of the Program
Manager, M-1
Abrams Tank
Systems, Warren,
Michigan
Jun 84.......................... Jun 85............ Student, United
States Army
Command and
General Staff
College, Fort
Leavenworth,
Kansas
Jul 85.......................... Jun 87............ Executive Officer,
4th Battalion,
69th Armor, 8th
Infantry Division
(Mechanized),
United States
Army Europe and
Seventh Army,
Germany
Jul 87.......................... Apr 89............ Deputy G-3
(Operations), 8th
Infantry Division
(Mechanized),
United States
Army Europe and
Seventh Army,
Germany
May 89.......................... Jul 91............ Commander, 4th
Battalion, 64th
Armor, 24th
Infantry Division
(Mechanized),
Fort Stewart,
Georgia and
Operations Desert
Shield/Storm,
Saudi Arabia
Jul 91.......................... Jul 92............ G-3 (Operations),
24th Infantry
Division
(Mechanized),
Fort Stewart,
Georgia
Jul 92.......................... Jun 93............ Student, United
States Army War
College, Carlisle
Barracks,
Pennsylvania
Jul 93.......................... Jun 95............ Commander, 194th
Separate Armored
Brigade, Fort
Knox, Kentucky
Jul 95.......................... Aug 96............ Assistant Chief of
Staff, G-3
(Operations), III
Corps, Fort Hood,
Texas
Aug 96.......................... Aug 98............ Assistant Deputy
Director for
Strategy and
Policy, J-5, The
Joint Staff,
Washington, DC
Aug 98.......................... Aug 99............ Assistant Division
Commander
(Maneuver), 1st
Infantry
Division, United
States Army
Europe and
Seventh Army,
Germany and
Commander,
Multinational
Brigade
(Southeast),
Kosovo
Aug 99.......................... Sep 00............ Commander, 7th
Army Training
Command, United
States Army
Europe and
Seventh Army,
Germany
Sep 00.......................... Aug 02............ Commanding
General, 1st
Infantry
Division, United
States Army
Europe and
Seventh Army,
Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of joint assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment Dates Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Deputy Director for Aug 96-Aug 98..... Colonel/Brigadier
Strategy, J-5, The Joint Staff, General
Washington, DC.
Senior Military Assistant to the Aug 02-Present.... Lieutenant General
Secretary of Defense, Office of
the Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Decorations and badges:
Distinguished Service Medal
Silver Star
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Achievement Medal
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
______
[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 LTG Bantz J.
Craddock, 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.)
Bantz J. Craddock.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, United States Southern Command.
3. Date of nomination:
16 June 2004.
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:
8 August 1949; Parkersburg, WV.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Linda Eaton Craddock.
7. Names and ages of children:
Zachary W. Craddock (29) and Amanda E. Craddock (27).
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary
or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local
governments, other than those listed in the service record extract
provided to the committee by the executive branch.
None.
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, firm, partnership, or other business
enterprise, educational or other institution.
None.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Association of the United States Army--Member.
Society of the 1st Infantry Division--Member.
U.S. Army Armor Association--Member.
VFW--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.
Armor Association--Order of St. George.
Infantry Association--Order of St. Maurice.
Ordnance Association--Order of Samuel Sharpe, Honorary Ketucky
Colonel.
Honorary Texan, Artiller Association--Order of St. Barbara.
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.
Bantz J. Craddock.
This 18th day of June, 2004.
[The nomination of LTG Bantz J. Craddock, USA, was reported
to the Senate by Chairman Warner on July 22, 2004, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 22, 2004.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Peter C.W. Flory 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 implementation of these reforms. The
focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense Reorganization Act of
1986 has significantly enhanced the readiness and warfighting
capabilities of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have fundamentally changed the way the
Department of Defense works by strengthening civilian control of DOD,
improving military advice given to the President and Secretary of
Defense, and advancing the ability of the Department to carry out its
fundamental mission--protecting America's security and furthering its
vital interests.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. From my point of view, the most important aspects are
strengthening civilian control, improving military advice, the clear
responsibilities and authorities given the combatant commanders for
mission accomplishment, and the increased attention to formulation of
strategy and contingency planning.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Question. Do you anticipate that 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 need to modify Goldwater-Nichols at
this time. If I am confirmed, I will raise any such requirements that I
may identify within the Department. The Department would consult
closely with Congress, especially this committee, on any changes that
might be appropriate.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy?
Answer. I understand that, if I am confirmed, my duties as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy will
be to serve as the principal assistant and advisor to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy in formulating and implementing
national security and defense policy in a wide range of areas,
including: nuclear forces; technology security; missile defense; Europe
and NATO; Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia; arms control, nonproliferation,
and counterproliferation.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would prescribe for you?
Answer. I would expect Secretary Rumsfeld to look to the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy to fulfill all
the duties assigned to that office under the authorities of the
Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy--in
particular, assistance and advice on the formulation of national
security and defense policy in the areas noted in the response to the
previous question.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:
The Secretary of Defense
The Deputy Secretary of Defense
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics
The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense
The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director for Strategic
Plans and Policy (J-5)
Commander, United States European Command
Commander, United States Strategic Command
Director, Missile Defense Agency
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration
Answer. If confirmed, I will report to the Secretary of Defense and
Deputy Secretary of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy. I expect to maintain a close working relationship with the
other Assistant Secretaries in the Office of the Under Secretary for
Policy, the offices of the Under Secretaries for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics, Personnel and Readiness, Comptroller, and
Intelligence, the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Director for Strategic Plans
and Policy (J-5) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commanders of the U.S.
European Command and U.S. Strategic Command, other combatant
commanders, and the Missile Defense Agency. I will also, if confirmed,
work closely with the National Security Council Staff and with
officials in the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, the
Intelligence Community, the National Nuclear Security Administration,
and other agencies and departments.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Policy?
Answer. The United States and our allies face serious, growing, and
unpredictable threats. We must maintain the ability to deter and, if
necessary, defend against a wide range of threats, particularly
ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Through arms
control, export control groups, and non-traditional methods such as the
Proliferation Security Initiative, we must seek to prevent and counter
the spread of WMD and delivery systems. We must maximize our ability to
deter the use of these weapons by development and deployment of
improved strike and missile defense capabilities--what we call the
``New Triad.'' To address the possible use of these weapons, in
addition to developing missile defense capabilities, we must seek to
improve our other defensive capabilities, including enhanced chemical
and biological defenses for our forces and enhanced consequence
management training and preparedness.
As we work to transform our military forces to meet 21st century
challenges, we also must work to transform our defense and security
relationships with countries throughout the world. In Eurasia, we
strive to promote stability and democratic development so that
countries once part of the Soviet Union do not contribute to an ``arc
of instability'' in the region. In Europe and NATO, we must continue
the efforts this administration has begun to transform our alliances
and structures, and the capabilities of the member states, so that NATO
members can live up to their political commitments.
Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing
these challenges?
Question. If confirmed, I will work to ensure we have a defense
strategy and appropriate policies and plans to address the range of
threats we face.
nato
Question. What are the greatest opportunities and challenges that
you foresee for NATO over the next 5 years?
Answer. One of the key challenges will be to complete the Alliance
transition from stationary forces to more mobile, deployable, and
sustainable forces. The NATO Response Force (NRF) has been designed as
a catalyst for NATO transformation, as well as a highly capable
military force to carry out NATO missions. We will continue to work
with the new members and partners to assist them in developing forces
that are better able to operate with NATO forces and to contribute
niche capabilities, such as chemical and biological defense units,
light infantry units, combat engineers, and special operations forces
to the Alliance.
Another challenge is to develop a cooperative relationship with the
European Union, as it develops its European Security and Defense Policy
that 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. This latest round of enlargement will not be NATO's last,
and the door to membership remains open. There is no timetable for the
next round of enlargement. It depends on each aspirant government's
achievement of the political, economic, military, and civil society
reforms they laid out in their Membership Action Plans. NATO leaders at
the Istanbul Summit reaffirmed NATO's open door, and recognized the
reform efforts of the three NATO aspirants (Albania, Croatia, and
Macedonia). Each NATO aspirant will be judged on its individual merits.
Question. What criteria should NATO use in determining whether the
Alliance would benefit from further expansion?
Answer. Article 10 of the NATO Treaty allows for addition of
European states that are ``in a position to further the principles of
this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic
area to accede to this Treaty.'' There are no defined criteria for NATO
membership, but there are two fundamental questions we should want
answered prior to making decisions about a future round of NATO
enlargement:
Will this candidate strengthen the Alliance's ability to protect
and promote its security, values, and interests?
Can we be confident of the candidate's enduring commitment to
democracy and Allied values and interests?
Question. What criteria should NATO use to determine which nations,
if any, should be invited to join NATO?
Answer. Although there are no set criteria for judging a country's
readiness to join NATO, from a DOD perspective we expect the invitees
to:
Share the risks and responsibilities of collective
defense.
Be able to participate in NATO missions (e.g.,
interoperability).
Provide military value to the Alliance (commensurate
with size); this value may be through a specialized capability.
Spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product
(GDP) on defense.
Have laws, regulations, and procedures to protect NATO
classified information.
Make progress on defense reform.
nato/russia
Question. How do you assess the NATO-Russia relationship, as
formalized through the NATO-Russia Council?
Answer. The NATO-Russia Council (NRC) has led to increased
cooperation between Russia and the Allies, especially military-to-
military cooperation. Russia has increased its participation in
Partnership for Peace (PfP) activities, assigned officers to the
Partnership Coordination Cell, and agreed with NATO to establish a
Russian military liaison mission at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers
Europe (SHAPE). These steps will help enable Russian forces eventually
to work with NATO in the field to address the threats of the 21st
century.
Other examples of successful NRC cooperation include civil
emergency preparedness exercises, terrorist threat assessments, a Joint
Missile Defense Command Post Exercise in Colorado Springs in March
2004, and a cooperative airspace initiative.
dod's cooperative threat reduction (ctr) program
Question. The CTR program has several key objectives including: (1)
reducing strategic nuclear weapons; (2) improving the security and
accounting of nuclear weapons and fissile material; (3) eliminating and
preventing biological and chemical weapons and capabilities; and (4)
encouraging military reductions and reforms to reduce proliferation
threats.
In your view, how has the CTR program benefited U.S. national
security?
Answer. CTR has reduced the amount of weapons of mass destruction
and related infrastructure that might be poorly secured or subject to
illicit transfer. Also, DOD has refined CTR to better support the
global war on terrorism, by an increased focus on chemical and
biological weapons, and assisting with WMD border security (in the non-
Russia former Soviet Union (FSU)) in coordination with other
departments of the United States Government (USG).
Question. What is your view of the CTR program's chemical and
biological weapons elimination efforts?
Answer. I support the CTR program's efforts to eliminate chemical
weapons and prevent the proliferation of dangerous pathogens and
biological warfare (BW) expertise.
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. CTR program activities and plans are well coordinated among
U.S. Government agencies. Relationships among interagency offices
handling CTR and other non-proliferation matters are mature; the system
for coordinating issues and elevating disagreements through the NSC-
chaired Proliferation Strategy Policy Coordinating Committee functions
effectively.
Question. If confirmed, would you anticipate being assigned
responsibility for policy development, coordination, and oversight of
the CTR program?
Answer. The current Office of the Assistant Secretary for
International Security Policy and all predecessor offices have had
responsibility for CTR policy development, coordination, and oversight.
I anticipate no changes in this regard.
Question. What is your vision of the CTR program 5 years from now?
Answer. My vision of CTR 5 years hence is of a program that has
successfully implemented the management reforms of 2002-2004 to execute
long-standing strategic nuclear elimination projects, and has
successfully followed through on initiatives related to nerve agent
elimination and WMD border security. We have overcome significant
challenges over the last 3 years. Five years from now the program
should have built on its already impressive threat reduction record,
but with enhanced value for the U.S. nonproliferation investment and
improved cooperation from recipient countries.
Question. In your view, are Russia and the nations of the former
Soviet Union making a significant contribution to efforts to reduce the
proliferation threats they inherited?
Answer. All of the states of the former Soviet Union have taken
significant steps over the past decade to reduce the threat posed by
poorly secured weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure
within their respective territories. However, the level of commitment
and contribution on the part of Russia to the cooperative activities we
undertake with Russia through CTR has been uneven. For instance,
Russian officials have demonstrated clearly a desire to improve the
security of their inactive nuclear warheads and have granted CTR the
access it needs to warhead storage facilities to make this a reality.
However, while Russia's economy is much stronger than in the early days
of CTR, Russia continues to request substantial assistance. Russia
could also contribute by following through on certain commitments,
e.g., ratify the CTR umbrella agreement extension of 1999; turn over
samples of Russia's altered anthrax strain; and agree to a biological
weapons project implementing agreement.
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. All CTR activities with Russia are conducted under the CTR
``Umbrella Agreement,'' the foundation of CTR's legal framework that
was extended in 1999 for a 7-year period. The Umbrella Agreement
extension has not been ratified by the Duma but has been applied
provisionally--with success--since 1999. Thus, there are no liability
issues that currently hamper CTR program activities. We look forward to
working with Russia in the coming years to extend the Umbrella
Agreement again in 2006 with the same liability protections for U.S.
assistance through CTR that have existed since the beginning of the
program.
Question. In your view, what new projects, if any, should be added
to the CTR program and what current projects, if any, should be closed
out?
Answer. CTR is sized appropriately at the current time.
united nations convention on the law of the sea.
Question. Do you support accession by the United States to the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?
Answer. Yes, I agree with the administration's support of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Question. In your view, would ratification of this treaty be in the
national security interest of the United States?
Answer. Yes.
nuclear weapons
Question. To meet U.S. national security needs in the post-Cold War
world, the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review recommended a new strategic
triad consisting of nuclear and conventional offensive forces, active
and passive defenses, and a robust nuclear and defense infrastructure.
Do you agree with the conclusions of the Nuclear Posture Review?
Answer. Yes. In contrast to the Cold War where the United States
faced a single major adversary, the new security environment is
characterized by unpredictability, weapons of mass destruction in the
hands of a large number of potential adversaries and hostile non-state
actors, and a wide range of possible types of conflict, including
cyberattack and terrorist strikes as well as traditional hostilities
between nations. The new environment demands that the Department
develop a new strategic posture. Expecting and adapting to surprise,
quickly and decisively, is now a condition of planning.
The Nuclear Posture Review initiated a major change in our approach
to the role of nuclear offensive forces in the U.S. deterrent strategy
and provided the direction to transform our traditional nuclear triad
into a New Triad. Nuclear weapons are being reduced to the lowest level
consistent with our national security, including our commitments to our
allies and friends. Achievement of fully integrated New Triad
capabilities is an ongoing process that will continue for a number of
years.
The New Triad offers the President a broader range of capabilities
better suited to implementing our defense policy goals of assuring
allies and friends of our ability to meet our military commitments;
dissuading adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations
that could threaten U.S. interests or those of our friends and allies;
deterring threats and countering coercion against the United States,
its forces, allies, and friends; and defeating adversaries and
defending against attack should deterrence fail.
Question. What roles should nuclear weapons, including the
traditional nuclear triad, play in U.S. national security policy and
strategy?
Answer. The traditional nuclear triad of Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles (ICBMs), Submarine-launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), and
heavy bombers is now one part of the Strike element of the New Triad.
Nuclear weapon capabilities remain a vital element of U.S. defense
policy, allowing us to deter a nuclear, biological and chemical weapons
attack on the United States and our friends and allies. Nuclear
capabilities can be helpful in assuring our friends and allies of our
ability to meet our security commitments; dissuading potential
competitors from threatening U.S. interests or those of our friends and
allies; deterring threats and countering coercion against the United
States, its forces, allies, and friends; and, if necessary, defeating
any adversary decisively if deterrence fails.
Question. Do you believe that exploration of new nuclear weapons
concepts is justified?
Answer. Yes. Although we are not developing any new nuclear weapons
at this time, if the United States is to maintain an effective
deterrent, it is critical that scientists and engineers examine ways to
incorporate new technologies into advanced design concepts if this
becomes necessary for national security reasons. Such work also helps
to recruit and retain the high quality scientists we need to maintain a
nuclear deterrent capability.
Question. Do you believe that there is a need for the development
or fielding of new nuclear weapons that are not currently part of the
stockpile?
Answer. Currently, there is no requirement to develop and produce
any new nuclear weapon. In conjunction with the Department of Energy,
the Department of Defense is studying ways to modify an existing
gravity bomb to satisfy a long-standing requirement to place at risk a
growing set of hard and deeply buried targets.
Question. In your view, will the United States need to resume
underground nuclear testing in the foreseeable future in order to
ensure the reliability, safety, and security of United States strategic
nuclear forces?
Answer. I support the President's policy to continue the moratorium
on underground nuclear testing for the foreseeable future. If
confirmed, I plan to get briefed on the condition of the nuclear
weapons stockpile, including the effects of age. Each year, experts
assess the condition of the stockpile to determine if nuclear testing
is required to resolve a question about the safety and reliability of a
warhead critical to the U.S. deterrent. I will participate in this
process and will advise the Secretary accordingly on the need for
nuclear testing.
Question. Do you support the moratorium on underground nuclear
weapons testing? In your view, does unilateral U.S. restraint in
nuclear weapons development promote nonproliferation and help dissuade
other nations from similar development activities?
Answer. Yes, I support the President's policy to continue the
moratorium on underground nuclear testing for the foreseeable future.
At the same time, the U.S. must continue to maintain its nuclear
deterrent and its ability to meet its security obligations to its
allies and friends. This could include the development of new weapon
designs should they ever be required. I believe current policy on
nuclear weapons is consistent with U.S. nonproliferation goals.
hard and deeply buried targets (hdbt)
Question. Many U.S. adversaries are hardening or burying targets of
interest to the U.S. military.
In your view, how serious is the challenge posed by hard and deeply
buried targets to U.S. military capabilities?
Answer. I am concerned about the number of potential adversaries
now hardening or burying facilities that support WMD operations. There
are a growing number of facilities, often associated with weapons of
mass destruction, that are well beyond the capability of our most
effective conventionally armed weapons to destroy. The Department of
Defense must be able to provide the President with options to place
these facilities at risk.
Question. Do you believe that the Department's efforts to develop
the technical means to counter hard and deeply buried targets is
adequate? Do you believe that the service support of these efforts is
adequate?
Answer. The Department has a multi-faceted program to defeat HDBTs
that includes both advanced conventional capabilities--including
nonkinetic approaches--and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study.
If confirmed, I plan to examine the details of the program further to
ensure that this effort is adequate.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you recommend, if any, to
strengthen programs, policy, and management relevant to hard and deeply
buried targets?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to examine the details of this multi-
faceted program further to ensure for myself that this effort is
adequate.
ballistic missile defense
Question. What is your understanding of the nature and extent of
ballistic missile threats to the United States, its allies and friends,
and deployed forces?
Answer. The United States and our allies face serious and
unpredictable threats and potential adversaries are less predictable
and more diverse than during the Cold War. The proliferation of
ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is of
particular concern. Today, roughly two dozen countries, including some
of the world's least responsible states, possess ballistic missiles and
some are attempting to obtain missiles of longer range. Many of these
states also have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.
One of the key reasons potential adversaries seek ballistic
missiles is because we have no defenses against long-range missiles,
and limited defenses against shorter-range missiles. Absent defenses,
even primitive ballistic missiles can deliver devastating WMD attacks
against population centers. Potential adversaries see these weapons as
a means for exploiting an obvious U.S. and allied vulnerability. For
example, North Korea continues to develop and deploy ballistic
missiles, has deployed significant WMD capability, and threatens to
expand its nuclear capability. North Korea continues to work on the
Taepo Dong II long-range missile capable of reaching the United States
with a nuclear weapon-sized payload. The Taepo Dong II could be flight-
tested at any time. North Korea is also the world's foremost
proliferator of ballistic missiles and has a track record of selling
these weapons to some of the world's least responsible states. It has
deployed--and sold--missiles with little testing. Hence, missile
threats can emerge with little or no warning. Iran and other countries
also are working on space-launch vehicles and long-range missiles that
could be ready for testing in the next few years.
Question. From the perspective of the warfighter, do you believe
that the spiral acquisition of ballistic missile defenses through
concurrent fielding, development, testing, and operation is
appropriate?
Answer. The Department's approach to developing and fielding
missile defense has been consistent with the goal of transforming U.S.
military forces and adopting a capabilities-based approach to planning.
We begin with the recognition that we face serious and uncertain
threats and that potential adversaries are less predictable and more
diverse than during the Cold War.
In applying capabilities-based planning to missile defense, we
concluded that an evolutionary or spiral approach to acquiring and
fielding missile defense was the best way to address ballistic missile
threats in a dynamic and unpredictable security environment. This
approach to the acquisition and fielding of missile defenses will
provide advanced capabilities to the warfighter, while we continue to
pursue follow-on improvements to meet the changing threats. Fielding
modest capabilities in the near-term will provide not only timely
defensive coverage, it also will allow operational input from combatant
commanders. This is especially important for the missile defense
mission where there is little previous operational experience to serve
as a guide.
There are several good examples where we have taken a similar
approach to the timely fielding of limited capabilities still in
development, such as the Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and the
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack System (JSTARS). As we begin
missile defense operations, this step does not indicate a reduction in
aggressive development and testing activities. Rather, the Department
will continue a robust development effort, and will use test results to
improve existing capabilities, field new ones, and gain even greater
confidence in operating missile defenses.
Question. In your view, how important are international cooperative
efforts to achieving effective missile defenses? What steps, if any,
should be taken to strengthen such efforts?
Answer. As the President has said, it is essential that we work
together with allies and friends to defend against the shared ballistic
missile threat we face. Accordingly, the Department of Defense is
developing and deploying missile defenses capable of protecting not
only the United States and our deployed forces, but also our friends
and allies. We have taken a number of steps to strengthen cooperative
efforts. For example, the Defense Department has structured the missile
defense program in a manner that encourages participation by other
nations. Countries can participate at varying levels of involvement, up
to and including co-development and production of various systems.
Other countries might also provide in-kind contributions, such as
territory and facilities upon which to build components of our missile
defense system.
space
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004 included a provision establishing as national policy support for
two space launch vehicles or families of space launch vehicles capable
of launching national security payloads.
Do you agree with this policy?
Answer. I do. The Department of Defense and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are responsible for
ensuring access to space for critical national security and civil space
missions, respectively. Ensuring access to space means they will
provide a sufficiently robust, responsive and resilient capability to
allow continued space operations. Currently, this means maintaining the
two Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) launch service providers.
Question. If confirmed, what capabilities and programs would you
prioritize to ensure U.S. access to space?
Answer. The United States' ability to deter adversaries and, if
deterrence fails, to project power across the globe is dependent on our
access to space and assured, protected operations in space. The
capabilities required to ensure access to space include our current
launch vehicle programs, launch ranges, satellite control network,
responsive launch, and flexible / protected space systems.
Question. What further policy actions, if any, do you believe are
needed to support assured access to space?
Answer. The security and well being of the United States, our
allies, and friends depend on our ability to operate in space. Our
increasing dependence on space and the vulnerability it creates require
us to have the means to deter and dissuade threats to our National
interests in space. If confirmed, I intend to be briefed extensively on
U.S. space launch capability and other programs required to ensure
assured access to space. I understand the administration has included
in its ongoing strategic review the range of capabilities necessary to
implement this policy, and I support this effort.
Question. Current U.S. national security space policy states that
the United States should have the ability to use space to support its
national security interests and the ability to deny the use of space to
its adversaries.
Do you support current U.S. national security space policy?
Answer. Yes. Although currently under review, the 1996 National
Space Policy continues to provide policy and guidance for the conduct
of our Nation's space activities. This presidential directive states
that ``consistent with treaty obligations, the United States will
develop, operate, and maintain space control capabilities to ensure
freedom of action in space and, if directed, deny such freedom of
action to adversaries. These capabilities may also be enhanced by
diplomatic, legal, or military measures to preclude an adversary's
hostile use of space systems and services.'' I agree with the
Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management
and Organization that ``the broad outline of U.S. national space policy
is sound.'' If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress and
my administration colleagues to ensure that our national space policy
provides a coherent approach and clear direction for advancing our
interests in space.
Question. What, in your view, are the policy implications of
current and anticipated threats to U.S. space systems?
Ensuring our freedom of action in space and protecting U.S.
national security interests there are priorities for our space-related
activities. U.S. space systems are national property afforded the right
of passage through and operations in space without interference. In
this regard, space is much like the high seas and international
airspace. The political, military, and economic value of the Nation's
activities in space may provide a motive for an adversary to attempt to
counter U.S. space advantages. Purposeful interference with U.S. space
systems would be viewed as an infringement on our sovereign rights. The
United States must be prepared to take all appropriate self-defense
measures, including, if directed by the President and Secretary of
Defense, the use of force, to respond to such an infringement on our
rights.
What role, if any, should arms control play a role in protecting
U.S. space systems?
Answer. The Outer Space Treaty provides certain basic rules. In
addition, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and Intermediate-
Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty prohibit interference with National
Technical Means of Verification. At this time, the United States does
not see any need for additional arms control measures. Any new arms
control measure must be equitable and effectively verifiable, and must
enhance the security of the United States and our allies. In the
context of space, these are difficult to achieve.
arms control
Question. Arms control has been a prominent feature in U.S.
security policy in the past, but clearly the international security
landscape has changed dramatically in the past decade.
What is your view of the current significance of arms control
efforts, and the proper role of arms control in U.S. national security
strategy?
Answer. Arms control agreements must be considered in the context
of our national security requirements. Most existing arms control
agreements were negotiated during, and are a product of, the Cold War.
Our national security requirements have evolved since then. As an
example, on the whole, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was no
longer a net benefit to our national security; therefore, the President
decided to withdraw from the treaty, with no negative effects. The
Moscow Treaty codified with Russia a decision that the United States
had already made to reduce its strategic weapons to levels that we
believe were necessary for the security of the United States. To be
effective, arms control treaties must be based on all parties'
willingness to comply with the limitations of the treaty, and must, in
fact, control the arms they are designated to control. In some cases,
traditional arms control agreements can provide the legal underpinning
for non-traditional methods of controlling the spread of dangerous
weapons. For example, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Chemical
Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention are the legal
bases behind other efforts, such as the Proliferation Security
Initiative, the Australia Group, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Question. What in your view are the opportunities for arms control
with respect to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and their
means of delivery?
Answer. Nuclear weapons: The emphasis in the upcoming year for the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), including the 5-year Review
Conference in May 2005, will be on dealing with the main threat to the
global nonproliferation regime--parties to the treaty that cheat. In
the case of Iran, we will continue to work through the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors and, eventually, the
U.N. Security Council. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK), which announced its withdrawal from the Treaty in 2003, will be
dealt with in the context of the Six Party Talks. Elsewhere, we have
begun initiatives to support the IAEA. President Bush outlined these
objectives in his February 2004 speech on combating WMD proliferation,
and these objectives will remain a major focus of our international
efforts.
Chemical weapons: We will continue to meet our own Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC) obligations while pushing for universal adherence to
the CWC. We will also continue to work closely with the Organization
for the Prohibition for Chemical Weapons in the world-wide
implementation of the CWC and the monitoring of Russia's CW destruction
progress. Additionally, we remain committed to ensuring all member-
States meet their CWC obligations, including the institution of
implementing legislation that criminalizes violations of the
Convention. We will continue to support the work of the Australia Group
to limit the transfers of chemical and biological weapons technologies
and precursors.
Biological weapons: The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)
establishes an important norm against the development, production,
acquisition and stockpiling of biological weapons. However, given the
nature of biological weapons and biotechnology, the Convention is
inherently unverifiable. We will continue to push for universal
adherence to the BWC and pursue initiatives that leverage existing
mechanisms and national actions by States to combat the threat of
biological weapons. The Department of Defense is actively engaged,
along with other Departments, in the 2003-2005 BWC Work Program. This
type of effort has and will continue to produce useful results.
Delivery systems: Although there is no international treaty
controlling the development and spread of ballistic missiles and cruise
missiles, we do have several tools at our disposal to limit their
proliferation. We will continue our strong support of the Missile
Technology Control Regime, which serves an important role in
coordinating the export controls of countries with the potential to be
suppliers of missiles and missile-related items. We will also continue
encouraging states to end their missile and defense-related trade with
proliferators like North Korea.
In addition to the treaties covering nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons that are the backbone of our nonproliferation
efforts, we will also use complementary mechanisms to address
proliferation problems. For example, we recently worked successfully
through the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to advance the fight
against weapons of mass destruction through the adoption of UNSC
Resolution 1540 on nonproliferation.
proliferation security initiative (psi)
Question. If confirmed, would you have a role in policy formulation
and implementation of the PSI? If so, what would your role be?
Answer. If confirmed, I would have a leading role in the policy
formulation and implementation of the PSI. The Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy has been
responsible for formulating and implementing PSI within the Department
of Defense since the President announced this initiative in May 2003.
The head of the U.S. delegation to the Operational Experts Group of the
PSI will be under my supervision, and I will provide that person with
policy guidance on how to improve PSI's operational focus internally
within the Department and within the U.S. Government, while interacting
with PSI experts from other governments. We will work closely with the
Joint Staff, the Military Departments, the combatant commands, and the
other agencies within the USG to strengthen and expand under the PSI
efforts to stem the proliferation of WMD, their delivery systems, and
related materials.
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
Defense for International Security Policy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
1. Senator Reed. Mr. Flory, please explain your role in the
planning and execution of the war in Iraq.
Mr. Flory. Since July 2001, I have served as Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
(ISA). In this capacity, I serve as the senior deputy to the Assistant
Secretary for ISA, and as a senior advisor to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy (USDP) and the Secretary of Defense. ISA is
responsible for regional political-military policy for Africa, Asia-
Pacific, Near East and South Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. Within
ISA, the Deputator of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs (NESA),
headed by a Deputy Under Secretary, is responsible for Iraq.
The USDP does not conduct war planning or execute war plans. The
USDP and his staff (including ISA) advise the Secretary of Defense
regarding policy guidance for the preparation and review of operational
and contingency plans prepared by the combatant commanders, and in
reviewing such plans in collaboration with the Joint Staff.
Within that context, I was aware of and participated in the
development of overall U.S. policy toward Iraq. Because of the breadth
of my responsibilities as Principal Deputy, overseeing the full range
of regional policies in ISA, my involvement in the day-to-day
deliberations that developed policy guidance for the preparation of
operational and contingency plans for Iraq was limited. The bulk of
this work was conducted by the NESA's Directorate of Northern Gulf
Affairs (officially known from summer 2002 to spring 2003 as the
Directorate of Special Plans). While NESA is part of ISA, because of
the salience and sensitivity of the work on Iraq during that period,
much of the work was directly overseen by the USDP.
In addition, before and during major combat operations in Iraq, in
the spring of 2003, I served in the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv as the
senior civilian member of a civilian-military team that provided
liaison between the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Central and
European Commands, and the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
______
[The nomination reference of Peter C.W. Flory follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 1, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Peter Cyril Wyche Flory of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary
of Defense, vice Jack Dyer Crouch II.
______
[The biographical sketch of Peter C.W. Flory, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Peter C.W. Flory
Peter C.W. Flory became Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Affairs in July 2001. In this
capacity, he serves as the principal assistant to the Assistant
Secretary for International Security Affairs, who is the principal
advisor to the Secretary of Defense on the formulation and coordination
of international security strategy and policy for East Asia, South
Asia, the Middle East and Persian Gulf, Africa, and Latin America.
From April 1997 to July 2001, Mr. Flory was Chief Investigative
Counsel and Special Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence (SSCI). Mr. Flory had responsibility for the People's
Republic of China and other regional issues, as well as
counterintelligence, covert action, denial and deception, and other
intelligence oversight matters.
An Honors Graduate of McGill University, Mr. Flory received his law
degree from Georgetown University Law Center. After working as a
journalist, he served as a national security advisor to members of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee. From 1989 to 1992, Mr. Flory served as the Special
Assistant to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul D. Wolfowitz.
From 1992 to 1993, he was an Associate Coordinator for Counterterrorism
in the Department of State with the rank of Deputy Assistant Secretary.
From 1993 until he joined the SSCI staff in 1997, Mr. Flory practiced
law with the firm of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed LLP.
Mr. Flory speaks German and French. He and his wife Kathleen have
six children, and reside in Nokesville, 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 Peter Cyril
Wyche Flory 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 Cyril Wyche Flory.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.
3. Date of nomination:
June 1, 2004.
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 16, 1955; Pinehurst, NC.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Kathleen M. McGovern.
7. Names and ages of children:
Henry (17), Seamus (16), Fiona (13), Xavier (11), Isabelle (9), and
Mairead (4).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
St. Marks School, Southborough, MA; High School Diploma; 1973.
McGill University, Montreal, Canada; B.A. with Joint Honors; 1979.
Colombia University Graduate School of Journalism (1979-1980); No
degree.
Georgetown University Law Center; J.D.; 1993.
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.
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense For International
Security Affairs (July 2001-Present), U.S. Dept. of Defense, 4E841
Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Special Counsel/Chief Investigative Counsel (April 1997-July 2001),
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SH-211 U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Attorney, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (Feb. 1993-April 1997), 1300 I
St. NW (now located at 1775 I St. NW), 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.
Associate Coordinator for Counterterrorism (Jan. 1992-Jan. 1993),
U.S. Department of State.
Special Assistant to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (Dec.
1989-Jan. 1992), U.S. Department of Defense.
Legislative Assistant for National Security (Aug. 1987-Dec. 1989),
Sen. James McClure, U.S. Senate.
Legislative Assistant for Foreign Affairs and Defense (Aug. 1986-
Aug. 1987), Rep. Olympia Snowe, U.S. House of Representatives.
Legislative Assistant (May 1985-Aug. 1986), Rep. Bobbi Fiedler,
U.S. House of Representatives.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Member, Henry C. Flory Family LLC, 120 Applecross Road, Pinehurst,
NC.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member (Currently Inactive) DC Bar.
Member (Currently Inactive) Pennsylvania 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.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
George W. Bush Campaign 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.
None.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Op-Ed ``Keeping Counterterrorism A Serious Priority,'' Washington
Times, April 20, 1994.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
I have not given any formal speeches in the last 5 years.
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.
Peter C.W. Flory.
This 23th day of June, 2004.
[The nomination of Peter Cyril Wyche Flory was reported to
the Senate by Chairman Warner on September 30, 2004, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was placed on the executive calendar but not acted upon prior
to adjournment sine die of the 108th Congress.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Valerie Lynn Baldwin 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 enactment and objectives of these
defense reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. It appears that these reforms have resulted in significant
improvements by defining the roles and responsibilities of the
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
the Service Secretaries.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The key result was the strengthening of the effectiveness
of military operations, which was accomplished by strengthening
civilian control and better defining responsibilities.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control 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 am not aware of any current proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols. It is too early for me to comment about any proposals without
additional evaluation and insight.
duties of the assistant secretary of the army for financial management
and comptroller
Question. The duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Financial Management and Comptroller are set forth in section
3016(b)(4) and 3022 of title 10, United States Code. The Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller has
principal responsibility for the exercise of the comptroller functions
of the Department of the Army, including financial management
functions.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and
Comptroller?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be responsible for advising the
Secretary of the Army on financial matters and directing all
Comptroller and Financial Management functions of the Department of the
Army.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe my background qualifies me to serve as Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller). I have
significant experience in the legislative process, from both
appropriations and authorization perspectives, and understand the
oversight role of Congress in financial matters. I have made extensive
visits to Army installations throughout the world and have an
appreciation of the needs facing the Army and the challenges to finance
them. My education in law gives me a solid foundation to build upon.
Question. Do you believe that there are any actions that you need
to take to enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller?
Answer. I am always looking to improve my skills and understanding
of fiscal issues. If confirmed, I will need to gain a better
understanding of the Army's challenges.
relationships
Question. What do you see as the relationship between the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller and each
of the following?
The Secretary of the Army
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management
and Comptroller) is the principal advisor to the Secretary of the Army
on financial matters and directs Comptroller and Financial management
functions of the Department of the Army.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Army
Answer. My relationship to the Under Secretary would mirror that of
the Secretary of the Army.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) to ensure the Army financial management and
comptroller policies dovetailed with those of the office of the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense Networks and
Information Integration/Chief Information Officer
Answer. Financial Management systems are the critical link in
enabling the Army to perform accurate, timely financial management and
are crucial in auditable financial statements. The Army's financial
managers need to include the Chief Information Officer in all financial
management system planning and decisionmaking.
Question. The Director, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation
(PA&E)
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Director, Office of
Program Analysis and Evaluation in fulfilling his or her role of
providing independent assessments. I will also work with the Director,
PA&E to ensure the success of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and
Execution (PPBE) process.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Chief of Staff
of the Army on resourcing and financial management issues.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Army
Answer. My relationship with the other Assistant Secretaries would
support the responsibility I would have, if confirmed, to advise the
Secretary of the Army on financial matters and direct all Comptroller
and Financial Management functions and activities of the Department of
the Army.
Question. The General Counsel of the Army
Answer. I will consult and coordinate with the General Counsel on
all legal matters and financial management and comptroller issues
requiring legal review.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries for Financial Management of the
Navy and Air Force
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Navy and Air Force
Assistant Secretaries for Financial Management to serve as the Army
financial management liaison to the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller).
Question. The Deputy Chief of Staff (G-5) of the Army
Answer. Not applicable to the Army.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management
and Comptroller?
Answer. Any Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial
Management will be challenged to improve financial management systems
and processes, to include finance, accounting, budget, and feeder
systems to provide accurate, reliable and timely financial information.
The Army will also be challenged to ensure adequate funds are available
to fight and win the global war on terrorism while maintaining the Army
as the best trained and equipped force in the world. The Army must
continue to develop consistent and executable budgets that support the
priorities of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army,
under the guidance of the President.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) and our sister Services, and the Army
leadership team to achieve a unified approach to addressing challenges.
I will make every effort to ensure that sufficient resources and
financial management information are available to successfully address
issues.
Question. What are the financial management personnel issues you
foresee as challenges and, if confirmed, what actions do you intend to
initiate to address those challenges?
Answer. I am not aware of specific problems or issues. However, I
am convinced that having and maintaining quality personnel is key to
the success of the Army.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller?
Answer. If confirmed, I would establish priorities for preparation
of auditable financial statements, preparation of fully justified
budget submissions and development of streamlined/efficient financial
systems compliant with joint architectures. If confirmed, I would work
hard to ensure that adequate funds are available to support our Army to
fight and win the global war on terrorism and take care of soldiers and
their families.
civilian and military roles in the army budget process
Question. What is your understanding of the division of
responsibility between the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Financial Management and Comptroller and the senior military officer
responsible for budget matters in the Army Financial Management and
Comptroller office in making program and budget decisions, including
the preparation of the Army Program Objective Memorandum, the annual
budget submission, and the Future Years Defense Program?
Answer. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Financial Management and Comptroller), I will have responsibility for
all budget matters within the Department of the Army. The senior
military officer who serves as the Military Deputy will serve under my
direct supervision. Additionally, if confirmed, I will have formal
oversight responsibility for the Secretary for all financial aspects of
the Program Objective Memorandum preparation and the Army portions of
the annual President's budget submission, along with all the entries in
the Future Years Defense Program (FDYP).
financial management and accountability
Question. DOD's financial management deficiencies have been the
subject of many audit reports over the past 10 or more years. Despite
numerous strategies and inefficiencies, problems with financial data
continue.
What do you consider to be the top financial management issues to
be addressed by the Department of the Army over the next 5 years?
Answer. The Army must have financial management systems that
provide accurate, timely, and reliable information for use in making
business decisions regarding the allocation of resources during the
year of execution and over the program years. To properly address these
issues, the Army needs to replace inefficient non-integrated systems
and processes with modern solutions and best practices that fit within
the Department of Defense Business Enterprise Architecture. I believe
the Department of the Army must improve the delivery of pay services to
soldiers, and improve financial management systems and processes.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to provide the needed
leadership and commitment necessary to ensure results and improved
financial management in the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Army leadership,
the office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, and the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service to improve our financial
management practices.
Question. What are the most important performance measurements you
would use, if confirmed, to evaluate changes in the Army's financial
operations to determine if its plans and initiatives are being
implemented as intended and the anticipated results are being achieved?
Answer. Key performance measures include timely, relevant, and
accurate financial information that is capable of obtaining a favorable
audit. If confirmed, I will enlist the support of the Army's leadership
to establish additional logical, useful, and relevant performance
measures.
budget justification information
Question. If confirmed, what changes do you intend to initiate to
improve the timeliness, adequacy, and accuracy of the Budget
Justification books provided to Congress by the Army?
Answer. It is premature for me to offer any specific changes to the
process used to develop the Budget Justification books. I fully
understand the need to submit relevant justification material in enough
detail to permit Congress to carry out their constitutional duties. I
have seen improvements in the Army's justification materials and if
confirmed, will continue the efforts underway to improve them.
dod financial management
Question. The GAO has reported that DOD lacks the necessary
integrated accounting systems to properly control assets and control
costs. DOD has acknowledged that overall, its reported network of 167
critical financial management systems does not comply with the Federal
Financial Management Improvement Act's Federal financial management
systems requirements. (GAO Report: DOD Financial Management--Integrated
Approach, Accountability, and Incentives Are Keys to Effective Reform,
May 8, 2001).
If confirmed, how do you intend to improve the Department of the
Army's financial management system?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Army works closely
with the Business Management Modernization Program Office on the
improvement of financial systems, and that these improvements align
with the DOD Business Enterprise Architecture.
Question. If confirmed, would you support the consolidation and
integration of the Department of Defense's reported network of 167
critical financial management systems even if it means that the Army
would lose direct supervisory control of its service-financial
management systems?
Answer. Yes, I think that DOD and the Army need to consolidate and
integrate critical financial management systems. This effort needs to
leverage commercially available technological solutions and supporting
business practices. The Army has transferred direct supervisory control
of financial management systems to the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service. I believe it is important that the Army be actively engaged in
the implementation and operation of financial management systems.
sufficiency of financial management systems
Question. What do you consider to be the most critical shortfall in
the Department of Defense's and Department of the Army's financial
management systems?
Answer. The lack of a compliant, integrated accounting and
financial management system is one area of concern and will be an area
I intend to address if I am confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, what private business practices would you
advocate for adoption by the Department of Defense and Department of
the Army?
Answer. One private sector area that holds significant potential
for DOD is to adopt commercially available software products, and
associated business practices. If confirmed, I will ensure that these
products comply with the Department's Business Enterprise Architecture
and applicable policy guidance and objectives of the Department.
Question. What are your views on privatizing the military pay
system?
Answer. In general, I am open to the privatization of non-core
business functions in accordance with the President's Management
Agenda. However, I would have to understand the details of any
privatization plan, and ensure that this critical function is
implemented correctly.
improper use of first and business class travel
Question. The GAO recently reported that breakdowns in internal
controls resulted in improper first and business class travel by
Department of Defense employees, and increased costs to taxpayers.
What actions has the Department of the Army taken in response to
this report?
Answer. Internal controls are essential. If confirmed, I will
ensure that the Army implements policies to correct internal control
problems.
travel and government purchase cards
Question. The increased use of government travel and purchase cards
were significant financial and acquisition reform initiatives of the
past decade. Concerns, however, have been raised in the past several
years about the controls put in place for both the travel and purchase
cards.
What is the status of Army efforts to ensure that proper controls
are in place that will not jeopardize the benefits accrued from the
proper use of these cards?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Army's acquisition
community to ensure effective policies and controls are in place, and
that these controls provide for the detection of problems and enable
managers to monitor program performance.
inventory management
Question. Do you believe that the Army has adequate information
about and controls over its inventory?
Answer. At this point I have not studied in detail the Army's
inventory policies, procedures, and challenges. I recognize that sound
inventory management is a critical component in ensuring organizational
effectiveness and efficiency. Inventory management is also essential to
achieving accurate financial statements.
Question. If not, what steps would you take, if confirmed, to
improve inventory management?
Answer. Learning about the Army inventory management policies,
procedures, and challenges and seeking ways to make improvements will
be one of my top priorities if I am confirmed.
business management modernization program
Question. For the past 3 years, the administration has pursued a
Business Management Modernization Program (BMMP) aimed, in part, at
correcting deficiencies in the Department of Defense's financial
management and ability to receive an unqualified ``clean'' audit. Two
years ago, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Zakheim testified
before the Readiness Subcommittee that the Department of Defense's
financial management modernization would be complete by 2007. By that
time, he stated, that the Department would be able to provide a full,
repeatable accounting of resources and funding.
Do you expect the Army to meet that 2007 time line for financial
modernization?
Answer. I have not been involved in the Army's efforts to meet the
2007 deadline for financial modernization. If confirmed, I will support
the Army's efforts to obtain a ``clean'' audit by 2007. I will reserve
judgment, however, on the time needed to modernize Army financial
management until I have an opportunity to assess the Army's plans and
progress.
Question. Do you support continuing the BMMP?
Answer. I would like to gain a better understanding of the BMMP
before making a judgment on this critical matter. If confirmed, I will
work closely with Congress to address Army plans and progress.
Question. The BMMP advocates top-down leadership in establishing an
enterprise architecture for business systems modernization. The
Services, however, appear to be pursuing independent pilot programs for
modernizing business systems, despite the risk that a Service-led
approach could produce numerous incompatible systems.
Do you support an OSD-led approach to business modernization?
Answer. I believe it is important for DOD to develop the Business
Enterprise Architecture for implementation across the entire
Department. The Army and other Services need to participate in and
support this effort.
Question. If so, what would you do, if confirmed, to ensure that
the Army supports such an approach?
Answer. I will ensure that the Army is fully engaged and actively
participates in development of the Business Enterprise Architecture,
and that all Army modernization programs comply with the architecture's
requirements.
Question. A critical requirement of the BMMP is an ``enterprise
architecture'' that would establish standards and requirements for
modernization or new acquisition of business information technology
systems.
Why is establishing an effective enterprise architecture so
important?
Answer. Though not an information technologies specialist, I
believe an effective enterprise architecture is important because it
provides the blueprint necessary to enable the Department's business
systems to operate in an integrated, cohesive manner. An enterprise
architecture provides the business rules that must be followed by all
business applications throughout the Department to enable the needed
integration.
Question. When can Congress expect to see a fully developed
enterprise architecture?
Answer. I am not familiar with the current schedule but will work
with DOD to ensure the enterprise architecture is developed and
implemented in an efficient manner.
gao recommendations for reform
Question. In testimony before the Readiness and Management Support
Subcommittee this year, the Comptroller General of the United States,
David M. Walker, offered two suggestions for legislative consideration
which, in his words, are intended ``to improve the likelihood of
meaningful, broad-based financial management and related business
reform at DOD.'' These included establishing a senior management
position in the Department of Defense to spearhead Department-wide
business transformation efforts, and giving the leaders of the
Department's functional areas, or ``domains,'' control of systems
investments.
What is your view of these suggestions?
Answer. I have not developed an opinion on these recommendations
and will need to study their details before making a judgment.
Question. Mr. Walker testified that the Department of Defense
should fix its financial management systems before it tries to develop
auditable financial statements. He explained that: ``Given the size,
complexity, and deeply ingrained nature of the financial management
problems facing DOD, heroic end-of-the-year efforts relied on by some
agencies to develop auditable financial statement balances are not
feasible at DOD. Instead, a sustained focus on the underlying problems
impeding the development of reliable financial data throughout the
Department will be necessary and is the best course of action.''
Do you agree with this statement?
Answer. I am unaware of all of the factors that led Mr. Walker's
conclusion and, if confirmed, would review them in depth before making
a final assessment. Certainly identifying the source of the problems,
creating solutions to address the problems, and maintaining good
practices across all financial management systems are important steps
to develop.
reserve component military pay systems
Question. The GAO recently completed a report that identified
extensive problems with the National Guard's pay system. Modernizing
the military payroll system is part of the longer term Business
Management Modernization Program, however, it is essential that
corrections be made immediately in this system to minimize personal
hardships on deployed Guardsmen, reservists and their families.
If confirmed, what would you do to address these pay problems in
both the short and long term?
Answer. I firmly believe that all soldiers--active, Guard, and
Reserve--should be paid the right amount and on time. I will work with
the Army leadership, particularly those in the personnel arena, DOD,
and Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to ensure immediate
corrections in the payroll system are made that enable all soldiers to
be paid the right amount and on time. If confirmed, I would make it a
priority to work with OSD to work on and correct problems in the
military payroll system.
base closure savings
Question. The Department has asserted that additional base closures
are needed to bring the Department's base structure in line with its
force structure.
In your view, have the previous base closure rounds resulted in
significant savings for the Department of the Army?
Answer. According to the General Accounting Office reports,
previous base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds have generated
savings over time. There are, of course, significant up front costs to
closing bases, but these are generally offset by the long-term savings.
authorization for national defense programs
Question. Do you believe that an authorization pursuant to section
114 of title 10, U.S. Code, is necessary before funds for operations
and maintenance, procurement, research and development, and military
construction may be made available for obligation by the Department of
Defense and Department of the Army?
Answer. The U.S. Code specifies that such authorization is
necessary before funds for the appropriations listed above may be
obligated or expended. If confirmed, I will follow the policies and
procedures directed by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in
dealing with any specific line items, which might fall under the
``appropriated but not authorized'' category.
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
Army for Financial Management and Comptroller?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Valerie Lynn Baldwin follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 8, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Valerie Lynn Baldwin, of Kansas, to be an Assistant Secretary of
the Army, vice Sandra L. Pack, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Valerie Lynn Baldwin, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Valerie Lynn Baldwin
Valerie Lynn Baldwin has been a member of the
Appropriations Committee Staff of the United States House of
Representatives since 1996, serving most recently as the Clerk
of the Military Construction Subcommittee. From 1996 until
moving to the Military Construction Subcommittee in 2001, she
was a staff assistant on the Veterans Affairs, Housing and
Urban Development and Independent Agencies Subcommittee.
Ms. Baldwin also served as the Legislative Counsel to the
Housing Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee from
1993 to 1996. Prior to 1993 she served as a trial attorney at
the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a
legislative assistant on the staffs of Senator Nancy Landon
Kassebaum and Senator John Glenn.
Ms. Baldwin received her law degree from the University of
Kansas School of Law, her master's degree from the London
School of Economics and Political Science, her bachelor's
degree from Wichita State University, and her associate's
degree from Seward County Community College.
Ms. Baldwin is the daughter of Annette Lemert of Liberal,
Kansas, and Chuck Baldwin of Wichita, Kansas. She attends Saint
Albans Church and is the proud godmother of five children.
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Valerie Lynn
Baldwin in connection with her nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Valerie Lynn Baldwin.
Valerie Lynn Olson.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and
Budget.
3. Date of nomination:
July 8, 2004.
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 10, 1961; Wichita, Kansas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Single.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Liberal High School, 1976-1979, diploma awarded in May 1979.
Seward County Community College, September 1979-May 1981, Associate
of Science degree conferred in May 1981.
Wichita State University, September 1981-May 1983, Bachelor of Arts
degree conferred in May 1983.
London School of Economics and Political Science, September 1983-
September 1984, Master of Science in Politics degree conferred in
September 1984.
University of Kansas School of Law, September 1988-May 1991, Juris
Doctorate degree conferred in May 1991.
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 to present, Clerk, Military Construction Subcommittee,
Appropriations Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
1996-2001, Staff Assistant, VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
1993-1996, Legislative Counsel, Housing Subcommittee, Banking and
Financial Services Committee, U.S. House of Representatives,
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.
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.
Saint Albans Church
Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society
Phi Theta Kappa Alumni Organization
Daughters of the American Revolution
Gamma Phi Beta Alumni Association
P.E.O.
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.
Distinguished Alumnus, Kansas Phi Theta Kappa, 1996.
Achievement Award and Commissioner's Award, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 1992.
Arnold-Wittenberg Fellowship, Gamma Phi Beta, 1988.
Rotary International Fellow, The London School of Economics, 1983.
Scanlon Scholar, Wichita State University, 1983.
Presidential Scholar, Wichita State University, 1982, 1983.
Emory Lindquist Scholar, Wichita State University, 1982, 1983.
Mortar Board, Wichita State University, 1983.
Founding member of Beta and Gamma of Kansas Phi Theta Kappa Alumni
chapters.
National President and North Central Vice President, Phi Theta
Kappa, 1980.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
As a professional staff member of the committees listed in question
#9, I was involved with the development and publishing of various
reports and bills developed by the committee.
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.
Valerie L. Baldwin.
This 13th day of July, 2004.
[The nomination of Valerie Lynn Baldwin was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on July 22, 2004, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 22, 2004.]
NOMINATIONS OF DR. FRANCIS J. HARVEY TO BE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY;
RICHARD GRECO, JR., TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT; AND GEN. GREGORY S. MARTIN, USAF, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE
GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in
room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John
Warner (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe,
Allard, Sessions, Talent, Levin, Reed, Akaka, and Pryor.
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; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member; Stanley
R. O'Connor, Jr., professional staff member; Paula J. Philbin,
professional staff member; Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff
member; 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;
Maren R. Leed, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling,
minority counsel; and Peter K. Levine, minority counsel.
Staff assistant present: Catherine E. Sendak.
Committee members' assistants present: Cord Sterling,
assistant to Senator Warner; Christopher J. Paul and Marshall
A. Salter, assistants to Senator McCain; John A. Bonsell,
assistant to Senator Inhofe; Lance Landry and Jayson Roehl,
assistants to Senator Allard; Arch Galloway II, assistant to
Senator Sessions; Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to Senator Talent;
and Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss;
Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Davelyn Noelani
Kalipi and Richard Kessler, assistants to Senator Akaka;
William K. Sutey and Dan Shapiro, assistants to Senator Bill
Nelson; and Terri Glaze, assistant to Senator Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. The hearing will come to order. We welcome
all present here today. I am very pleased that we have three
distinguished potential public servants, one of them on active
duty now and very much a public servant, before the committee
this morning.
Dr. Harvey, General Martin, and Mr. Greco, would you
kindly, at this time, introduce those family members that you
have present?
Dr. Harvey, I understand we brought you back from
California on short notice, so I believe you're on your own
this morning.
Dr. Harvey. I am on my own, Senator.
Chairman Warner. On your own.
Dr. Harvey. I'm sorry my wife isn't here, but she said her
heart's with me.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
General Martin?
General Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to
introduce my high-school sweetheart. We met each other in
Hawaii in high school and we've been married for 33 years.
Wendy Martin is her name. She's been a wonderful military
spouse and mother of three children. I think she has been the
anchor point of the Martin family, and her involvement in our
organizations as we've gone through our career, and her support
of our family, has given me the opportunity to be somewhat
successful. I love her, and I'm glad she's here with me.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
General Martin. I would also like to introduce my brother.
He's an older brother. Steve Martin. He's a retired Senior
Master Sergeant from the United States Air Force, living in San
Antonio today, and he has served his Nation from 1965 until his
retirement in 1997, including a tour as a transportation
specialist at the siege of Khe San in Vietnam in 1968. I'm glad
that my brother is here to keep me on track.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. We welcome you, and
we thank you for your public service.
Mr. Greco?
Mr. Greco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, like Dr. Harvey, am
here by myself today, but certainly not alone in spirit, as
well. I would like to thank my wife Marla and our four
children, Mary, Ricky, Cecilia, and Claudia, who,
unfortunately, couldn't be here today. It is my wife, in
particular, who selflessly gives of herself entirely, having
left the practice of law so that she could raise our family.
Without her support, love, and sacrifice, which is very real
and very tangible every day, I would be much less, in all
respects, than I am today, and incapable of dedicating myself
to public service.
I would also like to thank my mother and father, Ann and
Richard Greco, Senior, who have been my foundation and example
of virtue always.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Would you give the ages of
those four children?
Mr. Greco. Sure. Four, three, almost two, and almost one.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. I share with all present, I was aware of
that and just wanted to see your reaction and see if it was the
same as mine. [Laughter.]
We welcome our distinguished colleague, Senator Brownback,
this morning. Knowing of your schedule, the committee will now
recognize you for the purposes of an introduction.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
KANSAS
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the distinguished Armed Services Committee, a
pleasure to be here with you. With the task you've just given
me, I have additional duties that I have to attend to, as well.
I'm here to introduce Mr. Greco. I got to know him at the
White House Fellows Program that he participated in. I'm an
alumni of that program, as well. I worked with him there. He
was with the Department of Defense. I think he's one of the
most extraordinary candidates you could have for this job or
any job within public service.
He is a graduate of Fordham, with a Master's of Business
Administration from the University of Chicago and a Master of
Arts from Johns Hopkins. He has a spectacular academic
background. Mixing that with private finance-sector experience
that he has had, having worked in the Scowcroft Group, great
international experience, a wonderful man, great family and
growing family make a great package. I don't know how many more
children are on the way, but we have them stacked up like
planes landing at National Airport right now.
This is a great public servant. He's worked in Baghdad with
Ambassador Bremer, a fabulous set of experiences. I would just
summarize by saying from my experience with Mr. Greco, he's
that type of person that has both a good heart and a good head.
You need both in this business. You need somebody that can have
a heart that feels, knows, and can discern right from wrong,
and you need a good head to be able to figure things out. He
has them both, and I highly recommend him for this post.
I'm delighted, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
that you would give me a few moments to put forth my
recommendation of Richard Greco.
Chairman Warner. Senator, it's very important that you have
taken the time to share with us your own personal views about
this outstanding nominee. We thank you very much.
Senator Brownback. If you don't mind, I'll have to take my
leave.
Chairman Warner. You're free to go.
Dr. Harvey, you were here before this committee in
connection with another nomination by the President, and now
the President has indicated that you are his nominee to be the
19th Secretary of the Army in the history of the United States.
That is quite an honor for you, but it is in recognition of an
extraordinary career. You are a business executive, with
extensive experience in leading and managing large
corporations, particularly program-based organizations involved
in the development and deployment of technology and systems. As
a part of your results-oriented management approach, you place
major emphasis on business transformation, especially through
process improvement in combination with the application of
information technology. Doctor, those are phrases and words
that come before this committee regularly, and, most
particularly, in connection with the Army, which is going
through a major transformation.
At this point, I know my colleagues would want to join me
in recognition of the contribution by the Acting Secretary of
the Army, Secretary Brownlee, who served this committee with
great distinction for many years and actually was Chief of
Staff at the time that our esteemed colleague, Senator
Thurmond, was chairman. We all feel that he has done a very
credible job, and I hope that, in the event that you are
confirmed, that you will access yourself to his knowledge and
experience. While you, with your career, have had--and I could
go on, and we will put into the record the extensive
accomplishments you had there is another side of the Army you
may not be as knowledgeable about.
[The information referred to is included in the biographical sketch
of Dr. Harvey.]
Chairman Warner. The other side of the Army is a human one
with the privates and their wives, the sergeants who are
aspiring to be lieutenants in many instances, and the four-
stars on down. It is an enormous, big family. At this point in
our history, the United States Army is being put to a challenge
that really has very few precedents in its long and
distinguished career as an institution. Therefore, this
committee wishes to carefully analyze all of your
accomplishments, your credentials, and hear from you this
morning, particularly how you want to address that other side
of the Army, which is a very human one, which daily or weekly,
as the case may be, is suffering losses of their loved ones,
and we grieve with their families. So it is a daunting position
to which the President has nominated you, and we will very
carefully scrutinize your qualifications. Thank you very much,
Dr. Harvey, for offering to come back and serve your country
again.
We welcome General Gregory S. Martin, United States Air
Force. I read through your record of accomplishments yesterday,
and they, indeed, are impressive as a professional officer.
You've been nominated to be Commander of the United States
Pacific Command (PACOM). Presently the Commander of the Air
Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
you're a command pilot who flew 161 combat missions in
Southeast Asia and later commanded the 421st Tactical Fighter
Squadron and 49th Tactical Fighter Wing. Prior to your current
assignment, you were the Commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe,
and also served from 1998 to 2000 as the Principal Deputy to
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. We,
as a committee, have been very involved with the Department of
the Air Force, and particularly with several of their temporary
acquisition projects. Those will be covered in detail here this
morning to the extent that you were in the decision chain or
otherwise had association with those contracts.
The committee is also pleased to have Richard Greco before
us, who has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Financial Management. Mr. Greco had an interesting
career in private life and public life, particularly in
corporate financial matters prior to your appointment as a
White House Fellow in 2002 and service in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD). That would be under Secretary
Rumsfeld. In May 2003, Mr. Greco served as Special Advisor to
Presidential Envoy and Administrator of Iraq L. Paul Bremer,
and that was a challenging assignment to have had at that time.
Your efforts were devoted to private-sector development and
financial-sector management and modernization. Subsequently,
you were assigned as acting director of Private Sector
Development for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)
Representative's Office, where your role was to serve as the
liaison between the international private sector and CPA in
Baghdad.
So we welcome all of our nominees, and the committee will
very carefully, fairly, and objectively give our views with
regard to your credentials.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you, and welcome
our three nominees. I want to thank them for their service and
thank their families, as you have and always do, for their
service to our Nation in supporting these nominees and making
it possible for them to serve.
If confirmed as Secretary of the Army, Dr. Harvey will take
the reins of a military service that has primary responsibility
for taking on an aggressive insurgency and winning the peace in
Iraq. At the same time, the Army continues to bear the brunt of
the continuing effort to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan; to
keep the peace in Bosnia, Kosovo, and on the Sinai; to contain
the threat of North Korea; and also to prepare to execute other
missions in support of the national military strategy.
The Secretary's challenge, and the challenge for the
administration and Congress, is to ensure that this Army does
not lose its edge under the strain of these multiple tasks. I
hope that Dr. Harvey will share with us his views today on a
number of critical issues facing the Army, such as:
Is the Army large enough to meet its commitments in
this new strategic environment?
Does the Army have the proper organizational
structure, including roles, missions, and force mix
between active and Reserve components?
How dangerous is the current and projected tempo of
operations (OPTEMPO) and personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) to
the All-Volunteer Army?
Is the balance between current readiness and future
readiness ensured by modernization and transformation
about right?
Given the reality of limited resources, how should we
prioritize among the requirements to recapitalize the
current force, field the interim force of Stryker
Brigade combat teams, and develop the future combat
systems of the future objective force?
Our second nominee, Mr. Greco, if confirmed, will face the
challenge of helping to balance the Navy's current readiness
requirements against future modernization needs. He will also
be faced with the critically-important job of improving the
Navy's deficient financial-management systems.
Our third nominee, General Martin, comes before us after a
distinguished 34-year career in the Air Force, culminating with
his positions over the last 4 years as Commander, U.S. Air
Forces in Europe, and Commander, Air Force Materiel Command. If
confirmed, General Martin would be the first Air Force general
to serve as Commander of the United States Pacific Command.
I look forward all of their testimony and, again, thank
them.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin.
At this time, I will propound certain questions that we put
forward at each hearing of this committee to nominees. Then I
will recognize any Senator who wishes to make some opening
statements.
First, to each of you, have you adhered to applicable laws
and regulations governing conflicts of interest?
Dr. Harvey?
Dr. Harvey. Yes.
Chairman Warner. General Martin?
General Martin. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Greco?
Mr. Greco. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which appear to presume the outcome of this
confirmation process?
Dr. Harvey. No, sir.
General Martin. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greco. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. If confirmed, will each of you ensure that
your staffs comply with the deadlines established for requested
communications, including questions for the record on the
hearings?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, sir.
General Martin. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greco. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
General Martin. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greco. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
General Martin. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greco. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify, upon request, before this committee?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, sir.
General Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Greco. 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 that you're serving?
Dr. Harvey. Mr. Chairman, as a political appointee I
consider it my duty to be an advocate for the policies of the
administration; however, I will always provide to the committee
my best professional judgement, when asked.
Chairman Warner. Your personal views?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I thank you.
General?
General Martin. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greco. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Will you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communication, 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?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, sir, to the best of my ability, I will
conform with that.
General Martin. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greco. Also to the best of my ability.
Chairman Warner. Colleagues, I invite you to make such
opening statements as you wish.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, I think we have a situation
here regarding General Martin that I would like to briefly
review.
First of all, I would like to review the extent to which
the Air Force has assisted us in this committee and me, as
chairman of the Commerce Committee, in discharging its
oversight responsibilities in the tanker lease investigation.
In response to repeated requests by Congress for tanker-related
records, the Air Force stonewalled for months. Ultimately, it
decided to cooperate only in response to the threat of
subpoenas and a continuing hold on all Department of Defense
(DOD) civilian nominations and my negotiations with the White
House counsel, Judge Alberto Gonzales.
After the Air Force produced a modest amount of documents,
a handful of nominations were released as a measure of good
faith. In response, the DOD shut off the spigot, producing no
documents through the entire summer recess period.
In response to a request by Senate Armed Services Committee
staff for tanker-related records, the Air Force produced them
only after doctoring them in a manner most favorable to the Air
Force position on tankers. A key e-mail between Secretary Roche
and a senior Office of Management and Budget (OMB) staff that
was otherwise responsive to our request, was improperly
withheld because it was deemed to be a joke. That joke, in
their view, has now been sent over to the Justice Department.
Most recently, after the Air Force jammed us up to fit in your
nomination, General Martin's nominating hearing, we got the
word from the DOD Inspector General last night, and I would
like to quote from it, Mr. Chairman.
This is a letter that was sent to you yesterday. It says,
from the Department of Defense Inspector General--``We
received, this afternoon, a CD with additional e-mails of
General Martin which the Air Force had considered
`nonresponsive' and had not originally provided to us. We're
expecting the Air Force to provide another CD with additional
e-mails tomorrow''--meaning today. ``The CD we received today
is approximately 90 e-mails, which we're reviewing and sorting
in accordance with Secretary Rumsfeld's letter to you. We will
provide these documents to the committee tomorrow. In addition,
we are currently assessing the process used to search for
documents sent to and from General Martin relating to acquiring
a commercial derivative aerial refueling tanker. We conducted
interviews with staff involved in retrieving the documents on
October 4 and 5, 2004. We were told that on August 23, 2004,
the local hard drive of General Martin's computer was searched
for e-mails and electronic documents containing one of seven
key words related to the KC-767 tanker program. The search
procedures followed guidelines established and distributed by
the Air Force administrative assistants. However, upon
conducting the review there was no attempt to retrieve any
previously deleted items. As such, only items that existed on
the hard drive on that date were searched, identified, and
submitted. In addition, we could not ascertain whether
classified system and General Martin's personal files were also
reviewed for responsive e-mails and electronic hard-copy
documents. Our review of the sufficiency of the procedures used
to conduct this search is still ongoing.''
Mr. Chairman, what this means is, we haven't received
General Martin's e-mails, and we tried to get them as a
priority due to the urgency of this nomination. We have not
obtained them. Obviously, there is something going on about
nonresponsive e-mails. Now, if this has any relationship to
previous nonresponsive e-mails which had to be sent over to the
Justice Department, then we have a serious issue that needs to
be resolved before, I believe, this committee could move
forward with General Martin's nomination, much less for
consideration on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I try to not get too emotional about this
situation, but in my 22 years in Congress, it is the most
frustrating thing that I've ever encountered.
Now, you have to also put this in the context of a guilty
plea by a former employee of the United States Air Force who
said in her guilty plea that not only did she act improperly
and illegally on the Boeing tanker deal, but on four other
contracts as a ``going away gift'' for Boeing.
Now, the question then leads us--and the reason I believe
we're going to have to have hearings--how could she do all of
this by herself? How could one civilian employee be responsible
for ripping off the American taxpayer by perhaps billions? It
would have been $5.7 billion if we had let the tanker deal go
through.
So this is larger than Ms. Druyan. It's larger than General
Martin, and it is an absolute obligation of this committee to
get to the bottom of what apparently, at least in Ms. Druyan's
guilty plea, was the rigging of contracts to the detriment of
the taxpayer and to the financial benefit, enormously, of the
Boeing Corporation. So this is really a very serious situation,
and I think we have to find out, ``How did this happen? How did
one person--aren't there procedures in the United States Air
Force that would somehow have this kind of procedure not be
possible?'' Instead, we have to have a guilty plea by a former
employee in Federal court to bring to the attention that at
least four other contracts were improperly consummated in order
to have a ``going away present,'' in her words, for Boeing
Aircraft Company.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can get the remaining e-
mails. Actually, I don't know if we ever will or not, because
the Air Force has been incredible in their unresponsiveness.
But General Martin was involved in this. I've already seen e-
mails of his involvement of it. We have a lot of questions for
him, as well as other members of the United States Air Force.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
If I might just say, we have worked together on this
project for some time, and you've expended an enormous amount
of your own senatorial time to this issue. What you have stated
today are your concerns. I share those concerns. I brought this
up with General Martin when we had our usual meeting, as I do
with all nominees. I would like to ask now that he have an
opportunity to respond to two points.
One, you've clearly said that you were, at one time,
associated with the individual to whom the Senator referred,
who pled guilty, and that you had a lot of working
relationships during that period. We can go into some detail on
that.
Second, upon learning of the problem with regard to the
material that the Department of Defense is obligated to provide
this committee in connection with the ongoing review that this
committee has undertaken, you tried to facilitate, to the
extent you had authority, the freest-possible and widest-
possible flow of that information to the committee. So I think
it would be appropriate at this time if he had just an
opportunity to address those two points, and then we'll turn to
other Members.
General Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator McCain,
thank you for letting me appear before you to discuss, not only
my nomination to be the Commander of the United States Pacific
Command, but also an opportunity to air this issue that Senator
McCain has brought forward.
First, I did, in fact, work with Ms. Darlene Druyan from
1998 until the very end of 1999, when I left Washington and
went to Europe in January 2000, so for about a year and a half.
I had some relationship with her when I was the Director of
Operational Requirements prior to that for 2 years, in terms of
council meetings and that sort of thing. But when I worked with
her, when I was the Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force for Acquisition--at that time, the job was
vacant--Secretary Whit Peters maintained the acquisition
authority himself, and Ms. Druyan and myself were coequals in
dealing with acquisition activities from space through
sustainment and air-vehicle procurement.
Chairman Warner. Let me interrupt you. I think it would be
helpful to members of the committee and those following this to
clairfy--you pointed out to me that, at that time, you were a
three-star lieutenant general.
General Martin. Correct.
Chairman Warner. In the hierarchy of the civilian corps,
she was coequal in rank to a lieutenant general, and with
commensurate responsibilities.
General Martin. Correct.
If you would think of it as an airplane, Senator McCain,
the Secretary of the Air Force, Mr. Peters, was the pilot; we
were copilots working together for him and bringing forward
acquisition activities.
The job that I had was principally oriented around ensuring
that the acquisition programs were being developed in such a
way that they would meet operational requirements. My job was
to represent the uniformed military who would use those
products. Ms. Druyan's, who was a contracting expert, primary
function was acquisition management, and it was the
determination of the appropriate contracting vehicles,
incentive awards, and those sorts of things.
Ms. Druyan is a contracting professional. She had been in
that job, I believe, since 1992. She is a very hard negotiator,
tough-minded, and a strong leader. We met every morning, when
we were both in town, at 6:30 a.m. to go through the major
events that were going on and the different activities that
might occur that day and what our positions would be.
I did not get into the business of determining which
contract vehicle was better or more appropriate. I did not get
into the business of understanding what kind of pressure she
was applying, although occasionally I would see her dealing
with contractors in a way that convinced me that she was after
the best good of the Air Force and the American public.
Senator McCain. Well, you must have been deceived, General
Martin.
General Martin. Actually, Senator McCain, I can't speak as
to where those last contract awards came and when she started
them, but the ``going away gifts'' occurred after I had left. I
left in December 1999.
Now, at that point--I must tell you, I'm not an expert in
contracting--I saw nothing that she was doing that was
inappropriate or in any way illegal. If I had, I would have----
Senator McCain. We'll have time in the questions, Mr.
Chairman, but I'm looking at e-mails that you wrote in 2003,
General----
General Martin. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Excuse me, we don't need to get into more
detail at this point in time because Senator McCain is going to
remain here and have that opportunity during the question
phase. But I want you to address the other question of the
current problem of the flow of information from DOD to this
committee and what you did to try and facilitate that flow.
General Martin. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to give you
any of my files through the normal processes through which we
deliver them. I was never asked to provide any information to
you or any other Member of Congress until the Deputy Secretary
of Defense memo signed by Dr. Wolfowitz came out in late August
and described in great detail the search methodology that would
be used for tier-one, tier-two, and tier-three players. I was a
tier-two player, which means the procedures that would be used
to develop my e-mail CD that would come to you were perhaps
different than the tier-one or tier-three. To the best of my
knowledge, the individuals who executed the electronic search
did exactly as they had been asked to do. I played no role in
that, other than to direct them to do exactly as the
instructions had requested. I never saw the e-mails. I did not
pay attention to what they did and did not do with respect to
that, other than to get a certified statement back that they
had completed the actions, as appropriate, and had turned those
e-mails in before the end of August.
Chairman Warner. We will return to this in the questioning.
Senator Akaka, would you like to make any opening comments?
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, may I at this time say I'm
glad to be back with my friends on this committee, and also
want to welcome our witnesses to this hearing.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. No, thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator Allard?
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement I
would like to insert in the record with my comments.
Chairman Warner. We would welcome that opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Wayne Allard
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to welcome our distinguished
nominees here today. I also appreciate the chairman's willingness to
hold a hearing for these nominees, particularly given the activity on
the Senate floor and the ongoing Senate-House conference on the defense
authorization bill. I hope the nominees recognize and appreciate the
extraordinary effort the chairman expended in order to hold this
hearing before the Senate adjourned at the end of the week.
Our Nation remains locked in a difficult struggle against
terrorists with a global reach. Terror does not end at our country's
borders. Nor it is a problem for one military Service. I recognize that
each of our nominees here today have significant different backgrounds,
experiences, and duties. Yet, each of you should be aware that your
efforts in the service of our Nation are not insignificant. We need
each and every nominee to understand that we need a joint military
force capable of protecting the American people and taking the fight to
the terrorists. Serving our country at this point of time will not be
easy. Demands on your time and the sacrifices you will need to make may
be significant. Yet I hope that you recognize the value of your service
to our Nation. We cannot remain a free nation without those like you
who are willing to step forward and commit to defending our Nation.
Thank you again for appearing before this committee. I look forward
to discussing several policy issues with the witnesses during our
question and answer period.
Chairman Warner. Senator Sessions?
Senator Sessions. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Talent?
Senator Talent. No statement. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator Reed, do you have any opening
comments?
Senator Reed. I will forego those comments. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank you.
Senator Pryor?
Senator Pryor. No, thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. We will now proceed to receive such
opening remarks as you may wish to make.
Dr. Harvey.
STATEMENT OF DR. FRANCIS J. HARVEY, TO BE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
Dr. Harvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and
other distinguished members of the committee.
I'm very honored to appear before you this morning as the
President's nominee to serve as the Secretary of the Army. 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 security environment is markedly
different and perhaps more complex than at any other time in
our Nation's history.
To ensure our country's national security in this complex
environment, it is essential that the Army continues to
successfully carry out its mission of providing the necessary
forces and capabilities to the combatant commanders in support
of the National security and defense strategies. These forces
must be totally capable of conducting the full range of
required military operations. In the near term, that means the
Army must meet its fundamental obligations of recruiting,
organizing, training, equipping, sustaining, and developing
leaders for the current force.
As these responsibilities are carried out in the near term,
the Army must also develop a future force that is better able
to meet the challenges of this dangerous security environment
by implementing a key element of defense strategy, and that is
transforming the way it fights and the way it does business.
I believe that the Army has made significant progress over
the last few years on force transformation. A successful
transformation in the way the Army does business is also
essential because it will free up financial resources which can
then be applied to the warfighters.
If confirmed, I will intensely and energetically focus
myself and the senior leadership of the Army on achieving
success in all these areas. Rest assured that regardless of
what I'm focusing on, one of my top priorities that will be
overarching and enduring is the well-being of the soldier and
his family.
Let me close by stating that, if confirmed, I look forward
to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of the members
of the committee, as well as the dedicated and proud men and
women of the Army, to meet the challenges of the dangerous and
uncertain world in which we live.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
General Martin.
STATEMENT OF GEN. GREGORY S. MARTIN, USAF, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, UNITED STATES PACIFIC
COMMAND
General Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and
other distinguished Members of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. Thank you for this opportunity and the honor to
appear before you today.
Let me also thank each of you for the outstanding support
to our men and women in the Armed Forces. I can't tell you how
important it is and what it means to each and every one of us
to have your strong support behind us every day.
As you can imagine, I'm deeply honored to have been
selected by the Secretary of Defense and nominated by the
President of the United States to serve as the Commander of the
United States Pacific Command. I am mindful of the tremendous
responsibilities inherent in this nomination. But as I have
progressed through my career, and due to the leadership and the
foresight of the bosses that I have worked for, I believe I
have been exposed to a wide variety of duties and operations,
staff, and combined organizations throughout the world, and
that those opportunities have prepared me for this critical
responsibility.
I have studied Admiral Fargo's agenda and his priorities
for the United States Pacific Command very carefully, and I
believe them to be correct. If confirmed, I will do my best to
ensure the command continues to pursue those objectives in a
way that will enhance American security and the stability of
the Pacific region.
Again, I am honored to be here, Mr. Chairman, and I look
forward to your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, General.
Mr. Greco.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD GRECO, JR., TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Greco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and
honorable Senators. I'm deeply honored to be here seeking
confirmation as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Financial Management and Comptroller.
I would like to thank President Bush for this nomination,
and Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary England for their support
and confidence in me.
I would also like to thank Senator Brownback for the time
he made in being here this morning and for his gracious and
very generous introduction.
I would like to thank the Senate Armed Services Committee
for your time in conducting this hearing, as well as all those
who have guided me through the interview and confirmation
process.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I would commit myself to
addressing what I believe is the key issue in financial
management at the Department of the Navy; namely, the provision
of consistent, accurate, reliable, and timely information to
decisionmakers at all levels of the Navy and the development of
financial management systems that are capable of producing this
information.
Mr. Chairman and honorable Senators, if confirmed, I pledge
to you a commitment to excellence and performance in my job,
guided by the highest standards of professional and personal
conduct, and to working together with you to support the men,
women, and families who serve in the United States Navy and
Marine Corps, and, together, to exceed our objectives.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
We'll now proceed to 6 minutes for each Senator.
Dr. Harvey, I would like to open my questioning with you.
But advising all three nominees that in the course of the
response to Senators' questions and other ideas you may have,
the record will remain open through midday tomorrow for the
purposes of receiving such supplementary material or responses
as you may wish to make in writing. The committee often has the
benefit of receiving those views after you've had further time
to reflect on the questions and to make such additional
research as you wish.
Dr. Harvey, my question is more in the nature of an
observation, and I want to have in mind the procedures you hope
to adopt to enable you to get a complete understanding of the
enormity of the task that you will assume, if confirmed.
Clearly, as I go through your record of achievement in the
private sector, the issues of transformation, the issues of
financial management, contracting, and the management side,
you're fully qualified, and I'm certain that you will be able
to quickly gain the grasp of that. As a matter of fact, as I
look at your dossier, it parallels that of a wonderful man,
David Packard, who joined the Department of Defense in the late
1960s and through the 1970s, and I recall how quickly he was
able to, in a masterful way, understand the problems, the
complexities, and the vulnerabilities of the procurement system
and the management system. So on that side, I am confident.
It's the human side of this magnificent Army that only time
will enable you to gain an understanding of.
In our discussions prior to this hearing, you indicated to
me that, if confirmed, you would try, at the earliest possible
date, to make a trip to some of the bases overseas--most
notably, Iraq and Afghanistan--and I think South Korea should
be on your itinerary as soon as you can do so--to see for
yourself what the uniformed side of your department is
undertaking to carry out their missions, the sacrifices they're
making, and the stress that is put on their families. You've
assured me you're going to undertake that.
Second, with respect to the future size of the Army, this
committee has expressed its views legislatively. I am hopeful,
as I say to the members of the committee, that we can soon
complete a package for you to examine prior to submitting it to
the Senate, and in that is our means to address the pressures
of end strength on the Army. I think it is no secret that we
are going to increase the pay and benefits, the healthcare
programs, all of which this committee very conscientiously and
carefully has addressed and reviewed. But the Army is dependent
on that, and we're concerned, as I say, about the recruiting,
the ability of the future Army--and that future begins
tomorrow--to attract the needed numbers of young men and women
to fill not only the active ranks, but, equally important, the
Reserve, and that includes the National Guard. Some of those
figures are beginning to take a turn,--and members of this
committee have dealt with them for years--we might say, on a
downward trend, and that sends a signal that there could be a
problem looming. Those trends can't be turned around in 30
days, 60 days, or 90 days. They have to be predicated upon the
long-range planning and putting in place of the inducements to
attract those young men and women for the All-Volunteer Force.
I mentioned ``All-Volunteer Force,'' because, for reasons
which are very perplexing, there's a dialogue going on in this
country about a draft. I can tell you forthrightly that this
Congress is not going to enact legislation for a draft, because
the causes for it are not before the country. Second, the All-
Volunteer Force, as you will soon determine, to the extent
you've not been able to do so to date, is working, and working
well, and has worked magnificently since its inception, which
was in the middle 1970s.
So those are the points that I wish to make. Just acquaint
the members of the committee with how you intend to go about
looking at that other half of this magnificent Army.
Dr. Harvey. Senator, let me say that I agree with all the
points you're making there, and I'm generally aware of the
challenges that we have in that regard. Perhaps I can start out
to answer that question by sharing with you my management
philosophy, which has developed over several years and which
really is a summation of what I consider to be a lessons-
learned coupled with my values and beliefs. It starts out that
people are the single most important part of any organization,
and that goes double for the Army. But every organization that
I have led, managed, and changed has involved people. We've
talked about transformation, we've talked about all those
things, but people make it happen. So I think my record would
say that I'm a very people-oriented person.
Other elements of that philosophy are: ultimately, the only
thing that counts are results. Change and improvement of all
aspects of the organization should be going on all the time.
I'd like to think that I'm effective at building a team which
is based on trust and teamwork. Effective leaders are key to
the future and to the present of any organization. At the end
of the day, the only thing that counts, really, is a good,
positive, can-do attitude.
So those are the framework from which I would look and
start the process of leading and managing the Army.
Now, in terms of the problems, in terms of pay and
recruiting, over the years I've taken what I call a dual
approach to problems. The dual approach goes something like
this. If you have a problem or an opportunity, you appoint a
task force to try to fix as much as can be fixed in the near
term so that you don't wait around for some elegant long-term
solution. Coupled with that, you initiate a long-term
initiative that attacks the root causes, in terms of
organizational changes, processes, systems, and so forth. So
I've taken that dual approach on problems. For example, if
there is a recruiting and retention problem, we would do
exactly that.
I was pleased to read this morning, however, at least for
the active and Reserve, that the goals of this year in
recruiting and retention were met. But from my own corporate
experience, I know darn well that that's an area that you have
to look at all the time. Success in the past doesn't guarantee
success in the future. So those will be among my several things
I look at.
Chairman Warner. I'm going to have to ask that you can
provide further for the record. We have 6 minutes.
[The information referred to follows:]
What I do is, I plan--, if confirmed, to put people first. Caring
for soldiers and their families is paramount to our continued success.
I would address the near-term needs of the Army, but also focus on the
long-term initiatives that attack and resolve the root causes of our
organizational challenges. Finally, all of this would be energized with
a team-building and result-oriented approach for this magnificent Army.
Chairman Warner. Now, quickly, General Martin, as one looks
out over your area of responsibility (AOR), if confirmed, you'd
see immediately the problems associated in the Korean
Peninsula. I think the correct decision has been made to draw
down some of our land forces there, because that figure of land
forces has been constant for many years and does not reflect
the advancements in technology and other means by which we can
put together a solid front to the North Koreans of deterrence
against any form of aggression they might wish to initiate.
Therefore, those numbers, in this Senator's view, can be drawn
down. The tensions on that peninsula are going to be your first
priority, I believe, every morning you arise.
Then you have the stresses that continue between Taiwan and
China. Whether it's one China or two Chinas, and the buildup in
China now of the weaponry. It's awesome what they're achieving.
They're rapidly moving to have, I think, the second-largest
navy in the world, if they haven't achieved that already. Their
technology is finding its way into high-performance aircraft,
into missiles, and all types of armaments. We have a balance to
maintain. The commitments that this Nation has made to Taiwan
have to be reviewed by you on a regular basis.
So, having said that, I am confident, given the credentials
and the experience that you've had, that you are competent to
take on that task, and I hope to be able to support your
nomination, but I will have to withhold that until the
completion of the work by the committee.
Mr. Greco, I've had some familiarity with the Department of
the Navy. My first advice to you would be to go back and find
some of your predecessors who are in other ventures of life
now, because there's been a very long line of distinguished
individuals who have been the Assistant Secretary for Financial
Management. While I'm sure you can go over and figure out
what's going on pretty quickly, given your background, I do
urge you to supplement your knowledge through personal meetings
with that fine group of individuals who preceded you in that
post. I think you will do well.
Mr. Greco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. I would yield to Senator Reed, who has to
leave.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Senator Levin.
Dr. Harvey, let me first state the obvious. You are an
extraordinarily competent individual with a distinguished
career, but the question today is not what you've done, which
is admirable, and, indeed, in some respects, remarkable; it's
what you will do as Secretary of the Army. This should come as
no surprise to you. Do you support a permanent legislative
increase of at least 20,000 to 40,000 soldiers in the active
duty end strength, and putting the cost of that increase in the
Army's budget by taking funds from outside the Army to pay for
it? Which is the only way, from my perspective, the Army can
maintain itself over the next several years.
Dr. Harvey. Senator Reed, I'm not, at this time, fully
briefed and familiar with and knowledgeable about all of the
elements of the end strength issue. For sure, if I'm confirmed,
I and the rest of the Army leadership have the responsibility
to provide fully capable forces to the combatant commanders.
I'm certainly aware of that obligation. This obligation, of
course, is to the soldier and to the country.
Now, what I do know is that both the Secretary of Defense
and the Army are for an increase in end strength. To the best
of my understanding, the President has authorized a 30,000
increase in the number of troops, on a temporary basis. I'm
also familiar with the Army's position that they want, at this
time at least, for this increase to be temporary, because they
have a number of initiatives in work to increase the combat
power, which would then preclude the Army from making these
positions permanent.
Now, I haven't reached a final conclusion on any of this. I
can tell you, from my own personal background and experience in
a corporation, that when I'm faced--and I know the analogy
isn't perfect here--but when I'm faced with a situation where
there's a rapid growth of the organization, my first approach
is to hire temporary people and then see if I can sustain it,
and only then make them permanent employees. The reason you do
that is because you don't want to lay off people, and you want
to ensure that the need is there.
So let me say that if I am confirmed, I know this is a very
important issue, and I'm going to take a very objective look at
that, and I'm going to take a look at these Army initiatives.
I'm going to see whether they're viable, whether they pass the
test of viability. If they don't, I will reach conclusions and
make recommendations accordingly. But I just don't think I'm
totally up to speed to make a final decision, but I'm open at
this time to----
Senator Reed. Well, Dr. Harvey, I respect that, but we've
heard that for years now. General Schoomacher was going to look
at this, and the Secretary of Defense has been looking at this.
The answer, I think, should be obvious. I would have hoped in
the interim, between our meeting and today, that you would have
made yourself more aware of the specifics so you could give an
answer rather than essentially a conceptual approach to the
problem. I'm disappointed in the answer.
Are you aware of the Defense Advisory Board's findings
about the need for additional troops despite the changes the
Army has taken in modularity and the temporary expedients?
Dr. Harvey. I've not had the opportunity to read that
report. I don't believe it's out yet. I would plan on reading
that for sure.
Senator Reed. Similarly, with respect to the equipment of
the Army, the Army sustained $2.439 billion equipment battle
losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has an unfunded requirement
of $1.3 billion for munitions. Last year, the Army spent $4
billion on equipment reconstitution, and next year we'll need
much more. This is not, I think, the way to do it, through
emergency provisions. Would you support a recapitalization
funding that is in the regular budget so the Army can fix its
equipment?
Dr. Harvey. Again, Senator, I know these are important
issues, and, if confirmed, I will immediately address those and
see whether that is feasible in the context of the Army plan
and the Army budget. But, again, I think at this time I'm just
not familiar enough with all the details to make that call. But
I will address that carefully and look at it carefully, and use
my judgment, and come to conclusions, and make recommendations,
and proceed accordingly.
Senator Reed. Let me raise a final point, Dr. Harvey. We
are all aware that General Shinseki, was asked to give his
opinion as a professional officer; he didn't volunteer it. He
was asked at this committee. He made the point that we would
need more than 100,000 troops in Iraq at least. Not only was he
honest, but he turned out to be right. He was treated very
poorly by the Department of Defense, by high officials there. I
think it sent a chilling effect to the military that if you
stand up and say, in response to an honest question from this
committee or any other committee, there's a penalty if you tell
the truth. I think that is very destructive, corrosive. What
are you going to do to protect the officers, the men and women
of the United States Army, who, when called upon to give their
professional judgment, they're marginalized and shunned and
made to feel that they've done something wrong? How are you
going to protect those individuals?
Dr. Harvey. Senator, I think I mentioned, in response to
Senator Warner's question, that one of the tenets of my
management philosophy is trust, teamwork, and openness. I think
my track record speaks for that. I have never stifled input
from any of my subordinates. I have a lot of respect for the
military. I have a lot of respect for people. I welcome their
comments. I would never stifle any honest input. I would
appreciate that input, and I would integrate that into the
overall decisionmaking process and then proceed accordingly. So
I don't think I'm going to have any problem with an honest
input from any of my subordinates. I would respect that.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Dr. Harvey.
Mr. Chairman, if I could make just one final point.
Secretary White was fired in April 2003. It is now October
2004. For 17 months we have not had a Secretary of the Army, so
this is obviously not----
Chairman Warner. Not had a secretary that's been confirmed.
We've had a darn good acting secretary.
Senator Reed. I agree. But the White House has felt that
this is not such an important job that they would send somebody
up to be confirmed. Now in the last week of our session, this
appointment is before us. I think that bespeaks the lack of
urgency, at least with respect to the Department of Defense, to
have a confirmed permanent Secretary of the Army. So I wonder
why we're rushing.
Chairman Warner. Well, it is the President's prerogative to
nominate. Dr. Harvey had been nominated for a previous post in
the Department of Defense. That was awaiting floor action. He
then offered to serve in this post, at the request of the
Secretary and the President, and his papers arrived here--I'll
put the dates in--I think it is September 12, completed
financials and so forth September 27. As chairman, I feel we
must be responsive to the constitutional prerogative of the
President.
[The information referred to follows:]
Dr. Harvey's nomination was received by the Senate on September 15,
2004, and immediately referred to the Armed Services Committee. His
answers to the committee questionnaire and financial forms were
received in committee on September 28, 2004. Dr. Harvey's answers to
the committee's pre-hearing policy questions were received on October
5, 2004.
I would like to make one comment. I'm going to have to go
to the floor now, as a member of the Intelligence Committee and
also because of the tremendous importance of intelligence to
the Department of Defense and the role of this committee, I
have to get down and work on some amendments. My colleague,
Senator Levin, has been a very helpful and supporting partner
on that. But time and time again, Senator Reed, you have the
right, of course, to bring up General Shinseki's observation.
Let me give you a few concerns I have with that.
I was present that day when he was asked, at the end of a
long hearing, the question about his professional views on
which I'm not going to comment. He was--and still remains--a
very distinguished and courageous officer. You know about his
personal disabilities, which he accepted and continued in
active service. I think it was a wise decision to have given
him the opportunity to be the Chief of Staff of the Army. But
when asked that question--and I've studied his transcript, I
remember his struggle with trying to provide the answer--I have
not been able to find, to date, any record that the estimates
of size that he provided were ever considered within the staff
of the Army, were ever considered within the staff or by the
Joint Chiefs. I hope someday we can determine the extent to
which his views were shared within the Department of Defense,
the Department of the Army, indeed, most significantly, by the
Joint Chiefs, as to his concern about those figures.
If the Senator could ever provide that information, I would
be delighted to read it, study it, and carefully give my own
views on that.
Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, I think that would be an
admirable inquiry, and that is something this committee could
do, and I would encourage you to do it.
Chairman Warner. I thank the Senator very much.
Thank you. Senator McCain, I would ask you to chair the
committee.
Senator McCain [presiding]. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
First of all, I've had a chance to know General Martin and
talk to him in different capacities, but I haven't had a chance
to meet the other two. However, we have common friends. I was
pleased that Pete Geren, Mr. Greco, is a good friend of yours,
and he speaks very highly of you. Of course, I've known John
Hague, Dr. Harvey, for many years. I am looking forward to
working with all of you.
I guess the obvious question I would ask you, Dr. Harvey,
is here we are in the midst of a war, fighting with an Army
that was downsized after the Cold War. I can remember, even
less than about 12 years ago, hearing testimony before this
committee--it might have been when I was in the House Armed
Services Committee--that 10 years from now there wouldn't be
the need for ground forces. All these things are changing. I
agree with Senator Reed, in talking about the numbers. I'm
concerned particularly about the Reserve component. With the
base realignment and closure (BRAC) round coming up and the
future combat system (FCS), my question is, why in the world
would you want to do this at this time? But, I won't ask that
question.
I am also concerned about the modernization program. It is
long overdue. I've been following the FCS very closely, and all
of its components, and wonder if you had any thoughts about
that, if you had given some thought to the modernization
program, with a specific emphasis on the FCS.
Dr. Harvey. Yes, Senator. I think you nailed the number-one
challenge that we have in the Army, and that is to transform
while we're at war. From my own background, I'm, in theory,
comfortable with a challenge like this, because, as you
probably know, in business the challenge is to meet your short-
term objectives and, at the same time, provide for the long
term. Because if you don't meet your short term, there is no
long term; but if you're not providing for the long term in the
short term, there won't be any long term either.
So I think the FCS program is a very important
transformational program. I'm generally familiar with it,
though I certainly don't know any of the details right now.
I was pleased to see that the Chief of Staff of the Army
had somewhat restructured the program, trying to accelerate
certain capabilities into the current force, and, at the same
time, take enough time and effort to ensure that you are
successful in the long term.
So I think that's an excellent approach. It's an approach
I'm comfortable with. You're superimposing transformational
efforts on meeting your short-term objectives, and I really
think that is a sound approach that the Army is taking right
now, providing for both. That is the challenge, and we have to
balance it. I look forward to meeting that challenge.
Senator Inhofe. Good. You're probably familiar that Senator
Akaka and I, having both been veterans of the United States
Army, started the Army Caucus to try to focus a little bit more
attention on the mission and what is out there. My personal
feeling is that the Army is not adequately funded to take on
its task. I would ask you, when you get in, to look at that
from a macro sense to see if it's something maybe we should
look at, because I believe that's a real serious problem.
Mr. Greco, I was fascinated with your 4-year-old, 3-year-
old, 2-year-old, and 1-year-old. I can tell you that 40 years
ago my wife and I had the same situation. I can just tell you
that it gets easier and it gets better. [Laughter.]
I understand you didn't say anything in your opening
remarks about the Enterprise Resource Program. One of the
things that I have found in government in general, and
specifically in the military, is that there's a resistance to
change. It's a very difficult thing to do. So I would like to
have you tell us--you're proposing something that hopefully
will make us more accountable and do a better job. How do you
propose to do that?
Mr. Greco. Sure, and I thank you very much. Whenever you
have a system that has grown up, that has evolved over the
course of decades, inevitably you have what are known as legacy
problems. Certainly that is widely recognized. The whole
Enterprise Architecture is designed to alleviate, resolve, and
eventually replace the problems that are faced now in financial
management, financial-control systems, and financial reporting.
So when you are looking at an organization that has multiple
components here--you have the four Services, as well as OSD--
it's important to look at it from a top-down perspective. That
is my understanding, though I'm not entirely familiar with the
details of the Enterprise Architecture, that the Navy supports
this kind of approach. If confirmed, I will certainly support
the Navy's efforts in this area.
Senator Inhofe. Well, we look forward to assisting you in
doing that, because, as I say, change is very difficult.
Mr. Greco. It certainly is.
Senator Inhofe. General Martin, you're taking on a command,
in terms of population and geography, which is the largest out
there. I'm glad the chairman brought up some of the things that
are happening in China right now. I was distressed, back in the
late 1990s, when I saw a lot of the purchases that were going
on in their conventional program, in terms of the Su vehicles
and others. So I would just ask you the general question. Since
this opportunity has emerged, that if something is keeping you
up at night, what is it?
General Martin. Senator Inhofe, actually, on a day-to-day
basis, as I thought about this position, there are three things
that I'm most concerned about. Clearly, the Korean situation,
which has a tendency to spike and ebb, is in a very delicate
period now, I think, where the six-party talks about working
over the nuclear issue, and we never quite know what the intent
of the North Koreans will be. So I worry about that.
I'm very concerned about the incredible growth that we're
observing with the Chinese modernization. We would hope that
that is so that they can feel comfortable about setting their
own destiny in that part of the world. But the fact is, those
capabilities can never be ignored, and particularly given that
just a few miles away is the island of Taiwan, which we are
prepared to assist if they are attacked in an unprovoked
manner.
Last, in the Southeast and Southwest Asia area, I'm very
concerned about what we see, in terms of insurgents, in terms
of terrorists--the transnational activities, which, on their
own, are destructive, but then, in support of terrorism, can be
very detrimental to the building of new democracies or
countries that are trying to improve. I think it is important
for us to maintain a strong partnership with those nations in
the area so that there's never a unilateral approach that has
to be taken, but, rather, a multinational coalition and
activity that I think will engender long-term stability in that
part of the world.
Any one of those three are dangerous and of concern to me.
Senator McCain. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. I don't have any questions right now, thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCain. General, Ms. Druyan testified, as part of
her plea bargain, that not just the effort on the Boeing
tankers, but also the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
airborne warning and control system (AWACS), the C-130J, which,
by the way, the DOD Inspector General has already ascertained
we may have wasted a couple of billion dollars on those--we
will be having a hearing on that--and the C-17 were ``parting
gifts'' to ingratiate herself to her future employers, and
later to ``ensure employment'' for her daughter and son-in-law.
This is four major contracts. How is it, General Martin, that
this is could happen? How is it possible that one person can
wreak this kind of havoc? In the case of the tankers, it would
have been $5.7 billion additional, according to Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and Congressional Research Service
(CRS), and other experts. Two billion dollars have been wasted
on the C-130Js. We're talking about billions of dollars. How
does that happen, General?
General Martin. Well, Senator McCain, I will tell you, when
she made her plea bargain not only I was disappointed, but I
was very surprised, first. Second, I think we have to realize
that Ms. Druyan, as I mentioned, had been in that position
since 1992.
Senator McCain. So there's no process that would act as a
check or a balance, that she was able to orchestrate four major
contracts so as to ingratiate herself to Boeing?
General Martin. Sir, as we went through the 1990s--and you
may recall, not only did we go through a very serious
restructuring of our forces in draw-down, but we also went
through a major acquisition reform that took much of the
oversight, took much of the checks and balances out. We became
very closely aligned with the partners. We went into total
system program management.
Senator McCain. Is there something wrong?
General Martin. We may have gone too far in the pendulum
swing.
Senator McCain. May have? With this kind of scandal, we may
have, General?
General Martin. Senator McCain, I've not been in that
business. I've not reviewed all the complaints.
Senator McCain. Well, you're in the business of the
tankers. I'll quote you some of your e-mails here.
General Martin. All right, sir.
Senator McCain. Are you aware of the Center for Naval
Analysis finding, ``Trends in KC-135 readiness and maintenance
research requirements are reasonably steady, and that incursion
has not been a major contributor''?
Are you aware of the CRS report, October 23, 2003, stating
that ``corrosion is not a problem''?
Are you aware of the Defense Science Board report, ``The
Task Force did find evidence on maintenance regime well poised
to deal with the corrosion and other aging problems''?
Are you aware of all of these studies?
General Martin. I'm aware of two of those. I'm not aware of
the second one you mentioned.
Senator McCain. All of them said that corrosion was not a
problem, right?
General Martin. Senator, in one context, that's correct. I
would also call your attention to the Defense Science Board
Report that said the 61 KC-135Es that the United States Air
Force planned to retire was a good decision that they concurred
with.
Senator McCain. Actually, we can argue about that, but
there were a number of them that said that corrosion was not a
problem.
General Martin. Sir, we had 176 tankers in backlog 4\1/2\
years ago, most of them for fatigue, obsolescence, and
corrosion.
Senator McCain. All of those rates have been dramatically
improved, according to these studies.
General Martin. Yes, sir. We've had to hire on two
contractors to make that work out. They have worked overtime.
They brought the fleet back up to a 65 to 75 percent rate. But
at what price? We are re-manufacturing many of the tankers
because of serious fatigue, obsolescence, and corrosion.
Corrosion is just one of the terms that we've used.
Senator McCain. Well, you gave a speech on February 12,
2004, ``But it doesn't have to--whatever it takes--40, 50-year
old tankers need to move on. These haven't been modified in the
new configuration. These are in the saddest shape. We see that
when they come into depot with respect to corrosion and all of
that. So it is time for us to understand that 40 to 50-year old
aircraft''--that is in direct contradiction to the Defense
Science Board, the Center for Naval Analysis, and every other
objective study.
Now, you may say that it is, but they say that corrosion is
not a problem, that it was a manageable problem. That is what
objective observers say. If you want to say black is white,
sir, you can. But I will quote again, ``The task force did find
evidence of a maintenance regime well poised to deal with
corrosion and other aging problems.'' That is the bottom line,
General, while you are alleging otherwise. I'll be glad to hear
your response.
General Martin. Mr. Senator, those comments were made at
the Air Force Association before Mr. Wynne asked for the
analysis of alternatives to review the potential of re-
manufacturing and re-engining the KC-135Es. On that day, I was
talking about the KC-135Es. At that time, we had about 138.
They had not been modified to the KC-135R configuration. They
had not been modified with new engines and the other 25
modifications, to include avionics, wiring, other stiffeners,
and stress-point repairs. So those aircraft, yes, they could be
brought in, re-manufactured, re-engined, and they had some use
to them, but they would still be 44- to 45-year-old aircraft.
Senator McCain. ``The task force did find evidence of a
maintenance regime well poised to deal with corrosion''----
General Martin. That's corrosion, sir.
Senator McCain.--``and other aging problems.'' All said,
``Solutions are in hand to deal with the known problems with
the fleet, including the KC-135 engine struts.'' So you have a
different view, sir, than the Center for Naval Analysis, the
Defense Science Board, and every other objective----
Let me get into one of your e-mails here. This is why I'm
concerned about the ``irrelevant'' e-mails that just came to
light. From General Handy to General Martin, Subject:--written
June 24, 2004, McCain's statement on the tanker amendment, S.
2400. ``Speedy, have you had a chance to read this information?
I'm certain we need to link our staffs once again with the
tanker team to come back with our bottom line on corrosion and
cost, plus any other engine end data you might have in your hip
pocket. I'm sure that we will both get calls for action. Please
protect my source.''
Your reply, General Martin, Subject: Hot McCain Statement,
``John, I have not seen this yet. I will get our guys to work
with yours. In the meantime, I just signed a memo with point
paper to you on the 30 tankers that need to have work done
before 1 October 2004. I will ask the guys to fax you a copy if
you haven't seen it yet. This will be fun. Speedy.''
What was fun?
General Martin. A casual comment to a colleague about a
situation that was clearly becoming what I would consider to be
controversial. ``This will be fun,'' meaning nothing more than
it looks like we have some work ahead of us. That's what I
meant.
Senator McCain. Well, General----
General Martin. Now, Senator McCain, if you look at my
comments, is there anything in my comments there that indicate
that I'm stonewalling or in any way supporting a position that
is inappropriate? I will look into it----
Senator McCain. It's inappropriate when it's the bottom
line on corrosion and cost when there have been numerous
studies that say that corrosion is not a problem.
General Martin. Sir, in this particular case, that was a
corrosion issue. Those were the engine struts holding the
engines onto the wing. The analysis that had been done in
December 2002 said that those aircraft needed to be repaired or
grounded by September 30.
Senator McCain. The tanker amendment did not address the
strut issue, General Martin. The tanker amendment was about a
requirement for an analysis of alternatives and other
requirements before we went through with this massive ripoff of
the taxpayers.
General Martin. But, sir, the point is that the analysis by
the engineers was that those aircraft should not fly if they do
not have strut modifications, as all of the other aircraft had.
General Handy and the Air Force Mobility Command of the United
States Air Force decided, rather than to modify those aircraft
2 years ago, to retire them. Now the retirement date is coming
up, but we have been prohibited from retiring them due to
congressional language, so we either have to fix the struts or
ground them.
Senator McCain. You could have fixed them for $400,000.
General Martin. Yes, sir, that's correct. However, sir,
that would also then mean they would go into the programmed
depot maintenance and the other modifications that were
necessary to allow them to fly in the airspace as we know it.
Overall, nearly $1.5 million would be spent to keep those
airplanes flying when the command decided that they were no
longer necessary to be flying.
Senator McCain. As opposed to a $20-some-billion
acquisition. Well, General, we will look forward to receiving
the e-mails that you haven't given us. We will look forward to
finding out why it is ``fun'' to talk about corrosion when
there have been numerous studies that clearly state that it is
not a problem. We will try to find out, as this committee, how
in the world one individual can be responsible for four major
contracts--four major contracts in the United States Air Force,
involving billions of dollars--can get away with such a thing.
There's something very badly wrong. I will tell you, one of the
things we found out--it's a military industrial complex,
General Martin. We found out that--from the Boeing e-mails and
the incredible incestuous relationship between Boeing and the
United States Air Force, both civilian and military. I will
strongly object to your nomination leaving this committee until
we get all the e-mails and all the answers.
This is a national disgrace. If it hadn't of been for my
chairmanship of the Commerce Committee and the ability to get
the Boeing e-mails, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, we
would have ripped off the taxpayers for $5.7 billion. Not
according to me, but according to the Government Accountability
Office and the Congressional Research Service and others. We
need to fix the system. We very badly need to fix the system
where one individual was able to corrupt four major defense
contracts all by herself. It is hard for me to believe.
General Martin. Mr. Senator, I would only ask this. Given
the facts that you have, I would not disagree; however, I think
you have to consider the source of those comments, and you have
to look at the details of what she said and what she actually
did.
Senator McCain. Are you saying she didn't?
General Martin. I don't know.
Senator McCain. She confessed to doing so, General.
General Martin. I'm sorry, sir. I don't understand how she
made those comments and whether those are honest comments or
not. I have no knowledge either way. But I'm here to tell you
that my dealings with her----
Senator McCain. General, now I'm questioning your
qualifications for command. A person pleads guilty in Federal
court to a crime that's going to send her to jail, and you
question whether she was telling the truth?
General Martin. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator McCain.
I thank you for raising this issue. A lot of times we're
not dealing with criminal conduct or even terrible malfeasance.
But sometimes things start developing in our agencies,
bureaucracies, and Defense Departments that are not healthy. I
believe, at some point, the Air Force made a decision they did
not want to refurbish the KC-135s. I do believe Senator McCain
is correct when he said that we have an absolute statement at
various points that the KC-135s couldn't be refurbished because
of corrosion. Now we find that that is not as big a deal as was
said. So I have some concerns about it. I know the decision was
made somewhere. It really started in Congress. Not in this
committee. The appropriators put in this tanker-lease deal
without any hearings that I know of in this committee to
consider it. People fell in line to support that idea, and
justifications started coming up. I'm not sure we thought it
through correctly. It's about $25 million, as I understand it,
to refurbish a KC-135; $200 million to buy a new one. It has
some advantages, of buying a new one, but when you don't have
enough money to do everything you need to do, maybe we need to
consider an analysis of alternatives, which is out there, and
we'll review it there.
General Martin, you're going to an area of the world that
is very important for us. You, I believe, spent time in the
Pacific, in Japan, and the Pacific Command through maybe 4 or 5
years. I would join with Senator Warner in saying I see no
reason for us to have almost 40,000 troops in Japan when they
have 650,000 South Korean troops. This country is one of the
most progressive countries in the world, South Korea, and they
need to step up. We need not to have so many troops there. But
it does require a command study and a great deal of thought and
sophistication--don't you agree?--to develop a plan to ensure
that we can respond adequately to any hostilities that may
occur there or may occur in Taiwan. We ought not to be
ambiguous one bit about South Korea. We should not be ambiguous
one bit about Taiwan. Our principles are stated clearly there.
We expect that you will help us develop a plan to respond
immediately if there are situations that develop there that are
unacceptable.
I guess my question is to ask you how important you think
this mission is. Will you call Congress and ask for, and fight
for, the things necessary for you to accomplish your mission?
Because we want you to have that capability.
General Martin. Senator Sessions, first let me tell you I
believe it's absolutely critical to the security of the Pacific
region that the United States presence there be credible and
that nations we support continue to progress and exist as the
successful nations that we've seen, from Korea, Japan, the
development that is going on in Southeast Asia area, in
Singapore, and, of course, the work that we're doing in the
Philippines.
With respect to Korea, I could not agree more that with the
growing capabilities of the South Korean military forces and
the improvements that we have made in our military
capabilities, in terms of lethality, agility, flexibility, and
mobility, that we should position them in such a way that they
can be very responsive to not only a problem that would occur
in Korea, but allow us to have the flexibility with some of
those forces elsewhere to deal with another problem that may
surface somewhere in that theater.
Senator Sessions. Briefly, just as a matter of command and
control, in your position, what direct command and control do
you have over the placement of the troops in South Korea?
General Martin. Sir, General LaPorte is responsible there
for deterring the Koreans and then conducting that war. The
Pacific Command is in a support role there. As the Commander of
U.S. Forces Korea, he works for the Commander of U.S. Pacific
Command, so the arrangements that are made will be made
primarily from an operational perspective, a war-planning
perspective, and then backed up by the U.S. Pacific Command in
supporting that.
Senator Sessions. Are you in accord with the plan as it has
been moved forward?
General Martin. Sir, I am not studied in the actual unit
detail movement. I understand the general movements and the
rationale, and agree with those. In my previous job in Europe,
we were doing much the same in Europe, and we coordinated some
of our thinking with the Pacific. So I'm somewhat aware of the
rationale and thought, but the actual specific moves of units,
I am not yet read into. That will be one of my first
priorities, because, in the end, it will be most important, if
I'm confirmed, to be responsive to General LaPorte in bringing
the forces to bear that he needs to support that repositioning
of the forces.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think that is well stated. You
have to make sure that his plans, which I am confident are
sound, are in coordination with his ground, air, space, and sea
forces, so that we have the capabilities. I absolutely do not
believe a reduction in troops there signals any weakness or
lack of commitment on our part on the Korean Peninsula, and I
think that is important to state. I think it just makes good
sense.
Dr. Harvey, thank you for your service. I know that you
have an incredibly impressive background and have supervised as
many as 40,000 people with Westinghouse, one of the world's
great corporations. You have been chief operating officer (COO)
of two high-tech information-technology companies. You bring an
experience that can help us continue to modernize the Army and
can help us evaluate that.
Mr. Greco, thank you for your service. I am extremely
impressed with what the Navy is doing. You're joining a team
that seems to have a real good ability to mix change with
traditions of the Navy, and I think that is something of value.
My time is up, Mr. Chairman, but, Dr. Harvey, this Army is
critical to our Nation's defense. You don't have a lot of
personal experience with it, although you did have a period of
time with former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown on his
staff. But I do think that if you bring your knowledge and
skills to bear, and if you pay attention to the individual
soldiers, the Guard and Reserve in particular, with carefully
chosen policy changes, we can make life in our military even
more healthy and positive than it is today.
With respect to Guard units in my State, I met with the
Guard and talked to them in depth for hours about this, and
they tell me that troops back from Iraq are re-enlisting in
record numbers. There are troop units that haven't gone to Iraq
yet. Their numbers are a little tougher, but if they were given
the right incentives packages, they could meet all of their
recruitment and retention goals, they believe, and I think that
is important.
Thank you, Senator Allard.
Senator Allard [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
Sessions. I'm going to use my time, and then we have a vote
coming up on the floor. I've been asked to adjourn the
committee at that particular point in time. There will be some
things I will handle in that process.
But, first of all, I have a question concerning the
Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty for you, Dr. Harvey. I
didn't vote for that provision. I thought it was ill-advised
but, just the same, it has become the law of the land. The
United States Army has been put in charge of implementing the
chemical-weapons demilitarization at these facilities, so we
can meet the requirements of that treaty.
That treaty requires that the chemical demilitarization
occur by 2012. I have a chart here that has been put out by the
Department of Defense that shows that we have five sites that,
as the schedule was originally laid out, aren't going to meet
the 2012 deadline.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The site that's going to be most out of line is the
Bluegrass, Kentucky site. Then we have a site in Alabama, and a
site in Oregon. They're not far behind the Kentucky site. Then
we have sites a little closer to 2012. The next one would be
Pueblo, Colorado. We also have one in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The
other four sites are scheduled to get cleaned up. Now I've been
told that the program is way behind schedule and that there are
some serious cost-overrun issues. I'm concerned about this
program. I would like to hear you respond to some of these
concerns. What is it, as Secretary of the Army, that you feel
you can do to get us on track so that we can comply with the
treaty?
Dr. Harvey. Yes, thank you, Senator. As you mentioned, this
is a very important initiative and program, and I'm generally
familiar with it. I'm not familiar with the details. I know
progress has been made at certain sites, and there have been
delays, cost overruns. But I don't really know the drivers.
In my background, I pride myself on my program-management
abilities. I think, as I told you, I really learned to manage
by being a program manager in Air Force and Navy programs, and
so I'm kind of a cost, schedule, technical objectives----
Senator Allard. Let me interrupt you here. Where is the
priority of the chemical demilitarization of these facilities?
From your understanding and from that of your predecessors, do
you think the priority was set high enough? I would like to
have you respond to that.
Dr. Harvey. At this time, I don't think I know that detail.
I certainly know the sites, and I know the kind of sequence of
awards. I know there has been a change in technology in the
middle of this program.
So what I was about to say is, I commit to you that I will
certainly get involved in the details, find out why we're
behind schedule, why we have overrun, and ensure that we have
the right program managers on the job. One of the measures,
performance measures, that I will institute as the Secretary is
on key acquisition programs in key programs like this. So I
plan on regularly and frequently knowing what the progress by
site is, in terms of schedule and meeting the technology and
meeting the environment and meeting the overall program. By the
way, I will know, in real time, what the performance is, and I
will take actions accordingly. If we're going to get off
schedule or over cost, the program manager will be in my office
explaining why and what corrective action he's going to take
and when it is going to get back on schedule and when it's
going to be done. So while we will use all the program-
management tools that I've experienced over the years, I don't
know enough about the details to comment on the program at this
time.
Senator Allard. I appreciate what you explained to me, and
clearly what you outlined I expect you to do as Secretary of
the Army. I do hope that you keep this committee informed, and
you keep me informed, as to what's happening with this program.
It is under the jurisdiction of this committee, and it is
something that we need to be concerned about, whenever we run a
possibility of overruns. I think the contractors have to be
held accountable. I think that people within the Department of
the Army have to be held accountable. I think we're headed for
some problems here, and I would call those to your attention.
Dr. Harvey. I think your remarks are very appropriate, and
I have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
spent wisely. Believe me, from my past, I hate overruns, and I
hate to waste money, and I hate to be behind schedule.
Senator Allard. Well, I'm glad to hear that.
Dr. Harvey. I will get involved in acquisition programs,
including this one.
Senator Allard. This is a new technology, I will
acknowledge that, and we have had to put money in some of the
new technology areas, but then it's been put into those sites
where they were using the older technology because of cost
overruns. So I think some really tough questions need to be
asked in that regard.
The next question I have is for you, General Martin. I
understand pulling back with our troops out of Korea. I agree
with that, but I do think that there's going to be other
programs and that there is emphasis on these programs that has
to be added if we're going to maintain a strong defensive
posture there. I think that missile defense is one of those
programs. I would like to hear you talk a little bit about
where you see missile defense playing a role and providing for
the defense of this country, as far as the threat from North
Korea is concerned, and what you see, as far as working with
our allies in the Pacific on missile-defense issues. Also, how
important do you think it might be to continue the development
of a sea-based ballistic-missile defense as part of that.
I've lumped three questions I wanted to keep separate,
because of lack of time, I feel I want to put these together
and just let you talk a little bit about this for this
committee, if you would, please.
General Martin. Yes, sir, Senator Allard.
First of all, clearly one of the more vexing problems we
face is a nation that may not be nearly as powerful as we are,
but with weapons of mass destruction and missile technology,
the results can be catastrophic. It doesn't matter whether it's
in theater or whether it be from a national perspective. So,
first, as I think you know, we've been pursuing it at the best
speed possible. Our theater missile defense systems, both
within the Navy and in the Army--and, of course, Navy theater
missile defense. At the same time, we've been pursuing national
missile defense, and this month are in the process of having
initial or limited operational capability so that the
technology that we currently have and the systems we currently
have, although we all know they've not been fully tested and
connected to the standards that we have become used to in
previous acquisition programs, offer us some capability today
should something happen that we were unable to predict, and
then we will spiral those developments and improvements.
The best I can tell--and I'm not an expert in the Pacific
theater yet--but the best I can tell, it takes a very concerted
and joint effort for us to be able to properly identify the
launch, get its initial track and vector activity, and be able
to deliver that to the fire control system and the interceptor
in a way that will be successful. It requires either sea-based
radar support in order to support the entire United States,
along with ground-based missile defense.
In the end, however, because of the geometry of this
situation, I think the partnerships that you alluded to become
very important. I think finding those right allies for us to
partner with for missile defense will not only benefit the
United States, both from a national perspective and a theater
perspective, but it will provide some sense of assurance to
those partners and strong allies that they will have some sense
of protection, as well, against the rogue or errant decision
made by one of those people that has that kind of weapon at
their control. I'm very strong on it, knowing that today the
irrational behavior that we notice in terrorist activities,
when matched with this technology, could cause catastrophic
results, and we must defend the people of the United States and
our allies as best we can against that.
Senator Allard. Well, thank you very much.
I wanted to talk a little bit with Dr. Harvey about the
missile-defense programs you have under the Army. That's all in
theater again. But we're not going to have time to get into
that discussion. But I do want you to be aware that there
certainly is an interest, and I think there's a decided benefit
to these programs. I don't have any particular concerns about
it. Just to make sure that you do recognize the importance, I
think, of space and the high-technology system we have there.
These are important to the fighting man in the field, or woman
in the field, and on the field of battle. I hope you keep us
informed as to how that particular program is going. Again,
these are programs under my jurisdiction on the Strategic
Subcommittee.
Dr. Harvey. I will do so.
Senator Allard. Okay. I just have been asked by the staff
to remind you that you have 1 day to get in and get your
supplemental remarks in. I would just ask that you get those in
today, if you would, please, if you want to supplement your
testimony and have any additional remarks for this committee.
That's a pretty tight schedule. But since we're on the closing
days of this session, it is necessary for us to ask that from
you, and I hope that you can make an earnest effort to comply
with the request of the staff and the chairman of this
committee.
[The information referred to follows:]
General Martin. In my last response, I may have either misspoken or
caused a misunderstanding and would like to clarify the record. What I
intended to communicate in the abbreviated discussion was that I
believe we need to understand the full context of Ms. Druyun's
admissions with respect to the acquisition-review process as it exists
today.
During the period that I worked daily with Ms. Druyun, from July
1998 until December 1999, and during the subsequent period until her
retirement in November 2002, where I conversed with her on a very
infrequent basis, I never detected or believed her performance to be in
any way illegal. As a result, when she admitted to providing ``parting
gifts'' to the Boeing Corporation, I was extremely disappointed and
very surprised. The acquisition processes changed significantly in the
mid-1990s due to Goldwater-Nichols legislation along with comprehensive
DOD-wide acquisition reform and Air Force acquisition lightening bolt
initiatives. As a result of those efforts we have seen a significant
flattening of the organization, reduced oversight, increased reliance
on collaboration with industry, and streamlined reporting chains within
the acquisition community. Nonetheless, I believe the acquisition
decisionmaking process to be transparent and, therefore, it is
inexplicable to me how Ms. Druyun could have provided the ``parting
gifts'' she admitted to in her plea bargain without anyone's knowledge.
We don't have any more members present to ask questions. We
have a vote on the floor. I want to thank each and every one of
you for taking the time, for your past service to this country,
and let you know that we all appreciate your dedication to try
and make this a better country, a safer country, and a more
secure country. I, for one, appreciate everything you do for
us.
So, with that, I will go ahead and adjourn the committee.
Thank you for your service.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Francis J. Harvey 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 the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Networks and Information Integration.
Have your views on the importance, feasibility, and implementation
of these reforms changed since you testified before the committee at
your confirmation hearing on January 28, 2004?
Answer. No, my views on the importance of the reforms brought about
by the Goldwater-Nichols Act have not changed. Goldwater-Nichols has
significantly improved our joint operations and its goals have been
irrefutably confirmed in the crucible of war. Specifically, the
Goldwater-Nichols Act has 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 a more efficient and effective use of defense resources
for national security.
Question. Do you see the need for modifications to Goldwater-
Nichols provisions based on any observation you have made to date? If
so, what areas do you believe it might be appropriate to address in
these modifications?
Answer. 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 the national security
challenges of the 21st century. To that end, the Department will
continue to examine ways to better support the goals of reform in light
of our ever-changing environment.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Secretary of the Army?
Answer. The Secretary of the Army is subject to the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense. The position of the
Secretary of the Army is outlined in title 10 USC, section 3013, which
states that the Secretary is responsible for, and has the authority
necessary to conduct, all affairs of the Department of the Army. The
Secretary is also responsible for such activities as may be prescribed
by law or by the President or Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of
the Army may, after first informing the Secretary of Defense, make
recommendations to Congress relating to the Department of Defense as he
considers appropriate.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect
that Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. In accordance with title 10, USC, section 3013, I expect
the Secretary of Defense will prescribe the following duties: ensure
proper functioning and efficiency of the Department of the Army;
formulate policies and programs that are consistent with national
security objectives; effectively implement all decisions and
instructions of the President or the Secretary of Defense; ensure the
current and future operational requirements of the unified and
specified combatant commands are met; and ensure that there is
effective supervision and control of Department of the Army
intelligence activities.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe I have three basic qualifications for the
position of Secretary of the Army.
First, I know how to lead, manage, and change large organizations,
particularly program based organizations involving people and the
development and deployment of technology and systems. In the management
area, I have had a great deal of experience in project management as
well as success in streamlining organizational structures and improving
business processes thereby transforming organizations into much more
efficient and effective operations. At Westinghouse, I initiated and
led comprehensive change and improvement initiatives at seven different
organizations that resulted in significant operational improvements.
Second, I have a broad base of experience centered on the defense
industry that has been multidimensional in terms of functions,
industries and markets and has included both the commercial and
government sectors. Although my industrial experience has been centered
on the defense industry, it also includes energy, environmental and
infrastructure, electronics, government facilities management,
communication and information systems. Overall, about two-thirds of my
career was spent in defense, where I was involved in one or more phases
of over 20 major DOD programs that spanned the entire spectrum from
under seas to outer space including submarines, surface ships,
aircraft, tanks, missiles and satellites. In addition, I spent a year
in the DOD as a White House Fellow, so I believe I had a very good
understanding of DOD organizations and enterprise processes.
Finally, I have a management approach that I believe 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.
I believe that the combination of successfully leading, managing,
and changing large, technology based organizations; the broad base of
industrial experience centered on the defense industry; an effective
management approach; direct DOD experience and my education have
prepared me to be the Secretary of the Army.
Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in
the duties and functions of the Secretary of the Army, as set forth
respectively in section 3013 of title 10, United States Code, or in
regulations of the Department of Defense pertaining to the functions of
the Army?
Answer. I do not have any specific recommendations at this time. If
confirmed, I will assess current Army duties and functions are
warranted, and I will make appropriate recommendations to DOD.
Question. What duties and responsibilities would you plan to assign
to the Under Secretary of the Army?
Answer. The Under Secretary of the Army performs such duties and
exercises such powers as the Secretary of the Army prescribes. The
Under Secretary is the Secretary's principal civilian assistant and
senior advisor on key Army issues. If confirmed, I will review the
current assignment of functions, responsibilities and duties within the
Army Secretariat and determine the capacities in which the Under
Secretary can most appropriately support my efforts to ensure the
Department of the Army is efficiently administered in accordance with
the policies set out by the Secretary of Defense.
relationships
Question. What do you see as the relationship between the Secretary
of the Army and each of the following?
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Secretary of Defense, as the head of the Department of
Defense and the principal assistant to the President in all matters
relating to the Department of Defense, issues guidance and direction to
the Military Departments. The Secretary of the Army is subject to the
authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense. If
confirmed, I will be responsible to the Secretary of Defense for the
operation of the Army in accordance with such directives. I will
cooperate fully with the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Army
properly implements the policies established by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense. I will communicate with the Secretary of Defense
in articulating the views of the Army.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Defense performs such duties and
exercises such powers as the Secretary of Defense prescribes. The
Deputy takes precedence in the Department of Defense immediately after
the Secretary. If confirmed, I will be responsible to the Deputy
Secretary of Defense for the operation of the Army in accordance with
such directives. I will cooperate fully with the Deputy Secretary of
Defense to ensure that the Army properly implements the policies
established by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Question. Other Service Secretaries.
Answer. The Secretaries of the Military Departments are responsible
for, and have the authority necessary to conduct, all affairs of their
respective Departments. If confirmed, I will work closely with my
counterparts to foster an atmosphere of teamwork and complete trust,
which I believe is critical to executing U.S. national policy. As
directed by the President and Secretary of Defense, I will support the
other Service Secretaries in the accomplishment of their
responsibilities as needed.
Question. The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's (CJCS)
responsibilities are clearly delineated in title 10, USC, section 153.
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. The CJCS serves as an advisor but is not in the
direct chain of command that runs from the President and Secretary of
Defense directly to the combatant commanders. However, there are
provisions for the President to direct communications between him or
the Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders be transmitted
through the CJCS. This ensures the Chairman stays informed in order to
execute his other responsibilities. If confirmed, subject to the
authority of the President and Secretary of Defense, I will coordinate
with the CJCS to accomplish the objectives of the National Command
Authority.
Question. Chief of Staff, Army.
Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Army assists the Chairman in
providing military advice to the President, the National Security
Council, and the Secretary of Defense. The Chief of Staff serves as the
Secretary of the Army's principal military adviser. If confirmed, I
will work closely with the Chief of Staff to ensure that my decisions
are implemented through the Army Staff and Army commands and agencies.
I will rely upon the Chief of Staff to communicate Army Staff's plans
to me and to inform me about conclusions reached by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and about significant military operations, to the extent such
action does not impair the independence of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I
will work with the Chief of Staff to establish the best policies for
the Army in light of national interests.
Question. Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve
Affairs (M&RA)) has the principal responsibility for the oversight of
manpower, personnel, and Reserve components affairs in the Department
of the Army. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant
Secretary to ensure that within the Department of the Army there is
effective and efficient management of the force and adequate and
appropriate training. My goal will be to provide soldiers, Department
of the Army civilians, veterans, and their families with effective and
clear policies and programs to meet their needs.
The M&RA was established in 1968 when Congress directed that the
Army create a new Assistant Secretary for the specific purpose of
managing manpower and Reserve affairs. The Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, on behalf of the Secretary of
the Army, has the principal responsibility for setting the strategic
direction and providing the overall supervision for manpower,
personnel, and Reserve Affairs across all Army components (active,
Guard, Reserve, civilian, and contractor). The primary policy and
oversight responsibilities include; human resources, training,
readiness, mobilization, force management, manpower management, Reserve
components, Army Review Boards, equal employment opportunity, and civil
rights.
Question. Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, and
Environment.
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close,
professional relationship with the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installations and Environment). I will encourage direct and open
communication and will foster an environment of cooperative teamwork
with this office as well as with the entire Army Secretariat and Staff.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations
and Environment has responsibility for policy development, program
oversight and coordination of a wide variety of Army activities. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant Secretary to ensure
that our Army installations are properly maintained and operated; that
privatization of Army family housing and other infrastructure programs
continue; and that environmental compliance and clean-up programs are
being conducted in an efficient and effective manner.
Question. Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management
and Comptroller (ASA (FM&C)).
Answer. If confirmed I see my ASA (FM&C) as my Chief Financial
Officer, my CFO who is my principal advisor on all financial matters to
include resource allocation, cost controls and financial
accountability. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial
Management and Comptroller has the duty to resource the Army and to
provide accountability to the American public. If confirmed, I will
work closely with the Assistant Secretary to ensure that the Department
of the Army's financial management activities and operations are
operated properly and efficiently as possible.
Question. Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics, and Technology.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics, and Technology serves, when delegated, as the Army
Acquisition Executive, the Senior Procurement Executive, the Science
Advisor to the Secretary, and as the senior research and development
official for the Department of the Army. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the Assistant Secretary to ensure that all Department of
the Army matters related to logistics and technology are managed in a
effective and efficient manner.
Question. Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close,
professional relationship with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works. I will encourage direct and open communication and will
foster an environment of cooperative teamwork within the Secretariat
and with the Army Staff.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) has as the
principal responsibility for overall supervision of the functions of
the Department of the Army relating to all aspects of the civil works
program. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant Secretary
to ensure the continued effective and efficient management of the many
programs under his responsibly.
Question. General Counsel of the Army.
Answer. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the
Department of the Army. His duties include coordinating legal and
policy advice to all members of the Department of the Army regarding
matters of interest to the Secretariat, as well as determining the
position of the Army on any legal question or procedure other than
military justice matters assigned to the Judge Advocate General. If
confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close, professional
relationship with the General Counsel to assist him in the performance
of these important duties.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that you
would confront if confirmed as Secretary of the Army?
Answer. Transforming the force while providing the capability to
combatant commanders to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters
in the war on terror--while continuing to deter aggression in other
theaters--is a major challenge. Our Nation is decisively engaged in a
war fought against global terrorist networks--that will endure, in some
form, for the foreseeable future.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. To meet this challenge, we are aggressively transforming
the Army as we fulfill our task to equip, train, and protect the
Soldiers we provide to the combatant commanders. We are reshaping the
Army to create a ``campaign quality with joint and expeditionary
capabilities.''
Waging a war while transforming is a complex, potentially high risk
task; however, we have charted the right course. We are applying
lessons learned in 2\1/2\ years of war--and examining every aspect of
how we do business. Our core competencies, however, will endure: to
train and equip soldiers and grow leaders, and to provide relevant and
ready landpower to combatant commanders and the joint team.
We have three immediate objectives, contained in the Army Campaign
Plan, for our transformation: modularity, rebalancing, and
stabilization.
Building modular capabilities--to be able to deploy forces in
distinct combat or support modules--is already increasing our strategic
responsiveness and flexibility.
Rebalancing the size and capabilities of our active and Reserve
components--to ensure each component is the right size with the right
capabilities--will help to manage workload for our people and units.
Stabilizing the force--lengthening time that units are assigned
together--will increase cohesion by reducing turnover and requirements
for repetitive retraining on key tasks. This will improve our
preparedness--or readiness to fight. A key byproduct of our focus on
improving cohesion will be improvements to levels of predictability--
when people will be deploying and for how long. All of these objectives
will help to relieve stress on the force.
focus areas
Question. The senior leadership of the Army has established
immediate focus areas to channel Army efforts on winning the global war
on terrorism and increasing the relevance and readiness of the Army.
The focus areas include the soldier, combat training centers and the
Battle Command Training Program, leader development and education, Army
aviation, the network, and modularity.
What is your opinion of the Army's focus areas?
Answer. I believe the Army's approach to focus on key areas to be
right on the mark. Last summer, the Army identified 17 areas in need of
immediate focus to adapt Army organizations and processes to improve
its ability to do its job--provide trained soldiers and leaders as well
as the land forces needed by the combatant commanders to fight.
Progress in the focus areas--that range from preparing soldiers better
to designing more agile resourcing and planning processes--will make
the Army better. They are already improving combat and logistical
capability. This will improve the ability to wage campaigns, as well as
joint, expeditionary operations.
Question. In your view, what can be done to improve these focus
areas?
Answer.
a. Soldier--The Army is working to prepare flexible, adaptive
soldiers supported by their families. This requires soldiers to have
all the equipment they need to fight and to protect themselves. The
Army is working to resource and field this equipment, from improvements
to small arms to body armor. It also requires improving training to
prepare them to operate and communicate in the environment of irregular
warfare. Improvements also include working to improve their
understanding of the Warrior Ethos--the values and attitudes we want
soldiers to inculcate. Finally, the Army is continuing efforts to
reinforce families' abilities to be resilient in the face of extended
deployments.
b. Network--The Army is working to ensure that the network that
supports soldiers is fully interoperable with joint applications. The
Army is executing a top-down, enterprise approach to integrate
architecture and protocols to improve access and versatility for
soldiers and their leaders.
c. Combat Training Centers--CTCs must continue to focus on full
spectrum training in the contemporary operating environment, including
greater emphasis on civilians on the battlefield and joint operations.
d. Leader Development--Training and Leader Development needs to
continue to improve soldier and civilian institutional training,
operational experience, and self-development opportunities to better
prepare our leaders to operate effectively in a joint environment now
and in the future.
e. Army Aviation--The senior leadership's guidance to the Army has
been to make Army Aviation a capabilities based maneuver arm, optimized
for the joint fight with a shortened logistics tail. I look forward to
working with the Army's leadership as we review and adjust aviation
modernization and transformation efforts.
f. Modularity--The Army is working to complete standard designs for
combat and support oriented Units of Action, that will replace the
brigade design prevalent today. This conversion is well underway. The
Army is working to develop strategies--and provide resources--to man,
equip, train, and deploy the new modular units of action, many of which
are already included in deployment schedules.
Question. If confirmed, do you intend to refocus the Army's focus
areas, and if so, how?
Answer. I have no plans at this time. I will participate in
discussions with the senior leaders in the Army to make an informed
assessment.
investigative reports
Question. Service Secretaries are regularly called upon to make
decisions regarding accountability of military and civilian personnel
based on investigative reports of service inspectors general and field
commanders.
What steps do you believe that a Service Secretary should take in a
case in which the Secretary has doubts about the quality and
reliability of the legal and factual conclusions in an investigative
report?
Answer. I have confidence in the independence and judgment of the
Inspector General (IG), his staff in the U.S. Army Inspector General
Agency and field IGs across the Army. These officers and their staff's
enjoy a reputation and a tradition of honesty and incisive advice to
the Army leadership. At the headquarters, they receive outstanding
legal support from the Office of the General Counsel and from the Judge
Advocate General. Field commanders, and their detailed Inspectors
General receive the same support from their supporting Staff Judge
Advocate. If there is ever any doubt as to any of their reports,
however, there are a number of formal agencies available to the
Secretary of the Army for additional review. In criminal cases, the
Secretary can refer matters to the Criminal Investigation Command. If a
case involved financial integrity, the Secretary can refer matters to
the Army Audit Agency. Finally, the Secretary of the Army may request
the Secretary of Defense to have Department of Defense Inspector
General conduct a review of the matter. In addition to these formal
structures, the Secretary may direct an independent investigation under
Army Regulation 15-6 to look into any matter of concern. I am confident
that as Secretary of the Army, I would have the resources available to
conduct the full range of independent investigations.
title 32, u.s.c.
Question. The National Guard operates under title 32 of the United
States Code when performing training while under the control of the
State governors, and also while performing certain counterdrug
activities. Legislative proposals to expand this authority to include
homeland security activities have passed both Houses of Congress.
What are your thoughts on the adequacy of the present title 32
statutes to meet the national defense and homeland security needs?
Answer. Title 32 was originally enacted to ensure that members of
the National Guard were trained to Federal standards. Title 32 has been
successful in that members of the National Guard, who have been called
into Federal service for generations since the enactment of title 32,
have consistently accomplished their assigned national defense missions
to the highest standards. Accordingly, title 32 has been effective in
training members of the National Guard to meet national defense needs.
Although title 32 has been expanded to permit members of the
National Guard to perform counterdrug activities while under state
control in a title 32 status, it is my understanding that Congress
would have to further amend title 32 to permit members of the National
Guard to perform homeland security missions while in a title 32 status.
Question. In your view, is an expansion of authority under title 32
desirable? If so, why?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the Army's capabilities to
accomplish its national defense and homeland security missions. I will
also evaluate how the Army National Guard can best be employed to that
end within the statutory limitations imposed by Congress.
Question. It is argued that such an expansion would dilute the
concept of title 32 as a training status, making it virtually identical
to title 10 active duty service, while raising significant command and
control questions. What is your opinion?
Answer. I agree that, if members of the National Guard are used to
perform homeland security missions while in a title 32 status, then the
Army would have to ensure that the guardsman were still adequately
trained to Federal standards. I would also agree that certain missions
must be performed while soldiers are subject only to Federal command
and control; Federal interests would dictate that members of the
National Guard should not perform such missions while in a title 32
status.
delivery of legal services
Question. The Secretary of the Air Force has approved significant
changes in the working relationship between the General Counsel of the
Air Force and the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. Information
available to the committee indicates that the ability of the Judge
Advocate General and Air Force judge advocates to provide independent
legal advice to senior leaders may have been undermined, and that the
morale and effectiveness of the Air Force legal system have been
adversely affected. The General Counsel of the Army last year expressed
the opinion that a substantial reduction in the number of judge
advocates in the Army might be desirable, although evidently no action
has been taken on the suggestion.
What are your views about the responsibility of the Judge Advocates
General of the Services to provide independent legal advice to the
Service Secretaries, the Chiefs of Staff and other senior military
leaders, particularly in the areas of military justice, international
and operational law, including the applicability of the 1949 Geneva
Conventions?
Answer. The Judge Advocate General of the Army has specific
statutory responsibilities set forth in title 10, particularly in the
areas of military justice and as legal advisor to the Secretary of the
Army. I look forward to working closely with the General Counsel and
the Judge Advocate General and their organizations to accomplish our
Department's mission in the most effective manner possible.
Question. What are your views about the responsibility of field
judge advocates to provide independent legal advice to military
commanders in the field?
Answer. The independent and accurate legal advice provided by judge
advocates to commanders in the field is indispensable to the successful
accomplishment of the Army's mission. If confirmed, I will ensure that
such advice continues to be available to our commanders at all times.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of the Army, what intentions do
you have with respect to the delivery of legal services in the
Department of the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to fully utilize all of the legal
expertise provided by our Service's military and civilian attorneys.
The legal complexities of the current operational environment require
the Army to leverage all available legal assets and expertise to ensure
the accomplishment of our Department's mission. To this end, I look
forward to the support of all Department of the Army attorneys.
transformation
Question. The Comptroller General of the United States has recently
written that defense transformation is ``a battle the U.S. cannot
afford to lose'' . . . , and that, ``the U.S. Armed Forces clearly
deserve an `A' for effectiveness. At the same time, the Department
earns about a `D' for economy, efficiency, transparency, and
accountability.''
The Army has expended a great deal of effort in developing the
Army's transformation plans.
Answer. That's exactly right--transformation is a battle the United
States Army cannot afford to lose. While fighting two wars, the Army is
decisively engaged with force transformation, our most comprehensive
since World War II, and we must see this through to victory. Success in
Army transformation leads to greater success in Afghanistan and Iraq by
making our forces more situational aware, more deployable and more
agile to seize opportunities to destroy terrorist organizations. In
turn, this makes the American people safer.
Question. Please describe your understanding and assessment of the
Army's transformation plans, its strengths and weaknesses in each of
the areas mentioned by the Comptroller General, and what
transformational priorities you would pursue if confirmed as Secretary
of the Army.
Answer. The Army's transformation efforts are directed to build a
campaign-quality Army with joint and expeditionary capabilities now to
provide relevant and ready land power to combatant commanders and the
Joint Force while sustaining operational support to combatant
commanders and maintaining the quality of the All-Volunteer Force. The
Army is fulfilling its strategic commitments while simultaneously
transforming to a modular, capabilities-based force.
requirements and planning processes
Question. For fiscal year 2004, the Department of Defense submitted
a supplemental request and reprogrammed funds for Operation Iraqi
Freedom to address force protection equipment shortfalls including
interceptor body armor, up-armored high-mobility multipurpose wheeled
vehicles and aircraft survivability equipment. If confirmed as
Secretary of the Army, you will be responsible for equipping the Army.
What changes would you recommend to the way the Army prioritizes
resource allocation to mitigate future force protection shortfalls?
Answer. The Army, along with the Nation, has experienced a
significant change in operating environment. We have journeyed from
being a Nation enjoying a strategic pause with predictability to an
Army at War with a continuous rotation of forces worldwide to support
an unpredictable global war on terror. In response, the Army has
developed flexible and responsive resourcing processes to specifically
address force protection equipment shortfalls along with other
identified equipment shortfalls as they arise. I would clearly review
these processes to ensure that combatant commander, and certainly
soldier, needs are addressed swiftly and fully with a view towards
balancing supply and demand to best prioritize all available resources.
Question. Are there changes in the planning process that you would
recommend to prepare Army forces for future conflicts or operations?
Answer. Army planning must be flexible enough to consider the broad
spectrum of potential missions and not be limited to a handful of known
or suspected threats. The Army has witnessed the unforeseen and must be
capable to respond quickly. Capabilities-based planning is a critical
component of the Army's planning process and nests fully under the
Department of Defenses efforts to transform defense planning processes.
I would review the Army's progress to integrate a capabilities based
planning process and eliminate artifacts from the previous threatbased
planning process that impede the Army's ability to best posture for
future conflicts and global operations. We must continue to meet the
needs of our soldiers in combat today and develop processes to quickly
provide capabilities needed in a dynamic battlefield.
comanche
Question. While terminating the Comanche helicopter program, the
Army stated that it would reallocate $14.6 billion, all of the funds
originally programmed for Comanche development, to critical Army
aviation shortfalls. In the fiscal year 2005 amended budget request,
the Army took the first step by reallocating $1.2 billion originally
requested for Comanche development to other Army aviation programs. The
Army also requested funding for an armed reconnaissance helicopter and
a light utility helicopter. Do you support the Army's strategy of
fixing Army aviation shortfalls using funds originally programmed for
the development of the Comanche helicopter?
Answer. Yes. A 6-month study determined that the some of the
capabilities that the Comanche program would provide were no longer
consistent with the Current Operational Environment. The reallocation
of funds previously intended for the Comanche program will allow the
Army to accelerate air crew protection and Aircraft Survivability
Equipment (ASE) initiatives to meet the evolving threat and provide
every aircraft with the best possible equipment; modernize
approximately an additional 300 helicopters to extend aviation
capabilities beyond 2020; transform Reserve component aviation;
purchase approximately 800 new aircraft; accelerate the Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV) program to add platforms that extend battlefield
awareness and strengthen manned-unmanned teaming; and balance current
and future Army Aviation capabilities.
Question. Do you agree with the Army's assessment that it has a
requirement for an armed reconnaissance helicopter and a light utility
helicopter?
Answer. I am aware that the Army has a plan to address the
shortfalls in aviation capability. I look forward to working with the
Army's senior leadership as we move forward to aggressively implement
the plan.
Question. If confirmed, how would you intend to address Army
aviation capability shortfalls resulting from the Comanche helicopter
termination?
Answer. The Army has already or has plans to migrate Comanche
technologies into existing programs, where possible. As an example,
improvements in the Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) planned for
Comanche have been integrated into the Apache program. As an interim
solution for an armed reconnaissance platform, the Army will procure
368 helicopters to replace the Kiowa Warrior fleet. Additionally,
funding from Comanche have been applied for a future Joint Multi-Role
platform. This will satisfy future force armed reconnaissance
requirements.
future combat system
Question. The Army's Future Combat System (FCS) consists of 18
programs and a network. It is managed for the Army by a lead systems
integrator. The Army recently announced that it was restructuring the
FCS program to accelerate the network and core FCS programs through
three spirals in order to provide more network connectivity and
capabilities to the current force.
What are your views on the current structure of the Future Combat
System?
Answer. The Future Combat System is the engine of transformation
for the Future Force. This year, the Army recognized the opportunity to
restructure a technologically aggressive program to not only better
support the future force, but also to increase the capabilities of our
current force. By instituting a series of spirals of FCS technologies
such as the network, intelligent munitions system, the non-line-of-
sight launcher system, and eventually unmanned ground vehicles to the
current force, valuable insights will be gained on the entire FCS
program and inserting FCS capabilities that are required for our
soldiers as they fight the global war on terrorism.
Question. Do you believe that the Army has undertaken the necessary
coordination with the Joint Staff and the other services to ensure that
the Future Combat System network is interoperable with other services
communication systems and that the Army will have sufficient bandwidth
to support the Future Combat Systems network?
Answer. Yes. The FCS Operational Requirements Document provides
specific Joint interoperability requirements. The Army also recently
updated our requirements to include the Network Ready Key Performance
Parameter. The Army is also working closely with OSD and the Joint
Staff to perform a Network Centric review of the FCS program.
Question. What are your views on the current role and
responsibilities of the lead systems integrator?
Answer. The Lead Systems Integrator provides direct support to the
Army in requirements development and analysis, and assists in the
identification, selection and procurement of components, subsystems,
and systems. The Army maintains oversight and final approval of the
Lead Systems Integrator's subcontracting and competition plans. In this
innovative relationship, the Army always has the right of refusal, and
maintains control of the work product. This process works well for the
Army and for industry.
Question. Do you have any funding- or schedule-related concerns
regarding the Future Combat System restructure?
Answer. FCS is fully funded and will use evolutionary acquisition
to develop, field, and upgrade the program throughout its lifecycle.
FCS will achieve the primary goal of Army transformation which is to
develop a strategically responsive, precision maneuver force that is
dominant across the range of military operations. This transformation
will not be quick or inexpensive, but the Army has demonstrated its
commitment to resourcing this cornerstone of modernization.
stryker brigade combat teams
Question. When General Shinseki announced Army Transformation in
October 1999, he established a goal to deploy a combat-capable brigade,
now called the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, anywhere in the world in 96
hours. In June 2003, the GAO stated that ``the Army has made
significant progress in creating brigades that can be more rapidly
deployed than heavy brigades, but it cannot deploy a Stryker brigade
anywhere in the world within 4 days.'' Both the department of the
Defense and Department of the Army stated that they believe that the
96-hour deployment goal should be retained.
What are your views on the 96-hour deployability goal for the
Stryker Brigades?
Answer. The Army is currently relooking its 96-hour deployablity.
Specifically the Army wants to best support the combatant commander in
expeditionary operations.
joint operations
Question. Joint operations of military forces is a key element of
the transformational goals articulated by Secretary Rumsfeld in facing
future security threats. If confirmed as Secretary of the Army, what
would your commitment be to engaging in strategic planning with the
other Services for plans and programs in support of the joint
integration of U.S. forces to face future security threats?
Answer. I enthusiastically support the emphasis on joint
integration that is so evident in the Army Transformation plan. I
intend to continue along the path toward even more jointness in
planning for the future. The Army depends heavily on its partners in
other services and the Army provides critical security, protection and
support to elements of other services throughout a typical campaign. We
must understand and even embrace those interdependencies. I would be in
favor of any initiatives that bring the services together in the
strategic planning stage, just like they are always teamed when
deployed and in harms way. The nature of the challenges to national
security today are such that no single service is likely to have all
that it takes to prevail in a campaign or contingency. For reasons of
collective effectiveness, efficiency, and budgetary discipline, we must
go about the task of shaping the future force jointly.
science and technology (s&t) 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.
If confirmed, how do you plan to increase the Army science and
technology program to meet the Secretary's goal?
Answer. We are a Nation at war. The Army continues to balance the
needs of the Current Force with those of Army Transformation.
space
Question. The Army has restructured its program executive office
for air and missile defense to include Army space efforts, and issued a
new Army space policy. Are you satisfied that current Department of
Defense management structures adequately support and protect Army
equities in space?
Answer. Current DOD management structures provide adequate support
for Army space equities. The process of developing joint concept and
doctrine provides an opportunity and a forum for the Army to actively
participate in the development of space architectures, programs and
systems to ensure that they will meet Army required capabilities.
Question. Are you satisfied with the current level of effort in the
Army related to space programs? Do you believe these efforts have the
right focus?
Answer. The Army has gained an increased appreciation for space-
based capabilities from OIF and OEF. The Army is actively working to
improve and integrate its space capabilities. Army efforts include new
material development and synchronization, soldier training initiatives,
force structure and organizational changes, as well as doctrinal
updates. The Army's focus has been to push space capabilities forward
and down to the tactical level, providing the warfighter with increased
capabilities. Focusing to support the warfighter is a good thing.
Question. The Army currently defines its space career field as a
subset of the information technology career field.
Answer. Space operations are centered on the use of and
exploitation of information. Space capabilities are currently centered
on gathering, providing, denying and transmitting information.
Question. Do you believe the information technology career field
structure is adequate to support Army space interests?
Answer. The Army's space capabilities are expanding and becoming
more diverse. The Army is currently involved in a year-long study to
determine its future space career field requirements and structure.
Question. Do you believe that the space career fields of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force should be integrated?
Answer. Jointness is always good. However, each Service has its own
unique operational requirements. The Army needs space personnel who
understand ground maneuver warfare and are trained and equipped to
operate in this medium.
missile defense
Management for procurement of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3
(PAC-3) system has transitioned to the Army, but proper alignment of
continuing ballistic missile defense research and development efforts
remains an open question.
Do you believe that PAC-3 should remain thoroughly integrated in
the ballistic missile defense system being developed by the Missile
Defense Agency?
Answer. Certainly. The Army systems are planned to be fully
integrated into the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). The Army
and MDA remain committed to ensure the integration of the Patriot PAC-3
program in the BMDS. Additionally, the Patriot retains the mission of
providing air and missile defense independently of the BMDS. As the
BMDS evolves its functions of detection, tracking, engagement, and
interception of threat missiles in all regimes of flight, the Army will
work with MDA as a team member of the robust BMDS architecture.
Question. What is your view of the best organizational and
management structure to support the spiral evolution of PAC-3 air and
missile defense capabilities?
Answer. The current structure is probably the best structure in
today's environment. The current management structure of the Combined
Aggregate Program, combines the Patriot and MEADS programs. By the
current International Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the Program
Manager, Lower Tier, is the General Manager of the NATO MEADS
Management and Logistics Agency (NAMEADSMA). NAMEADSMA has issued the
contract to the international consortium of U.S., Italian, and German
concerns to develop the MEADS system. The General Manager, a U.S. Army
officer provides the responsiveness and insight needed by the U.S.
membership. The incremental acquisition approach balances the needs of
evolving the Patriot system in the near term and development of the
objective MEADS system in what we believe will be the most cost
effective manner to meet the strategic, tactical, and operational needs
to provide the operational forces the AMD protection needed today and
in the future as the threat continues to change. Our ongoing
relationship with MDA ensures the integration and interoperabilty
continue and provides benefits to a challenging mission area.
low density/high demand forces
Question. If confirmed, how would you address the Army's challenge
in manning low density/high demand units such as military police, civil
affairs, and other units?
Answer. The Army is already undergoing its largest restructuring
effort in over 50 years to divest of Cold War capabilities and meet the
demands of the 21st century. This restructuring includes increases in
military police, civil affairs, intelligence, and other highly stressed
career fields. Our challenge centers on recruiting and retaining the
right volunteer force given current and anticipated force levels
required to support the global war on terrorism.
Question. Do you believe that the Army needs to field additional
such units?
Answer. We continue to assess current and evolving missions and
will invest in additional capabilities based on Combatant Commander
requirements.
prevention and response to sexual assault
Question. The Senate Armed Services Committee has aggressively
pursued reports of sexual assault in the military and demanded improved
efforts by leadership at all levels in the Military Departments to
prevent and respond to instances of sexual assault against members of
the Armed Forces. Legislative proposals are now pending which call for
the development of comprehensive policies and programs to prevent and
respond to sexual assault and violence against military members, to
include detailed reporting on an annual basis of instances of sexual
assault and actions taken in response to substantiated cases. If
confirmed as Secretary of the Army, you will be responsible for
carrying out the mandate of Congress to effectively deal with and
ultimately eliminate, through prevention and training, the crime of
sexual assault against military members in the Army. You would also be
responsible for accurate annual reporting of the incidence of sexual
assault and disposition of substantiated cases, including care for the
survivors of sexual assault.
Are you prepared to accept this responsibility, if confirmed, and
to assign the highest priority to this mandate?
Answer. I concur with the Secretary of Defense that sexual assault
will not be tolerated in the Department of Defense. Sexual assault is a
societal problem based on the criminal misconduct of individual actors.
In light of the individual criminal responsibility, the ability to
wholly eradicate the problem is limited. However, I intend to do
everything within my power to improve on prevention and response to
sexual assault in the Army. I am aware that the Army has taken
significant steps in the last year to improve on this issue.
Question. What is your understanding of the problem as it exists
today, including the steps taken by the Army in the last 7 months to
address the problem of sexual assault.
Answer. In the last 7 months, the Army created a Department of the
Army Sexual Assault Task Force which studied the problems of sexual
assault within the Army in the deployed and garrison environment. The
task force developed an action plan which is currently in the process
of being implemented addressing a wide range of issues including, but
not limited to, improved services to victims, improved reporting
procedures, and Army-wide training on sexual assault prevention and
response. I will insure the complete implementation of the action plan
and will remain continuously sensitive and vigilant to the issue of
sexual assault within the Army.
Question. What is your estimate of the types and amount of
resources required to adequately address this problem in the future?
Answer. I do not have the specifics of either Task Force Report. I
would not be surprised at a need for additional counselors,
investigators, and reporting mechanisms, but I cannot guess at the
requirements. But if confirmed, I would find out quickly.
human capital
Question. The Army has a very large civilian workforce which is
increasingly integral to support every aspect of the Army's worldwide
mission. In fiscal year 2004, Congress authorized the Department of
Defense to design and implement a National Security Personnel System,
to modernize the civilian workforce and provide needed flexibility for
management of the civilian workforce.
What is your vision for an effective human capital strategy for the
Army's civilian work force?
Answer. The Army civilian workforce has been and will continue to
be a major contributor to military readiness, providing continuity,
expertise, and commitment. The Army's Transformation strategy involves
developing an objective force that is more responsive, deployable, and
sustainable than the present force. Civilians must continue to perform
critical roles, from keeping warfighting organizations ready for
worldwide deployment today to building the sophisticated tools
necessary to maintain readiness tomorrow. Civilian workforce readiness
is critical to the Army's success and must be continuously addressed to
ensure its viability. NSPS provides an opportunity to develop
streamlined and flexible processes for recruiting, hiring, pay
administration, and performance management, within the framework of
merit principles, accommodation of veterans' preference, and respect
for employees' right to bargain. I agree with the NSPS Guiding
Principles of:
a. Putting mission first
b. Respecting the individual and protecting rights guaranteed
by law
c. Valuing talent, performance, leadership and commitment to
public service
d. Being flexible, understandable, credible, responsive and
executable
e. Ensuring accountability at all levels
f. Balancing human resource system interoperability with unique
mission requirements
g. Being competitive and cost effective
Question. What is your understanding of the National Security
Personnel System (NSPS) and the status of its implementation in the
Department of Defense today?
Answer. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004, signed by President Bush on November 24, 2003, allows DOD to
establish new personnel rules for the civilian workforce, within the
framework of merit principles, accommodation of veterans' preference,
and respect for employees' right to bargain. The law authorizing NSPS
provides a framework but does not prescribe the specific elements of
the new system. Secretary of the Navy Gordon England is the DOD Senior
Executive for NSPS. He is working with the components and OPM to
design, develop, establish, and implement NSPS. Proposed regulations
implementing NSPS will be jointly prescribed with the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management.
governance of the tricare health benefit
Question. In October 2003, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, issued a policy on governance of the DOD
health care benefit designed to greatly improve the administration of
TRICARE through the establishment of three geographical regional
commands, and supported by a health delivery system that ``focuses on
joint decisionmaking and effective resource allocation.'' Each of the
Service Secretaries was asked to provide a military flag officer or
Senior Executive Service civilian to lead one of three regions. To
date, the Army has declined to support this critical leadership
requirement. The committee believes that the role of the TRICARE
Regional Director is key to the effective administration of the uniform
health care benefit for all uniformed services members, retirees, and
family members and requires the sustained commitment of each of the
military departments. The committee further believes that service as
Director of a TRICARE region is a key qualification for future Army
medical leaders.
If confirmed, do you pledge to support the requirement for senior
flag officer engagement and accountability as a Regional Director for
the TRICARE program?
Answer. Managing health benefits is a significant challenge for any
organization. I am certain this is equally challenging for the Army.
The Army must provide a competitive health benefit for recruitment and
retention and meet the title 10 responsibilities to ensure a medically
ready and deployable force. Finally, the Army must provide the highest
quality care possible to that force wherever it is deployed. I
certainly would support the assignment of SES members to these jobs,
but I believe the decision to assign General Officers as TRICARE
Regional Office Directors requires much more detailed consideration. We
need to make sure we have the right people with requisite skills,
training, and professional development to successfully serve in these
important positions.
devolvement
Question. This year the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
devolved (transferred) several programs to the Services. Many of these
programs reside in OSD because of the inherent jointness of the
program.
If confirmed, how would you plan to maintain the integrity of those
programs devolved to the Army?
Answer. The Army will maintain the integrity of those programs by
enforcing the processes that establish joint program requirements and
ensuring appropriate funding levels are maintained. Any programs that
involve international partners, like PAC3/MEADs, will abide by the
international agreements guiding those programs. The Army will work
closely with OSD, its sister Services, and international partners to
ensure requirements are prioritized, resourced, and executed.
acquisition reform
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld testified that the cycle time for
major acquisition programs conducted over the past several decades
averages between 8 and 9 years. Others have stated that the cycle time
may be as long as 15 to 20 years. The Secretary stated that this cycle
time is not sufficiently responsive to urgent new challenges and
rapidly emerging technological developments.
What are your thoughts on specific steps that can be taken to
reduce the cycle time for major acquisition programs?
Answer. I understand that the cycle time for major acquisition
programs can take longer than desired. I will make it a top priority to
review the steps in the process to see if any reduction in time can be
achieved.
Question. Do you see a need for any changes to the existing
acquisition structure and/or acquisition chain of command?
Answer. The current structure is fine until my review is complete.
acquisition workforce
Question. There has been considerable pressure to reduce
acquisition organizations on the basis of absolute numbers. DOD has
reduced its acquisition workforce approximately 50 percent, from the
end of fiscal year 1990 to the end of fiscal year 1999, while the
workload has remained essentially constant, and even increased by some
measures.
Are you concerned that reductions to the acquisition workforce will
have a negative effect on program management, and if so, how do you
plan to address this problem?
Answer. The Army is not asking for an increase. Programs are
managing the increased work load by shifting current personnel. By
applying risk management to the manufacturing and inspection process,
personnel have been moved to needed position. There is an Army
initiative to develop more scientists and interns.
Question. As the DOD continues to emphasize contracting out and
competitive sourcing, the skills, training and experience of the
acquisition workforce will be critical in effectively managing these
contracts. In addition, the Department's Acquisition Workforce 2005
Task Force has reported that DOD will be faced with a significant
demographic challenge as 50 percent of the remaining acquisition
workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years.
Do you believe the current acquisition workforce has the quality
and training to not only adapt to new acquisition reforms, but also
respond successfully to the increased workload and responsibility from
managing privatization efforts?
Answer. There are several programs in place to attract high quality
personnel. The Director of Acquisition Career Management has
implemented several initiatives to ensure the workforce continues to
evolve as a professional workforce. These include complying with
projected changes in DAWIA II, enforcing higher certification standards
and supporting advanced training for workforce members. One of my
priorities will be to evaluate the effectiveness of these initiatives.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Secretary of the Army?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Francis J. Harvey
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 15, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Francis J. Harvey, of California, to be Secretary of the Army, vice
Thomas E. White, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Francis J. Harvey, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Francis J. Harvey
Dr. Fran Harvey is a successful business executive who has
extensive experience in leading and managing large organizations,
particularly program based organizations involved in the development
and deployment of technology and systems. As part of his results
oriented management approach, Dr. Harvey places major emphasis on
business transformation especially through process improvement in
combination with the application of information technology.
His broad base of experience has been multi-dimensional in terms of
industries, functions, and markets. His industrial experience is very
diverse and includes aerospace and defense, environmental and
infrastructure, energy, government facilities management,
communications and information systems and electronics. In the defense
sector, Dr. Harvey has been involved in over 20 major systems
development and production programs across a spectrum of platforms
including submarines, surface ships, aircraft, tanks, missiles, and
satellites.
Over the course of his 28-year career with Westinghouse (1969-
1997), Dr. Harvey had direct responsibility for the research and
development, engineering, manufacturing planning and project management
functions with major emphasis in the defense and energy areas. In
addition, he has extensive experience in acquisitions, divestitures and
joint ventures as well as international experience, particularly in
Western Europe, Japan, and China. Dr. Harvey also served in the
Pentagon for 1 year as a White House Fellow, working in the immediate
office of Secretary of Defense Harold Brown.
In his last position with Westinghouse, Dr. Harvey was the Chief
Operating Officer of the Corporation's $6 Billion Industries and
Technology Group, which consisted of six global businesses (Power
Generation, Energy Systems, Government & Environmental Services,
Process Control, Communications and Information Systems and Thermo
King) operating in 67 countries with 40,000 people. Under his
leadership, a comprehensive change and improvement program to transform
the organization was initiated and resulted in significant operational
improvements.
Prior to becoming Chief Operating Officer, he served as President
of the Corporation's $3 billion Defense and Electronics business, which
was acquired by Northrop Grumman. This business consisted of six
segments: Combat Systems; Battle Space Management; Command, Control and
Communications; Information Systems; Naval and Security Systems. He
also served as President of the Corporation's Government and
Environmental Services Co. which consisted of three business units--
Department of Energy Facilities Management, U.S. Navy Nuclear Reactor
Development and Procurement, and Environmental Services. As the Vice
President of Science and Technology, he directed a 1,000 person center
which developed and applied technology in 8 major areas: advanced
materials, microelectronics, advanced energy systems, power
electronics, materials engineering, information and decisionmaking,
advanced electromechanical systems and environmental.
Since leaving Westinghouse in 1997, Dr. Harvey has served on twelve
different corporate and nonprofit boards, three of which are portfolio
companies of the Carlyle Group. In 2000 and 2001, he was the interim
COO of two high-tech start-ups. Most recently, he was Vice Chairman and
served as acting CEO of the IT Group, Inc., and currently is the Vice
Chairman of Duratek
Dr. Harvey began his career in 1969 as a senior engineer at the
Westinghouse Science and Technology Center, where he published over 50
scientific papers and reports and was awarded 12 patents.
Dr. Harvey obtained his BS degree from Notre Dame and his PhD from
the University of Pennsylvania in Metallurgy and Materials Science.
CAREER CHRONOLOGY
DURA TEK, INC--Vice Chairman............................ 2002-Present
IT GROUP, INC--Vice Chairman and Acting CEO............. 2001-2002
CORPORATE DIRECTOR--Ten Companies....................... 1997-Present
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION:...................... Chief Operating Officer, Industries and Technology 1996-1997
Group, Pittsburgh, PA................................
President, Electronic Systems, Baltimore, MD.......... 1995-1996
President, Government and Environmental Services Co., 1994-1995
Pittsburgh, PA.......................................
Vice President, Science and Technology Center, 1993-1994
Pittsburgh, PA.......................................
General Manager, Marine Division, Sunnyvale, CA....... 1986-1993
General Manager, Electrical Systems Division, Hunt 1984-1986
Valley, MD...........................................
Engineering Manager, Marine Division, Sunnyvale, CA... 1982-1984
New Plant Planning Manager, Marine Division, 1981-1982
Sunnyvale, CA........................................
Deputy Program Manager, Marine Division, Sunnyvale, CA 1979-1981
White House Fellow, Department of Defense, Washington, 1978-1979
DC...................................................
Senior Engineer and Fellow Engineer, Science and 1969-1975
Technology Center, Pittsburgh, PA....................
general background
Education
Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania (1969), Metallurgy and Material
Science.
BS University of Notre Dame (1965), Metallurgical Engineering and
Material Science.
Honors and Awards
Tau Beta Pi
Outstanding Young Men of America
Alpha Sigma Mu
Westinghouse Patent Awards
NSF Fellowship
White House Fellowship
Publications and Patents
Author/co-author of 18 Scientific Papers
Author/co-author of 39 Westinghouse Research Reports
Inventor/co-inventor of 12 patents
Boards
Duratek, Inc. (Executive, Audit, Comp. Comm.)
ViaCLIX, Inc. (2000-2002)
IT Group, Inc. (Executive, Comp. Comm.)
Akula Software, Inc. (2000-2002)
Kuhlman Electric Corp (Comp. Comm.)
ArtMet.com (2000-2001)
Bridge Bank (Audit, Comp. Comm.)
Army Science Board (1998-2000)
Gardner Technologies
Powerize.com (1998-2000)
Santa Clara University (Board of Regents)
Professional and Civic Activities
Professional Societies
TMS (1965-Present)
ACS (1972-1990)
ASNE (1986-1995)
ASP (1988-Present)
SNAME (1989-1996)
AIA (1995-1996)
Special Olympics--Westmoreland, County, PA (1974-1978, Exec.
Committee)
Santa Clara County Manufacturers Association (1986-1993)
San Jose Museum of Art (1988-1992; Board of Trustees)
Jaycees-Franklin Reg. Chapter, PA, (1972-1977; VP, President,
Chairman)
San Jose Symphony (1992-1993; Board of Directors)
Boy Scouts of America--Westmoreland Fayette Council, PA (1974-1976)
United Way of Santa Clara County 1988-1992; Campaign Cabinet, Vice
Chairman)
Personal
Married with two adult children
Wine
Golf
European History
Skiing
Astronomy
Classical Music and Opera
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Francis J.
Harvey 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.)
Francis Joseph Harvey II.
2. Position to which nominated:
Secretary of the Army.
3. Date of nomination:
September 15, 2004.
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 8, 1943; La Trobe, PA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Mary Louise Dziak Harvey.
7. Names and ages of children:
Francis Joseph Harvey III (36 years old).
Jonathan Charles Harvey (33 years old).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Latrobe High School (1957-1961) Diploma.
University of Notre Dame (1961-1965) BS, 1965.
University of Pennsylvania (1965-1969) PhD, 1969.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Self Employed, Los Gatos, CA 1997-Present
DURA TEK, Inc., Vice Chairman.
IT Group, Inc., Vice Chairman & Acting CEO.
Corporate Director, Ten Companies.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Chief Operating Officer, Industries and Technology
Group, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996-1997
President, Electronic Systems, Linthicum, MD, 1995-
1996
President, Government and Environmental Services Co.,
Pittsburgh, PA, 1994-1995
Vice President, Science and Technology Center,
Pittsburgh, PA, 1993-1994
General Manager, Marine Division, Sunnyvale, CA, 1986-
1993
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
White House Fellow (1978-1979)
Army Science Board (1998-2000)
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.
Duratek, Inc., (1999 to Present), Director, Vice Chairman
Santa Clara University (1999 to Present), Regent
Kuhlman Electric Corp. (2000 to Present), Director
Bridge Bank (2001 to Present), Director
Gardner Technologies, Inc. (2002 to Present), Director
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
The Duquesne Club
The Metallurgy Society
Astronomical Society of the Pacific
Laurel Valley Golf Club
La Rinconanda 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.
Lifetime member of the 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.
2004 Republican National Committee, $1,000
2004 Republican National Committee, $2,740
2003 Republican National Committee, $360
2002 Republican National Committee, $475
2001 Republican National Committee, $975
2000 Republican National Committee, $150
Tom Campbell Campaign, $1,000
Campbell Victory Committee, $2,500
Jim Cuneen Campaign, $450
Victory 2000 California, $1,000
1999 Republican National Committee, $150
George W. Bush Campaign, $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.
Tau Beta Pi
Alpha Sigma Mu
NSF Fellowship
Outstanding Young Men of America
Westinghouse Patent Awards
White House Fellowship
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``A Steady-State electrochemical Study of the Kinetics of the
Reaction of Water Vapor with Liquid Pb-Te Alloys'' with G.R. Belton,
Heterogeneous Kinetics at Elevated Temperatures, Plenum Press, 1970.
``The Rate of Vaporization of Tungsten in Argon'', Met. Trans.,
3:1972 (1972).
``The High Temperature Oxidation of Tungsten in O2-Argon
Mixtures'' Met. Trans.4:1513 (1973).
``The High Temperature Oxidation of Tungsten in CO2-
Argon Mixtures'' Met.Trans. 5:35 (1974).
``Gas Transport Controlled Oxidation of Tungsten,'' Gordon Research
Conference, 1973.
``The Co-Ti-C System at 1100 C, with R. Kossowsky, Met. Trans.,
5:790 (1974).
``Failure of Incandescent Tungsten Filaments by hot Spot Growth,''
J. Illuminating Eng. Soc., 3:295 (1974).
``The High Temperature Oxidation of Tungsten in H2O-
Argon Mixtures,'' Met. Trans., 5:1189 (1974).
``The Kinetics of Texture Development and Sulfur Removal in
Oriented Silicon Iron, with W.M. Swift and K. Foster, Met. Trans. B,
6B:377 (1975).
``The Role of Plasma Heating Devices in the Electric Energy
Economy'' with M.G. Fey, Met. Eng, Quarterly, 16(2):27 (1976).
``A Model of Particle Heat Transfer in Arc Heated Gas Streams''
with T .N. Meyer, R.E. Kothmann and M.G. Fey, Proceeding of Int'I Round
Table on the Study and Application of Transport Phenomena in Thermal
Plasmas, Odeillo, France, September 1975.
``Mass Transfer Model of Halogen Doped Incandescent with
Application to the W-O-Br Systems, Met. Trans. A, 7A:1167 (1976).
``A Model of Heat and Mass Transfer from Liquid Metal Droplets in
Arc Heated Gas Streams,'' with T.N. Meyer, Gordon Conference on Plasma
Chemistry (1976).
``Magnetite Spheriodization Using an AC Arc Heater, with M.G. Fey
and C.W. Wolfe, I&EC Process Design and Development. 16:108 (1977).
``The Use of Complex Equilibria Calculations in the Design of High
Temperature Processes,'' presented at the 1977 Fall Meeting of the
Metallurgical Society, Chicago, October 1977.
``A Model of Liquid Metal Droplet Vaporization in Arc Heater Gas
Streams'' with T.N. Meyer, Met. Trans. B 9B:615 (1978).
``Development of a Process for High Capacity Arc Heater Production
of Silicon for Solar Arrays,'' with M.G Fey, TV.N. Meyer, R.H. Read and
F.G. Arcella, presented at the 13th Photo Voltaic Specialists
Conference of the IEEE, June 1978.
``Thermodynamic Aspects of Gas-Metal Heat Treating Reactions,''
Met. Trans. A, 9A:1507 (1978).
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.
???.
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.
Francis J. Harvey.
This 29th day of September, 2004.
[The nomination of Francis J. Harvey was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on October 7, 2004, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on November 16, 2004.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Richard Greco, Jr. 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 do. The establishment of the combatant commands, the
definition of responsibilities, and most importantly, the focus on
``jointness'' have enhanced the readiness and warfighting capabilities
of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. The performance of our joint forces in the conflicts that
have ensued after enactment of Goldwater-Nichols would indicated that
implementation of these reforms appears to be 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 an improvement in joint warfighting capabilities. Our military is
now stronger, faster, and more lethal because our Services can work
better together employing joint systems and resources.
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.
Question. 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. Periodic review is always appropriate. If confirmed, I am
committed to working with the Secretary of the Navy relative to any
desired changes to financial management and provide appropriate
recommendations.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and
Comptroller)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be responsible for advising the
Secretary of the Navy on financial management matters and for directing
and managing all financial activities and operations of the Department
of the Navy.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what additional duties, if
any, do you expect that the Secretary of the Navy will prescribe for
you?
Answer. I am not aware of any additional duties at this time but
the Secretary is involved in several defense-wide taskings from the
Secretary of Defense, such as implementation of the National Security
Personnel System. I would expect to support these activities as part of
his leadership team.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller)?
Answer. My education and professional experience from graduate
school onward have been in the area of finance, particularly corporate
finance. After being graduated from the University of Chicago Graduate
School of Business with an MBA in finance, I worked at The Scowcroft
Group, advising hedge funds on the risks of international investing.
After joining Stern Stewart I began to work as a financial advisor to
Fortune 500 corporations in the areas of corporate finance, performance
measurement and management, and incentive compensation. I began Stern
Stewart's Italian operations, bringing modern American principles of
corporate finance to many major companies and banks in Italy, with
significant success. We became known as the ``outside CFOs.'' After
September 11, 2001 I sought to enter government to help in the global
war on terrorism and applied for the White House Fellowship, which I
received and subsequently assigned to the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, where I helped the Secretary and his staff with numerous
diverse issues. During my year as a White House Fellow I was assigned
to Baghdad where I served as an advisor in the area of private sector
development, and upon my return was appointed Acting Director of
Private Sector Development for the Coalition Provisional Authority
Representative Office, a position which I held until the dissolution of
the CPA in June 2004.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. Since I can remember, I have been dedicated to education,
self-study, and professional training, and the value that they bring
for self-enhancement and performance improvement. Realizing my lack of
experience within the Department of the Navy, I intend to avail myself
of all resources--especially the wealth of experience held by my
colleagues--to improve my expertise and preparedness for this position.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what would your relationship as Assistant
Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller) be with
each of the following?
The Secretary of the Navy.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management
and Comptroller) is the principal assistant and advisor to the
Secretary and Under Secretary of the Navy on fiscal and budgetary
matters. The Assistant Secretary (Financial Management and Comptroller)
also performs such other duties as the Secretary or Under Secretary may
prescribe.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Navy.
Answer. Please see the answer to A above.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Navy.
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure that their interests are
represented in recommending financial alternatives to the Secretary of
the Navy. I would work to ensure that financial management activities
of the Department support their respective portfolios.
Question. The Chief of Naval Operations.
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to providing the support that
the CNO requires in order to execute best his duties and
responsibilities and achieve the mission of the Navy.
Question. The Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to providing the support that
the CMC requires in order to execute best his duties and
responsibilities and achieve the mission of the Marine Corps.
Question. Elements of the Navy responsible for financial management
and comptroller.
Answer. If confirmed, I would direct and manage immediate staff
elements of my office and provide policy and oversight for all elements
of the Navy and Marine Corps performing financial management functions.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force
for Financial Management.
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to working closely with the
Assistant Secretaries of the Army and Air Force in the area of
financial management to support the efforts of the Secretary of Defense
and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in order to facilitate
decisionmaking at all levels and achieve the strongest cooperation
between the services possible. I am committed to working to foster a
cordial and productive working relationship with these colleagues.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
Answer. In the role of Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial
Management and Comptroller), I will, if confirmed, work closely with
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in the development and
execution of the budgetary and fiscal policies and initiatives of the
President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Navy.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and
Comptroller)?
Answer. One major challenge is advising the Secretary, the CNO and
the Commandant on resource decisions to provide the capability to fight
the global war on terrorism in the most effective and efficient manner
necessary. The other major challenge is improving our business systems
to ensure that leadership of the Department of the Navy has ready
access to accurate information in a timely manner. In addition,
consistent with the efforts already underway at the Department of the
Navy, I would, if confirmed, continue to look at ways to improve
performance measurement and management.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller), the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to implement the
budgetary proposals and systems improvement plans of this
administration.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Financial Management and Comptroller)?
Answer. The Department under Assistant Secretary Avilles has made
great progress in providing accurate and timely information. If
confirmed, I am committed to continuous improvement in this area.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to studying the present
situation and developing a strategic plan of action including a
timeline.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller)?
Answer. I understand that the Department already has a financial
management improvement program that is being implemented and a plan to
begin deployment of a Navy Enterprise Resource Program. If confirmed,
my intent would be to lead actively and support these efforts.
civilian and military roles in the navy budget process
Question. What is your understanding of the division of
responsibility between the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial
Management and Comptroller) and the senior military officer responsible
for budget matters in the Navy's Financial Management and Comptroller
office in making program and budget decisions including the preparation
of the Navy Program Objective Memorandum, the annual budget submission,
and the Future Years Defense Program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will have the responsibility and the
authority for all budget matters within the Department of the Navy. The
officer who serves as the Director of the Office of Budget will serve
under my direct supervision and will be responsible to me for the
formulation, justification, and execution of the Department's budget.
The Navy and Marine Corps officers responsible for programming will
also serve as my principal military advisors in my capacity to oversee
development of the Department of the Navy program objectives memoranda.
business management modernization program
Question. For the past 3 years, the administration has pursued a
Business Management Modernization Program (BMMP) aimed, in part, at
correcting deficiencies in the Department's financial management and
ability to receive an unqualified ``clean'' audit. Two years ago,
Secretary Zakheim testified before the Senate Armed Service Committee's
Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee that DOD's financial
management modernization would be complete by 2007. At that time, he
stated, DOD would be able to provide a full, repeatable accounting of
resources and funding.
Do you expect the Navy to meet that 2007 time line for financial
modernization?
Answer. I would defer to OSD on the specific timeline and current
status. I understand that OSD's Business Management Modernization
effort has established a timeline for an initial phase that supports
DOD's 2007 goal of achieving a ``clean financial opinion.'' Modernizing
financial management in the Department of the Navy will be an ongoing,
long term effort with interim milestones. If confirmed, I would support
this effort.
Question. If that time line cannot be met, would you support
continuing the BMMP?
Answer. Establishing an architecture or framework to support our
business processes and improve system integrity and interoperability
makes good business sense. As I learn more about the program, it may
become evident that interim course corrections may be required in which
case I am committed to making appropriate recommendations.
Question. The BMMP advocates top-down leadership in establishing an
enterprise architecture for business systems modernization. The
Services, however, appear to be pursuing independent pilot programs for
modernizing business systems, despite the risk that a Service-led
approach could produce numerous incompatible systems.
Do you support an OSD-led approach to business modernization?
Answer. I support OSD leadership in this area.
Question. If so, what would you do to ensure such an approach takes
place?
Answer. As I have indicated, I am committed to working with my OSD
colleagues to foster a professional and productive relationship.
However, I am not familiar enough with the details of the program to
make a recommendation that would ensure OSD leadership.
Question. A critical requirement of the BMMP is an ``enterprise
architecture'' that would establish standards and requirements for
modernization or new acquisition of business information technology
systems.
In your view, why is establishing an effective enterprise
architecture so important?
Answer. An enterprise architecture, as I understand it, provides
the blueprint or framework within which business processes and
supporting systems can be integrated and standardized.
Question. When can Congress expect to see a fully developed
enterprise architecture?
Answer. I would defer to the appropriate leadership at OSD to
respond to the specific timelines associated with the delivery of a
fully developed architecture.
Question. One of the key facets of the BMMP is the establishment of
functional domains.
Are you supportive of the current construct, or, if confirmed,
would you plan to advocate revising these functional domains?
Answer. Again, I am not familiar enough with the details of this
program. If confirmed, I would work with OSD leadership to make any
appropriate changes.
gao recommendations for reform
Question. In testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee's
Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee this year, the
Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, offered two
suggestions for legislative consideration which, in his words, are
intended ``to improve the likelihood of meaningful, broad-based
financial management and related business reform at DOD.'' These
included establishing a senior management position in the Department to
spearhead DOD-wide business transformation efforts, and giving the
leaders of DOD's functional areas, or ``domains,'' control of systems
investments.
What is your view of these suggestions? Do you agree with this
statement?
Answer. I have only recently received a copy of Mr. Walker's
testimony, and I have not had a chance to review it.
Question. Mr. Walker testified that the Department of Defense
should fix its financial management systems before it tries to develop
auditable financial statements. He explained that: ``Given the size,
complexity, and deeply ingrained nature of the financial management
problems facing DOD, heroic end-of-the-year efforts relied on by some
agencies to develop auditable financial statement balances are not
feasible at DOD. Instead, a sustained focus on the underlying problems
impeding the development of reliable financial data throughout the
Department will be necessary and is the best course of action.''
Do you agree with this statement?
Answer. I understand that the Department of Defense's financial
systems date back many decades. As with any system of such age, legacy
problems are inevitable. However, this does not mean that one does not
try to achieve optimal improvement or have a vision to work towards.
government performance and results act (gpra)
Question. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Financial Management and Comptroller), what would your
responsibilities be with respect to the requirements of the GPRA to set
specific performance goals and measure progress toward meeting those
goals?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the ongoing efforts of both
the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy to meet the
requirements of GPRA, and I will work to ensure that performance
measures are integrated into the budgetary and financial systems.
Question. What additional steps can the Navy take to fulfill the
goals of GPRA to link budget inputs to measurable performance outputs?
Answer. The Department of the Navy can further expand and develop
meaningful performance metrics and integrate them into the budgeting
and decision making process. If confirmed, I am committed to studying
what has been achieved already and to making appropriate
recommendations for areas of improvement.
leasing major weapon systems
Question. What is your opinion of leasing versus buying major
capital equipment?
Do you believe that leasing is/would be a viable and cost-effective
option for procuring Department of the Navy equipment?
Answer. I understand that the Department of the Navy currently
leases certain equipment, such as computer servers. If confirmed, I
would need to look at each case individually and conduct a detailed
business case analysis before being able to determine if buying or
leasing is the better choice.
military pay systems
Question. The GAO recently completed a report that identified
extensive problems with the military pay system. Modernizing the
military pay system is part of the longer term Business Management
Modernization Program, however, it is essential that corrections be
made immediately in this system to minimize personal hardships on
service men and women and their families.
What will you do to address these pay problems in both the short
and long term?
Answer. I recognize that accurate and reliable pay is critical to
morale and retention of our sailors and marines. If confirmed, I am
committed to addressing both the short and long term problems
identified in the report, and will work to ensure our personnel have
the best possible military pay system.
working capital funds
Question. Are there any changes you would recommend in the policies
governing working capital funds in the Department of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, it would be my intention to review carefully
the policies associated with the working capital fund and determine
what, if any, changes would be desirable.
Question. Do you believe the scope of activities funded through
working capital funds should be increased or decreased?
Answer. Periodic review of alternative financing mechanisms is
always beneficial. If confirmed, I will review the scope of activities
funded through the working capital fund.
travel and government purchase cards
Question. The increased usage of government travel and purchase
cards were significant financial and acquisition reform initiatives of
the past decade. Concerns, however, have been raised in the past
several years about the controls put in place for both the travel and
purchase cards.
What is the status of Department of the Navy's efforts to ensure
proper controls are in place that will not jeopardize the benefits
accrued from the proper use of these cards?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of the Navy,
under the direction of Assistant Secretary Aviles, has made significant
progress in improving the processes and controls for use of these
cards. A combined effort involving senior leadership engagement,
effective communications and training have resulted in reduced number
of cases of misuse and record low delinquencies. If confirmed, I would
support a continuation of these efforts.
authorization for national defense programs
Question. Do you believe that an authorization pursuant to section
114 of title 10, U.S. Code, is necessary before funds for operation and
maintenance, procurement, research and development, and military
construction may be made available for obligation by the Department of
Defense?
Answer. It is my understanding that for certain areas including
military construction, new starts, and multiyear procurements, funds
cannot be released until specific authorization is received. I believe
it to be a key part of the overall budget process and as such it is
important to have an authorization act before releasing funds.
incremental funding of ships
Question. Recently, the Department of the Navy has begun relying on
incremental funding for the procurement of ships.
In your view, what are the likely benefits or advantages of
incremental funding?
Answer. I have not yet had an opportunity to study an objective
analysis of alternative funding mechanisms for shipbuilding but, if
confirmed, I will give careful consideration to innovative methods of
meeting future requirements and I look forward to working with this
committee on these matters.
Question. What are the likely costs or disadvantages of such
funding?
Answer. See above.
Question. How do you weigh these competing costs and benefits, and
what approach do you believe the Navy should take toward incremental
funding of ships?
Answer. See above.
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
Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Richard Greco, Jr., follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 13, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Richard Greco, Jr., of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of
the Navy, vice Dionel M. Aviles.
______
[The biographical sketch of Richard Greco, Jr., which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Richard Greco, Jr.
Richard Greco, Jr. was appointed a White House Fellow on
June 28, 2002. He was assigned to the Immediate Office of the
Secretary of Defense, where he served as a special assistant to
Secretary Rumsfeld. His activities comprised budgeting and
finance, public affairs, litigation settlement, international
aid negotiation, and economic planning for post-conflict Iraq.
In May 2003, he was assigned to Baghdad where he served for 6
weeks as a special advisor to Presidential Envoy and
Administrator of Iraq L. Paul Bremer in the areas of private
sector development and financial sector modernization. When his
White House Fellowship ended, Mr. Greco was appointed Acting
Director of Private Sector Development for the Coalition
Provisional Authority Representative's Office, where his role
was to serve as a liaison between the international private
sector and the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad.
After the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority in
June 2004, he was, asked to serve as a consultant to the Office
of the Secretary of Defense in the area of public affairs.
Mr. Greco came to government service from the corporate
finance advisory firm of Stern Stewart & Co., where he was a
vice president and managing director. He founded and led
Ambrosetti Stern Stewart Italia, a joint venture in Italy that
specialized in corporate valuation, fundamental analysis,
financial market research, and incentive compensation design.
He was a principal advisor to companies in Italy's automotive,
retail, and commercial and investment banking sectors and was a
principal advisor on two corporate finance transactions for his
Italian clients. In addition, Mr. Greco was a regular lecturer
at the Luigi Bocconi School of Business in Milan, the LUISS
University School of Management in Rome, and the Italian
Association of Financial Analysts. He also served on the board
of the Italian-language journal of Analytical Finance, AF.
While at Stern Stewart, Mr. Greco also founded and managed the
Government Services Division where he specialized in assisting
government agencies and State-owned enterprises with the
implementation of modem corporate finance practices.
Before joining Stern Stewart in 1997, Mr. Greco was an
associate at The Scowcroft Group, an international investment
advisory firm founded and directed by General Brent Scowcroft,
National Security Adviser to Presidents George H.W. Bush and
Gerald Ford. At The Scowcroft Group, Mr. Greco advised hedge
fund managers and American corporate executives on managing the
risks of investing in foreign markets. Also while at The
Scowcroft Group, Mr. Greco assisted former President Bush and
General Scowcroft in reviewing and editing their book on the
foreign policy of the first Bush administration, A World
Transformed.
Mr. Greco is the Founder, President, and Chairman of the
Board of The Montfort Academy, a classical high school for boys
in Katonah, New York. In 2001, Mr. Greco was elected to the
Council on Foreign Relations term member program. He is widely
published and is a frequent lecturer in the areas of post-
conflict reconstruction, corporate finance, American foreign,
policy, and education. In 2004, he was awarded the Ellis Island
Medal of Honor. Also in 2004, the National Federation of
Italian-American Societies named Mr. Greco Man of the Year.
Mr. Greco holds an MBA in finance from The University of
Chicago Graduate School of Business, an MA from The Johns
Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, and a BS in Chemistry Summa Cion Laude,
In Cursa Honorion from Fordham University. He lives with his
wife Marla and their four children in Yonkers, New York.
------
[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 Richard Greco
in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Richard Greco, Jr.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management).
3. Date of nomination:
September 13, 2004.
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:
Bronx, NY; March 5, 1969.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Marla DeGaetano.
7. Names and ages of children:
Mary, 4; Richard III, 3; Cecilia, 2; and Claudia, 8 months.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Pelham Memorial High School, June 1987.
Fordham University, BS, May 1991.
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, no degree
granted.
University of Chicago, MBA, December 1996.
The Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, MA, May 1997.
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 Scowcroft Group, Associate, May 1996-May 1997, Washington, DC.
Stern Stewart & Co., Vice President and Managing Director, July
1997-August 2002. Also co-Managing Director of Ambrosettie Stern
Stewart Italia, a joint venture in Italy between Stern Stewart and an
Italian consulting firm 1998-2000, New York, NY, and Milan, Italy.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, White House Fellow, September
2002-October 2003.
Coalition Provisional Authority, Acting Director of Private Sector
Development, November 2003-June 2004, Washington, DC, and New York, NY.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Consultant, July 2004-Present,
New York, NY.
The Montfort Academy, Consultant, July 2004-Present, Katonah, NY.
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.
The Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service retained
Stern Stewart & Co. in 1998 to conduct an audit of the value-based
financial management system that Stern Stewart had implemented at USPS
4 years earlier. As an associate at Stern Stewart & Co. in 1998, I
conducted this audit.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
The Montfort Academy, Trustee and President (will resign if
confirmed).
The Children First Foundation, Trustee (will resign if confirmed).
Cancer Support Network, Director (will resign if confirmed).
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Council on Foreign Relations, Term Member.
Columbus Citizens Foundation (Membership pending).
American Turkish Council, member of Defense subcommittee.
Army Navy Club of Washington, DC.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
Member of the Advisory Board, New York Young Republican Club, Inc.,
2002-Present.
(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 contribution.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Ellis Island Medal of Honor, 2004.
Man of the Year Award, National Federation of Italian American
Societies, 2004.
White House Fellowship, 2002-2003.
Johns Hopkins SAIS Bologna Center Half-tuition Fellowship, 1994.
Fordham University, Full Presidential Scholarship, 1987-1991.
Membership in Phi Beta Kappa, Kappa Gamma Alpha, Alpha Mu Gamma.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Italy-U.S.: the Strength of Their Relationship. America Oggi.
October 12, 2003.
Military Compensation--The Case for a More Flexible System. Stern
Stewart Evaluation Report. April 2001.
National Performance Review--A Step in the Right Direction. Stern
Stewart Evaluation Report. July 2000.
The Creation of Value in the Italian Banking System. Financial
Analysis. June 2000. (In Italian).
Best Practices in Valuation Methodology and Estimation of Cost of
Capital among Italian Financial Analysts. Journal of the Association of
Italian Financial Analysts. October 1999. (In Italian).
Estimation of the Market Risk Premium: Evidence from the United
States Market. Financial Analysis. October 1999. (In Italian).
The Strength of EVA for the Public Sector. Il Sole 24 Ore. October
6, 1998. (In Italian) (with Fabio Fedel).
The Operationalization of Economic Value Added in the Firm. (In
Italian). Journal of the Association of Italian Financial Analysts.
October 1998.
Turkey at the Crossroads. White House Weekly. Vol. 17(27) 1996.
(with Arnold Kanter).
The Markets Bet on Italy: So Do We. International Political
Economy. Vol. 3(9) 1996. (with Marvin Zonis).
The Markets are Making a Smart Bet on Italy. Economic Times (The
Conference Board). Vol. 7(6) 1996.
Proceedings of the 1991 International Meeting of the
Electrophoresis Society. Isolation of Metallothionein from Cadmium-
contaminated Isopods. Richard Greco, Donald Clarke, Grace Vernon, and
Ruth Witkus. 1991.
Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metals in Primary Consumers. Vernon
G., Greco R., Heisey R., Gonazalez G. & Witkus R. 1990.
Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Electron Microscopy
Society of America. Localization of Heavy Metals in the Hepatopancreas
of the Terrestrial Isopod Oniscus asellus. Vernon G., Greco R., &
Witkus R. 1989.
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.
American Turkish Council (April 5, 2004)--Washington, DC, Business
Opportunities in Iraq.
Coalition of Italian American Organizations--New York, NY (February
26, 2004), Perspectives on Iraqi Reconstruction.
Council for the United States and Italy at the Brookings
Institution (February 12, 2004)--Washington, DC, Reflections on
Rebuilding the Iraqi Economy.
Young Presidents Organization (YPO) (October 20-26, 2003)--
Florence, Italy Economic Development Strategies for Emerging Countries
with a Focus on Iraq.
The Forum Club (September 9, 2003)--New York, NY, The
Reconstruction of Iraq--Historical Perspectives.
Ministry of Commerce, Government of Singapore (July 15, 2003),
Seminar on Iraq: An Overview of Developments and Business
Opportunities.
Equity International, The Iraqi Reconstruction Conference (July 2,
2003), Doing Business in Iraq. Official Coalition Provisional Authority
Address to Conference.
The Jordanian-American Business Association (JABA) and the American
Embassy in Amman (June 5, 2003) Keynote Speaker at a co-sponsored
conference entitled, ``Doing Business in Iraq.''
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) (April
10, 2003), Perspectives on Operation Iraqi Freedom and on the Business
of Defense.
The Council for the United States and Italy, 19th Annual Young
Leaders Conference, Atlanta GA (March 30, 2003) After dinner
presentation, The Bush Administration's Policy in Iraq.
National Public Radio (NPR), All Things Considered--Houston TX
(March 21, 2003) The atrocities of the Saddam Hussein's regime--an
interview.
Katonah, New York Public Library (March 19, 2003) The Army Corps of
Engineers--the Face of America Abroad.
The Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, (October 2002)
Debate: Resolved, The United States Should Remove Saddam Hussein by
Force Regardless of International Support.
The Montfort Academy, Katonah, NY, (October 2001, March 2002) On
Being a Renaissance Man.
Excellence in Government Conference, Washington, DC--(August 2001).
Introduction to the Balanced Scorecard in the Public Sector. (Corporate
Sponsor of Balanced Scorecard Session at conference.)
The Italian Association of Financial Analysts--Milan, Italy
(October 2000) Internet Stocks are Still Overvalued.
The Italian Association of Financial Analysts--Milan, Italy (April
2000, October 1999, May 6, 1999, February 24, 1999) Corporate Valuation
in Italy--What does the market tell us about future expectations of
Italian firms?
The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies--The
Bologna Center (February 11, 1999) From Government Collapse in Italy to
Revolution in Turkey--How do Companies deal with Country Risk.
Bocconi University--Milan, Italy (October 1998), Case studies in
Economic Value Added.
Luiss Management University--Rome, Italy (July 16, 1998), Selected
Methodologies of Security Analysis.
Infonex Conference--Ottawa, Canada (May 13, 1998), Measuring and
Optimizing Public Sector Service Delivery.
Bocconi University--Milan, Italy (April 29, 1998), Implementing
Economic Value Added in a Firm.
Fordham University--New York (November 15, 1997), The Future of the
United States--Italian Relationship.
CUNY Calandra Italian-American Institute Columbus Lecture Series--
New York (October 28, 1997) U.S. Foreign Policy Initiatives and their
Impact on the U.S.-Italian Relationship.
Radio appearance as Special Guest on Issues that Matter, a public-
interest program broadcast on 15 stations in Texas. Topic: Threats to
United States National Security in the First Decade of the 21st Century
(April 2, 1997).
The Young Republican National Leadership Conference--Washington DC
(March 1997) United States Leadership in Foreign Policy in the 21st
Century.
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.
Richard Grego, Jr.
This 28th day of September, 2004.
[The nomination of Richard Greco was reported to the Senate
by Chairman Warner on October 7, 2004, with the recommendation
that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination was confirmed
by the Senate on October 10, 2004.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Gen. Gregory S. Martin,
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 as Vice Director, Force Structure and Resources, on the
Joint Staff from May 1995 through July 1996 and as Commander, U.S. Air
Forces, Europe from January through August 2003.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. I fully support the implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols
Act. These reforms have clearly strengthened the warfighting readiness
and operational performance of our Armed Forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe the Department has embraced these reforms in both
spirit and intent. As is always the case whenever a major change is
implemented, the cultural transformation associated with that change
requires a certain amount of educational and process evolution. As I
review the conditions, as I remember them, in 1985 and compare them to
the partnership and teamwork I observe between the Services today, I
think we all can be proud of the progress that has been made in
implementing these defense reforms.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. From my perspective as a nominee to serve as a combatant
commander, I believe the clear message to all officers that their
opportunity to progress to positions of higher responsibility depended
on their knowledge, training and performance in the joint environment
cannot be overstated and has been a major impetus for bringing about
the changes envisioned by the Goldwater-Nichols Legislation. Further,
in addition to strengthening civilian control and clarifying chain of
command relationships, these reforms have provided a clear and
unambiguous delineation of the combatant commanders' responsibilities
and authorities as they relate to the planning and execution of their
missions. Last, I believe we have made significant progress in building
joint training, exercises and experiments in a way that brings our
forces together to create tremendous synergy and quantum increases in
combat power. As the Commander of United States Air Force in Europe, a
component of the U.S. European Command, I saw firsthand the positive
effects and synergy between the Services and the combatant commanders
in the strategic and operational planning processes, in the development
of requirements, and in the execution of our operations during a number
of contingencies including Operations Joint Forge, Joint Guardian,
Atlas Response, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. Goldwater-Nichols
strengthened our ability to train, prepare, plan, and execute as an
integrated force in a joint operational construct. I believe strongly
in that model.
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. These goals have been central to the development of a
more integrated, joint capability which in my mind is critical to the
Services, to DOD, and most importantly, to our country as we move
forward in an environment where we must be able to predict, respond and
prevail against conventional, unconventional and asymmetric threats.
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. The Goldwater-Nichols Act was implemented to build a more
joint military capability. It is important to constantly assess how
well we have progressed since implementing the defense reforms nearly
20 years ago with regard to their intended purpose. At this point, I do
not have any proposals; however, if I am confirmed, I will probably see
issues from a different perspective, and at that point, I will work
closely with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to review options and alternatives for presentation to
Congress.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command?
Answer. The duties and functions of the Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command include exercising command authority over all commands and
forces assigned to the Pacific Command and prescribing, organizing, and
employing the 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, 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 its 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 had operational and command responsibilities for
nearly 23 of my 34 years of service. In addition to many overseas
deployments, I have been stationed overseas for nearly 9 years
including more than 4 years in the Pacific. In addition to flying a
tour of combat during the Vietnam conflict, I served in various
positions culminating as Commander, 67th Tactical Fighter Squadron at
Kadena AB, Okinawa between 1981 and 1985. Since that period, I was
fortunate enough to have commanded three fighter wings, two of which
had global deployment responsibilities. As my career transitioned from
tactical orientation to operational and strategic duties, I served on
the Joint Staff and then just before my current position, I was the
Commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe with a second hat as the
Commander of NATO's AIRNORTH Headquarters. While in Europe, I was
responsible to the Commander of the U.S. European Command, for the
planning and execution of all U.S. and combined air and space
operations in support of European contingencies, such as Operations
Joint Forge, Joint Guardian and Northern Watch. Additionally, I was
responsible for planning and executing, the air operations required
through Europe to support the U.S. Central Command in conducting
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. While in Europe, I
worked with Air Chiefs, Chiefs of Defense and, in many cases, Ministers
of Defense or Heads of State to cement relations, improve
interoperability and achieve valuable access for basing and overflight
rights. I believe the opportunities I have had in planning and
conducting operational activities, coupled with the senior level
responsibilities I have been assigned in joint and combined
contingencies have prepared me for combatant commander duties.
If confirmed as the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, I will
work to continue the strong relationships and partnerships that have
been established by Admiral Fargo and his predecessors across the
Pacific region. Further I will ensure the preparedness of the forces
assigned to the U.S. Pacific Command to execute contingency and
operational plans in support of that command's assigned mission.
Lastly, I will ensure PACOM continues to capitalize on the broad
regional expertise and continuity afforded by component commanders and
subunified commanders to make certain our National and theater security
interests are met.
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. If confirmed and before taking command, I will have met
with each of the Service Chiefs, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the Secretary of Defense, many of the Defense Agency heads as
well as the OSD and State Department Pacific and East Asia Policy heads
to ensure my understanding of U.S. positions and relationships with the
Pacific Theater nations. Next I will complete a thorough orientation
with each of the PACOM staff divisions, subordinate organizations and
component commanders to ensure I am fully conversant with the issues
and challenges they face on a daily basis. Importantly, I will master
theater operational and contingency plans needed to fight and win any
conflict that may arise. Last, I will develop a carefully constructed
trip schedule to meet with appropriate military and civilian leadership
of the nations throughout the Pacific region to better understand their
concerns while continuing to present a consistent message of U.S.
policy. I expect this transition to take several months as I pursue
every opportunity to expand my knowledge and understanding.
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:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The chain of command flows from the President to the
Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders. The Secretary is my
immediate supervisor and I will report directly to him and provide the
best possible military advice to execute my duties and responsibilities
in the Pacific. As is custom and traditional practice, I will
communicate with the Secretary through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, on occasion, serves as the
acting Secretary in the absence of the Secretary. During these periods
my relationship with the Deputy Secretary will essentially mirror my
relationship with the Secretary. I will endeavor to provide him with
the best possible military advice and the same level of support as I
would the Secretary. Otherwise, I will support, consult with, and
coordinate with him in those areas and issues that the Secretary has
assigned him to lead for the Department.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, USD(P), is the
principal staff assistant and advisor to the SECDEF and DEPSECDEF for
all matters concerning the formation of national security and defense
policy and the integration and oversight of DOD policy and plans to
achieve national security objectives. CDR PACOM works for SECDEF, but
within these key areas of USD(P) responsibility, CDR PACOM ensures that
his staff works closely with OSD/P and Joint Staff counterparts in
responding to SECDEF initiatives and queries, as well as in advancing
PACOM initiatives. An example of such close coordination is the ongoing
initiative to improve global force posture.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence is the
principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on DOD intelligence
issues. The Under Secretary is my initial point of entry into OSD for
intelligence policy, organizational, and functional issues. The Under
Secretary also transmits the Secretary's instructions to DOD
intelligence activities.
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. Title
10, sec. 163, allows communications between the President or the
Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders to flow through the
Chairman in accordance with the Unified Command Plan. If confirmed, I
intend to keep the Chairman fully involved and informed by providing
appropriate recommendations regarding requirements, strategy, doctrine,
tactics, techniques, and procedures for the joint employment of Pacific
Command forces.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. Title 10, sec. 165 provides that, subject to the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, and subject to the
authority of combatant commanders, the Secretaries of Military
Departments are responsible for the administration and support of the
forces assigned to combatant commands. This responsibility is routinely
exercised within Service lines via the subordinate Service component
commander. On occasion it is important to exchange views personally and
directly with a Service Secretary on issues involving the preparedness
of forces and their administration and support.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. The Service Chiefs are responsible, in accordance with
Goldwater-Nichols, to organize, train, equip, and provide trained and
ready forces for combatant commanders to employ in their area of
responsibility. The full support and cooperation of the Service Chiefs
is important to the preparedness of assigned combat forces and the
missions directed by the Secretary of Defense. Also, as members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Chiefs have a lawful obligation to
provide military advice to the Secretary of Defense and President.
Individually and collectively, the Joint Chiefs are a source of
experience and judgment that can and should be called upon. If
confirmed, I intend to conduct a full dialogue with the Chiefs of all
Services.
Question. The other combatant commanders.
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the other combatant
commanders will be one of mutual support, continued dialogue, and
frequent face-to-face interaction. In today's security environment,
with special regard to the global campaign against terrorism, an
atmosphere of teamwork, cooperation, and sharing is critical to
executing U.S. national policy. As a supporting commander, I will do my
utmost to assist other commanders in the execution of their assigned
missions. As a supported commander, I would expect the same from fellow
combatant commanders.
major challenges and problems
Answer. I have reviewed and agree with Admiral Fargo's five top
command priorities for PACOM. They are:
Sustaining and Supporting the War on Terrorism
Improving Readiness and Joint Warfighting Capability
Improving Quality of Service for our Men and Women
Reinforcing the Constants in Asia-Pacific Security
Promoting Change and Improving our Asia-Pacific
Defense Posture
These goals positively address challenges that continue to impact
peace and stability in Asia and the Pacific. Challenges include:
Stability on the Korean Peninsula. Although the
likelihood of war is low, the stakes would be high if war
occurred, even higher if North Korea continues to pursue
nuclear weapons capabilities. Additionally, North Korea raises
the risk of WMD proliferation, and for that reason brings a
global dimension to this challenge.
Terrorism. Militant extremists are at work in South
East Asia, seeking to disrupt peaceful, law-abiding communities
striving for freedom and economic prosperity. U.S. Pacific
Command must continue to coordinate with other combatant
commanders and employ the entire spectrum of American strength
and resources, in cooperation with our regional friends and
allies to defeat this threat.
Potential for miscalculation, particularly across the
Taiwan Straits or in Kashmir. Rapid military modernization or
breakdown in regional relationships could build momentum and
add to a risk of hostilities.
Transnational threats--such as proliferation,
trafficking in humans or drugs, or piracy--recognize no
borders. We require a changed approach to meet these complex
security challenges.
Global Force transformation is key to meeting the challenges above.
I anticipate a broad and continuing effort to implement proposed
changes for an enduring, enhanced U.S. force posture that can respond
to the new threat context of the 21st century.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. As is evident, the problems and challenges facing the U.S.
Pacific Command reflect a new security environment, substantially
different than that of the 20th century Cold War. This new environment
is complex, necessitating transformation of our posture and processes.
Our alliances and friendships with regional neighbors remain eminently
important, and a joint approach to solving problems remains key.
Working closely with the Secretary and Chairman, I will continue
force posture transformation to best meet the challenges of this 21st
century security environment. Specifically, I intend to:
Continue posturing forces in a manner that ensures
agility, flexibility, and readiness. These forces must be
rapidly deployable bringing concentrated combat power in light,
transportable packages.
While consulting closely with friends and allies, seek
a U.S. military presence that is not only enduring but also
capable. This presence will reflect the strength and capacity
of our friends who share our common views and welcome a U.S.
presence.
Posture military force so it is relevant both within
and across the region, and able to support national needs
anywhere around the globe.
Continue to build on already strong regional
relationships through meaningful and substantive dialogue
within the Pacific Command area of responsibility. Principle to
these efforts is a cogent and effective theater security
cooperation plan.
Continue to assess and improve our plans, focusing on
capability and places, not bases.
Work closely with the interagency process to solve
complex, transnational problems. These issues require long
term, multi-faceted solutions that involve concerted efforts
across a wide variety of government and international entities.
homeland defense
Question. What is your understanding of the role and responsibility
of PACOM in homeland defense?
Answer. PACOM's role in homeland defense is defined in the Office
of the Secretary of Defense Strategic Guidance Statement for Homeland
Defense Planning. This guidance tasks development of plans and options
to detect, deter, prevent and defeat conventional and asymmetric
attacks against the homeland. Our aim is early detection and defeat of
our enemies far from U.S. shores. PACOM's plan is fully integrated with
the ongoing global war on terrorism, combating weapons of mass
destruction, homeland security, and relevant combatant commander
contingency plans and activities. In performing its homeland defense
task, PACOM works closely with and conducts training with State and
local authorities.
Question. How do PACOM and NORTHCOM ensure that their overlapping
missions in this area do not inadvertently create ``seams'' that might
be exploited by our adversaries?
Answer. PACOM is coordinating with NORTHCOM to ensure a seamless
strategy for defense in depth of the U.S. In October 2003, a Command
Arrangement Agreement was signed which established procedures and
delineated responsibilities. It prescribes the arrangements necessary
to support the employment of PACOM forces in support of NORTHCOM
missions and the control of forces operating in NORTHCOM's Area Of
Responsibility and Joint Operations Area. Further it establishes the
methodology under which the transfer of forces between PACOM and
NORTHCOM will be executed for homeland defense and civil support.
Question. What are your thoughts on the proposal to create a
``maritime NORAD?''
Answer. I am aware of a maritime NORAD concept, but do not believe
a concrete proposal has been developed. If confirmed I will ensure my
staff coordinates closely with NORTHCOM and others during development
of the concept. Maritime domain awareness is a significant issue for
PACOM. I support the previous commander's Regional Maritime Security
Initiative (RMSI) to combat transnational threats and enhance maritime
security awareness and capacity. Secure waterways are vital to peace
and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. RMSI will improve our view
of the sea space and is gaining momentum in the Asia-Pacific theater.
Question. How could PACOM forces and expertise contribute to such
an organization?
Answer. Though the concept is still under development, a PACOM
Maritime Intelligence Fusion Center Pacific and the Pacific Shipping
Coordination Center, will likely contribute to such an organization
once the concept has matured. Additionally, PACOM Joint Interagency
Task Force-West and the U.S. Coast Guard may also support the concept.
PACOM does have forces, expertise and experience to contribute to such
an organization.
global defense posture review
Question. What are the implications of the proposed global force
structure changes in the U.S. Pacific Command's area of responsibility?
Answer. As Admiral Fargo recently noted, the new threat context
demands profound and enduring improvements in the way we command,
equip, employ, and station our forces. My understanding of the concept
is that we will be able to capitalize on the value of our major
improvements to warfighting capabilities brought about by such things
as: precision weapons, increased lethality from range, rapid mobility,
enhanced presentation of the battlespace picture and more responsive
command and control. These joint capability enhancements will allow us
to array our forces in a way that places less emphasis on ``near-
location'' before hostilities start, and more emphasis on responsive
movement of lethal force to the point of greatest effect when required.
This concept also recognizes the growth and improvement in the
capabilities of our allies' ability to perform essential warfighting
tasks. This shift does require, however, strong partnerships with our
friends and allies to assure access when needed. But in general, this
concept allows us to rely on speed, mobility, precision, and lethality
in a way that allows us to pursue a ``places versus bases'' strategy.
north korea
Question. 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 along
with the potential for proliferation is a serious global concern.
Further, North Korea has continued to pursue nuclear technology and
nuclear weapons development in a way that can only be destabilizing to
the region if not checked. While the Six-Party talks continue, I
believe the forces of the Pacific Command, in consonance with the
Republic of Korea (ROK) forces, and other Asian partners must provide a
credible deterrence and be prepared to respond as directed by our
national leadership. I believe the job of PACOM is to ensure diplomacy
is backed by viable military capabilities.
Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed to the United
States and its allies by North Korea's ballistic missile capabilities
and the export of those capabilities?
Answer. The Korean peninsula is a place where the likelihood of war
may be low, but the stakes of such a war are extremely high. I believe
North Korea's continuing development and proliferation of ballistic
missile capabilities poses a serious threat to U.S. allies now and to
the U.S. in the near future.
Question. What, if anything, should be done to strengthen
deterrence on the Korean peninsula?
Answer. I believe that having other regional partners' support for
the U.S.-ROK alliance will contribute to both deterrence and regional
stability. I also support continuance of global force posture
transformation in full consultation with the ROK Government while
strengthening this alliance.
south korea
Question. What is your understanding of the U.S. security
relationship with South Korea?
Answer. The ROK-U.S. security relationship as it has evolved over
the past 50 years has helped to create one of the world's most
successful nations. As a result, the Republic of Korea has become one
of the United States' strongest and most helpful allies. 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. The ROK has continued an aggressive effort to modernize
its military forces in a way that allows the U.S. to relocate some of
our forward based forces without sacrificing stability or weakening
deterrence.
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 relationship between the Commander U.S. Pacific
Command, and Commander of U.S. Forces Korea is unique and vital. The
Pacific Command commander's responsibilities are regional in nature and
include the security situation on the Korean peninsula. The Commander
in Chief, U.N. Command/Combined Forces Command 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 subordinate unified commander to
Pacific Command in his role as the Commander of U.S. Forces Korea.
Our strong alliance with the Republic of Korea has assured 50 years
of peace and prosperity for the South Korean people. I will remain
fully committed to this important alliance and defense transformation
to include weapons systems enhancements and consolidation of our
footprint south of the Han River. Such transformation will enhance
power projection, readiness, and deterrence.
china
Question. How would you characterize the U.S. security relationship
with China?
Answer. We have a constructive relationship with China and we are
working to promote shared interests with this growing regional and
economic power. Although the economic relationship between the U.S. and
China is expanding, there are still hurdles to overcome with regard to
China's massive growth in military spending, its intentions towards
Taiwan, and its strategy of increasing regional influence in Asia and
the Pacific.
Question. What is the current state of U.S.-China military-to-
military relations?
Answer. From my discussions with Admiral Fargo, I would
characterize our military-to-military relations as modest and limited
to non-warfighting venues, such as high-level exchanges and
humanitarian assistance/disaster relief cooperation. In the past year,
I am aware of several U.S.-China reciprocal ship visits to Zhanjiang,
Shanghai and Guam, along with several other senior military officer
exchange visits.
Question. Do you favor increased military-to-military contacts with
China?
Answer. Normal military-to-military contact with the Chinese
military is dependent upon our laws and the interests of the United
States. In general, such contact should be both transparent and
reciprocal in nature. Under these guidelines, I am supportive of a
modest military-to-military relationship. It is clear to me that frank
discourse clearly aimed at preserving peace and stability throughout
the region should be the way ahead.
Question. How do you assess the current cross-Strait relationship,
and how can we help to prevent miscalculation by either side?
Answer. Cross-strait relations continue to be an area of concern
and a sticking point in our efforts to improve relations with China. I
believe we prevent miscalculation by continuing frank, open
communication with both parties and by maintaining a constant 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 communiques. As President Bush clearly stated, the United States
opposes any attempt by either side to unilaterally change the status
quo in the Taiwan Strait.
Question. What is the proper balance, in your view, between helping
Taiwan defend itself and preventing miscalculation by the Taiwanese
government?
Answer. We should continue to focus our assistance on modernizing
Taiwan's defensive capabilities, in view of the very rapid pace of
China's military modernization during these past 5 years. However, we
need to continue to make it clear that the U.S. will come to the
assistance of Taiwan only if an unprovoked attack occurs.
Question. China's economy is growing by as much as 10 percent per
year, and China it 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. In my view, China's rapid military modernization is
motivated by their desire to determine its own destiny without undue
influence from outside nations. With that in mind, I believe they want
to have greater influence over the course of events within the Asia-
Pacific region and they want to insure their own defense as they
observe other nations in the region grow and gain access to
sophisticated weaponry such as the nuclear weapons possessed by India
and Pakistan. That said, we can not be complacent with regard to
China's modernization.
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.
What steps have been taken to prevent incidents of this nature from
occurring in the future?
Answer. The Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA), in
existence since 1996, was established expressly for the purpose of
reviewing tactics and procedures to ensure safety of Chinese and U.S.
ships and aircraft operating in proximity of each other. After the
tragedy, a special session was convened utilizing the MMCA to
specifically address the issues of surveillance aircraft and
interceptors. New agreed-upon separation distances and rules of
engagement resulted. In subsequent months and years, adherence to these
new rules has been very closely monitored and both sides have acted
with a reinforced sense of responsibility.
Question. What steps, if any, still need to be taken?
Answer. Each nation must be vigilant with regard to violations,
determined in their demarches and held accountable for those
violations. This is a safety-of-life issue. For the moment, the MMCA
remains the venue for bilateral dialogue focused on operational safety.
taiwan
Question. What are the priorities, in your view, for U.S. military
assistance to Taiwan?
Answer. I believe we should continue to focus our assistance on
modernizing Taiwan's air defense system, their command, control,
communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
(C\4\ISR) capability, improving their missile defense capability, and
assisting them in the improvement of their anti-submarine (ASW)
capabilities.
republic of the philippines
Question. What is the current state of U.S.-Philippine military-to-
military relations and activities?
Answer. The U.S. and the Philippines have a solid military-to-
military relationship centered on the Philippine Defense Reform (PDR)
initiative. U.S. support of this initiative is important as the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) work to improve their equipment,
training, logistics and command and control capabilities in an effort
to create a long term capacity to deal with insurgents and while
maintaining stability. U.S. military support through Security
Assistance training, Humanitarian Civilian Assistance projects and
Special Operations Forces operations and intelligence fusion teams are
having a positive impact on the Philippines' ability to counter
terrorist and insurgent activities within their nation.
Question. Do you believe that the U.S. military should support
Philippine efforts to fight the Abu Sayaff Group and other terrorists
in the Philippines? If so, how?
Answer. Yes, I believe we should support the Philippine effort to
fight terrorist activities in the Philippines. As outlined above,
however, that support should be limited to providing training,
intelligence fusion and logistics support to the Armed Forces of the
Philippines as they pursue counter terrorist activities.
indonesia
Question. Is the Indonesian government fully cooperating with the
United States in the global war on terrorism?
Answer. I believe the Indonesian government's position and support
for the global war on terrorism has been helpful since the 2002 Bali
terrorist attack and their response to the most recent attacks on the
Marriott Hotel and the Australian embassy demonstrates their resolve.
The recent elections bode well for strengthening their support on the
global war on terrorism.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to encourage respect for
human rights in the Indonesian military?
Answer. I believe it is important to continue security cooperation
activities with the Indonesian military (TNI) that demonstrate the
importance of civilian control of the military, respect for the rule of
law and human rights. The PACOM 2-year plan for Security Cooperation
with Indonesia lays out a carefully designed approach to improving
senior level exchange opportunities while encouraging a coherent series
of educational conferences, seminars and workshops, all oriented
towards instituting civilian control of military and adhering to the
rule of law in conducting military activities. One of my early
objectives, if confirmed, would be to better understand how well we
have been able to proceed with the objectives of the 2-year plan and
determine in conjunction with the Joint Staff, OSD and the Ambassador
if alterations should be considered. We should continue to serve as a
role model for the TNI, shaping their reform through positive
engagement in accordance with Department of Defense, Department of
State regulatory procedures and the Leahy Amendment.
Question. If confirmed, would you recommend more or less military-
to-military contacts with Indonesia? What would you want to achieve
with any recommended change?
Answer. In general, I believe that increased military-to-military
contacts serve to benefit TNI reform, bi-lateral relationships, and
regional stability. But those contacts should be tempered by clear
objectives and progress towards the basic principles we hold dear. We
should be supportive of Indonesia's efforts to strengthen its
democratic institutions, and reinforce the concept of a military force
subservient to the civilian government with an abiding respect for the
rule of law. Given the strategic location of Indonesia and the
opportunity to establish an important democratic model in the world's
most populous Muslim nation, I believe we should be proactive within
the dictates of congressional and Title 10 authorities in building our
military-to-military relationships.
global strike and missile defense
Question. Unified Command Plan 2002 Change-2 assigns to Strategic
Command overarching responsibility for planning, integration, and
coordination of global ballistic missile defense as well as planning,
command and control, and conduct of prompt global strike. However, many
of the details of Strategic Command's relationships with other
combatant commands with respect to these new responsibilities remain to
be worked out.
What is your understanding of the current relationship between the
commander of PACOM and the commander of STRATCOM with respect to
ballistic missile defense deployment and operations?
Answer. The current command arrangements provide the flexibility to
respond to diverse challenges using the full power of the United
States. PACOM is responsible for the defense of U.S. territory and
interests within its AOR including the missile defense of Hawaii. In
those responsibilities, PACOM is supported by STRATCOM, as is NORTHCOM,
in the planning, integration, and coordination of global ballistic
missile defense operations and support (sea, land, air and space based)
for missile defense and for developing desired characteristics and
capabilities for global missile defense and support for missile
defense.
Question. What is your understanding of the current relationship
between the commander of PACOM and the commander of STRATCOM with
respect to global strike operations and mission planning?
Answer. STRATCOM will be the supported commander for Global Strike
course of action development in full partnership with the affected
Geographic Combatant Commander (GCC). PACOM, in coordination with other
GCCs, functional COCOMs, and government agencies, will participate in
Global Strike collaborative planning in order to provide appropriate
close, timely coordination during course of action development. The
Secretary of Defense will designate supported and supporting
relationships for execution upon course of action selection. The
affected GCC will normally execute subsequent Global Strike operations
as the supported commander in his Area of Responsibility. If directed,
CDRSTRATCOM shall exercise command and control of selected Global
Strike missions, as directed by the Secretary of Defense, in close
coordination with the affected GCC.
Question. Would you recommend any changes in these relationships?
Answer. Not at this time. For both Ballistic Missile Defense and
Global strike, the current command arrangements provide the flexibility
to respond to diverse challenges using the full power of the U.S.
space
Question. The U.S. military is dependent on space assets for
communications; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance;
navigation; and weather data.
Geographical distances in the Pacific theater make this reliance
even more pronounced in Pacific Command.
What are the strengths and weaknesses, in your view, of the support
Pacific Command receives from U.S. military and intelligence space
assets?
Answer. Clearly, the advantage of having space assets is our
ability to have access to information, communications, and intelligence
without violating the sovereignty of or depending on other nations. In
the PACOM area of responsibility, where they face the ``tyranny of
distance'' in all they do, the use of space systems is crucial in their
ability to plan, coordinate and properly command and control the full
spectrum of their responsibilities. With that in mind, it must also be
said that with the worldwide explosion in information technology, along
with the shadowy activities associated with transnational threats and
global terrorists, our current space communications and intelligence
assets are seriously constrained in their ability to deliver the
quantum increases of information available and necessary to conduct all
missions required of the PACOM. Further, our intelligence satellites
are limited in number, capacity and exploitation capability to be able
to cover all of the areas of interest necessary for our national
leadership and combatant commanders to be as prepared as desired to
counter emerging threats.
Question. What actions would you recommend to correct any weakness
you have identified?
Answer. As the Department of Defense proceeds with the Future
Imagery Architecture, MILSATCOM upgrades, Transformational Satellite
communications, space based radar, operationally responsive space, the
joint warfighting space initiative and the horizontal integration of
those capabilities with airborne assets, we will begin to reduce the
shortages we face in sensor, bandwidth and exploitation availability
and capability, and I support these efforts.
Question. The Air Force and Congress have taken a recent interest
in ``operationally responsive space.''
Do you believe that operationally responsive space launch and
payloads could contribute to Pacific Command's military capabilities?
Answer. Yes, an operationally responsive space concept would
provide PACOM with a way to mitigate our communications and
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance shortfalls. Having a
readily available supply of mission-specific satellites and the ability
to place them in orbit when required, instead of using the current, and
rather inflexible, launch schedule, would give the theater a much
needed ability to fill in gaps in space-based support
socom
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 between Special Operations Command teams,
U.S. Pacific Command and Ambassadors in relevant countries has been
well received and productive. U.S. Pacific Command works efficiently
and effectively to ensure all SOF operations are fully coordinated and
supported by Joint Staff, SOCOM, and U.S. Ambassadors in relevant
countries. If confirmed, I intend to maintain a close relationship with
Ambassadors in theater.
Question. Under what circumstances in executing the global war on
terrorism would the Pacific Command support SOCOM?
Answer. PACOM fully supports SOCOM in their role as lead for GWOT
planning. In some cases, where a counterterrorism action occurs across
an AOR boundary or if control of forces is more easily exercised from
SOCOM Headquarters at MacDill AFB, SECDEF may direct PACOM forces to
support SOCOM operations.
Question. Do you foresee circumstances in the global war on
terrorism where PACOM would be the supported command? If so, under what
circumstances?
Answer. Yes. In situations where a theater or regional operation
requires unique capabilities beyond PACOM's Special Operations Forces,
I would anticipate the SECDEF directing SOCOM to support PACOM
operations. In cases where SOCOM is supported, PACOM's security
cooperation arrangements will play an important role in supporting
SOCOM and in ensuring the long-term goal of peace and stability in the
Pacific theater.
prisoner of war/missing in action (pow/mia) accounting efforts
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have to enhance POW/MIA
efforts in the area of responsibility (AOR) of the Pacific Command?
Answer. I am aware that since the creation of the Joint POW/MIA
Accounting Command in October 2003, the Commander of the U.S. Pacific
Command now has worldwide responsibilities with regard to the proper
accounting for our POW/MIAs. Although I have a great deal to learn
regarding the details of JPAC's operations, I fully understand the
priority our Nation places on this issue. It is my solemn belief that
the noble mission of JPAC and the U.S. Governments' commitment to
accounting for our missing from past conflicts is a powerful signal to
our Nation's military and their families that we believe strongly in
the full accounting for each and every person who serves this Nation.
Question. What steps need to be taken to further accomplish the
objective of finding or accounting for all POW and MIAs in the PACOM
AOR ?
Answer. As I learn more about the agreements and relationships we
have made with other nations and organizations which allow the JPAC to
accomplish its mission, I will work to improve the security cooperation
arrangements and to support technological enhancements that might offer
the JPAC greater access and opportunity to discover our missing
warriors.
In the context of maintaining and improving PACOM's engagement
strategy, and fully recognizing the POW/MIA effort as humanitarian, I
will establish an environment to encourage full cooperation by the host
nations where we conduct POW/MIA activities and continue to reinforce
the U.S. Government priorities as I meet and talk with the leaders of
these countries.
I will ensure that JPAC is fully resourced to accomplish its
mission and pledge that we will not compromise the integrity of the
mission or the ability of the U.S. Government to provide the fullest
possible accounting to the families of our Nation's unaccounted for.
policies regarding sexual assault
Question. The previous Commander of the U.S. Air Forces, Pacific,
conducted a comprehensive survey on the incidence of sexual assault in
the U.S. Pacific Command AOR in 2003. The Air Force recently completed
a Report Concerning the Assessment of USAF Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response which concluded, among other findings, that the Air Force
must develop a sexual assault prevention and response policy, integrate
databases to report and track rapes, and develop victim treatment and
assistance capabilities.
How do you assess the progress of the Air Force in responding to
the problem of sexual assaults in the ranks?
Answer. First, let me say that the U.S. Air Forces Pacific effort
served as a model for what we did across the Air Force. While we have
made progress in the Air Force on responding to the problem of sexual
assaults in our ranks, I and other senior leaders have attempted to
accelerate our efforts. Our Secretary and Chief of Staff have taken
aggressive steps to address the problem and established a 3-star level
working group with all Major Air Command Vice Commanders to look at the
problem in-depth. The USAF approach is founded on our Air Force core
values: Integrity, Service, and Excellence--which are used more
explicitly to develop, train, and reinforce expected behaviors. At the
next level down we are focused on a concept we call the ``Culture of
Airmen'' which means, essentially, that airmen take care of airmen, and
one airman should never hurt another airman. Our first priority has to
be to take care of one another--in all situations. That effort is long-
term. Finally, the Air Force is determined to offer sensitive care to
those victims of assault from notification until no longer needed,
however long that may take. The United States Air Force has always had
a policy of zero-tolerance for any type of harassment, including sexual
harassment, and of course sexual assault is a criminal violation of the
Uniformed Code of Military Justice, and we aggressively pursue and
prosecute members who commit this crime.
Question. 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. As one of my very first actions, if confirmed, I would
reissue under my signature the memo Admiral Fargo sent to all
commanders across Pacific Command directing a zero-tolerance policy for
sexual harassment and requiring swift justice and harsh punishment for
those who fail to comply or who commit sexual assault. I would also
direct that we take all actions to protect our people from assault and,
if necessary, consistently and appropriately respond to victims of
sexual assault. Let me be clear. Sexual assault is a crime and will not
be tolerated. I will ensure appropriate measures are taken when a
sexual assault is reported to include ensuring that allegations are
fully investigated and all available services for sexual assault
victims are made available. I am strongly committed to ensure that
comprehensive measures are implemented 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.
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, U.S. Pacific
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.
______
[The nomination reference of Gen. Gregory S. Martin, USAF,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 7, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment in the United States
Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of
importance and responsibility under title 10, United States Code,
section 601:
To be General.
Gen. Gregory S. Martin, 6337.
______
Department of the Air Force,
Headquarters, United States Air Force,
Washington, DC, 20 August 2004.
The Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The President, under the provisions of section
601, title 10 of the United States Code, has submitted to the Senate
the nomination of General Gregory S. Martin from Commander, Air Force
Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to Commander,
United States Pacific Command, Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii.
General Martin is replacing Admiral Thomas B. Fargo, United States
Navy, upon his departure. Confirmation action during September 2004
will help ensure a smooth transition for General Martin. This action
will not result in the Air Force exceeding the number of generals
authorized by law.
For the information of the committee, I am enclosing a military
history on General Martin.
Sincerely,
Roger A. Brady,
Lieutenant General, USAF,
Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel.
Attachment:
Military History.
______
[The biographical sketch of Gen. Gregory S. Martin, USAF,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Resume of Gen. Gregory S. Martin, USAF,
Date and place of birth: 24 April 1948; Fort Myer, VA.
Years of active service: Over 34 years as of 3 June 2004.
Schools attended and degrees: USAF Academy CO, BA, 1970; Central Mich
Univ, MAS, 1977; Squadron Officer School, 1974 National War
College, 1986.
Joint specialty officer: Yes.
Aeronautical rating: Command Pilot.
Major permanent duty assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stu UPT, 3641 STUS, ATC, Laredo AFB TX.............. Jun. 70 Sep. 71
Stu Plt, Tac Fight, 4546 TTS, TAC, George AFB CA.... Sep. 71 Oct. 71
Stu Plt, Tac Fight, 35 TFS, TAC, George AFB CA...... Oct. 71 May 72
Acft Cmdr, F-4E, 469 TFS, PACAF, Korat RTAFB TH..... May 72 Oct. 72
Acft Cmdr, F-4D, 555 TFS, PACAF, Udorn RTAFB TH..... Oct. 72 Oct. 72
Acft Cmdr, F-4D/E, 421 TFS, PACAF, Udorn RTAFB TH... Oct. 72 Jun. 73
Acft Cmdr, F-4D, 417 TFS, TAC, Holloman AFB NM...... Jun. 73 Jun. 75
Inst Plt, F-4D, TAC, Holloman AFB NM................ Jun. 75 Nov. 75
Asst Flt Cmdr, Inst Plt F-4D, TAC, Holloman AFB NM.. Nov. 75 Jul. 76
Air Ops Off, Tac Div, ASTRA, HAF, Pentagon DC....... Jul. 76 Jan. 77
ASTRA Spl Asst DCS P&O, HAF, Pentagon DC............ Jan. 77 Aug. 77
Aide to Chief of Staff, HAF, Pentagon DC............ Aug. 77 Sep. 78
Exec Off, 461 TFW, TAC, Luke AFB AZ................. Sep. 78 May 79
F-15 Flt Cmdr, Inst Plt, 461 TFW, TAC, Luke AFB AZ.. May 79 May 80
F-15 Inst Plt, Asst Ops Off, 461 TFW, TAC, Luke AFB May 80 Dec. 81
AZ.................................................
Asst Ops Off, 67 TFS, PACAF, Kadena AB JA........... Dec. 81 Apr. 82
Asst Ops Off, Inst Plt F-15C, 67 TFS, PACAF, Kadena Apr. 82 Sep. 82
AB JA..............................................
Chief Ops Tng Div, 18 TFS, PACAF, Kadena AB JA...... Sep. 82 Jun. 83
F-15 Ops Off, 12 TFS, PACAF, Kadena AB JA........... Jun. 83 Jan. 84
Cmdr 67 TFS, PACAF, Kadena AB JA.................... Jan. 84 May 85
Asst Dep Cmdr for Ops, 67 TFS, PACAF, Kadena AB JA.. May 85 Jul. 85
Student, National War College, Ft McNair DC......... Jul. 85 Jul. 86
Ch, CONUS Bases Div, HQ USAF, Pentagon DC........... Jul. 86 Apr. 87
Ch, Tac Forces Div, HQ USAF, Pentagon DC............ Apr. 87 Jul. 88
Vice Cmdr, 49 TFW, TAC, Holloman AFB NM............. Jul. 88 Jul. 89
Exec to Comdr, TAC, Langley AFB VA.................. Jul. 89 Apr. 90
Asst DCS, Plans, TAC, Langley AFB VA................ Apr. 90 Aug. 90
Cmdr, 479 TTW, TAC, Holloman AFB NM................. Aug. 90 Aug. 91
Cmdr, 33 TFW, TAC, Eglin AFB FL..................... Aug. 91 Oct. 91
Cmdr, 33 FW, TAC, Eglin AFB FL...................... Oct. 91 Jun. 92
Cmdr 33 FW, ACC, Eglin AFB FL....................... Jun. 92 Jun. 93
Cmdr, 1 FW, ACC, Langley AFB VA..................... Jun. 93 May 95
Dep Dir (Force Struc & Resrcs), J8, Jt Staff, May 95 Jul 96
Pentagon DC........................................
Dir, Oper Rqmts, AF/XOR, HQ USAF, Pentagon DC....... Jul. 96 Jul. 98
Prin Dep Asst SAF for Acquisition, SAF/AQ, HQ USAF, Jul. 98 Jan. 00
Pentagon DC........................................
Cmdr, United States Air Forces in Europe, Cmdr, Jan. 00 Aug. 03
Allied Air Forces Northern Europe, NATO, AF
Component Cmdr, USEUCOM, Ramstein AFB, GE..........
Comdr, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright Patterson Aug. 03 Present
AFB, OH............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotions:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective
date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Lieutenant........................................... 3 Jun 70
First Lieutenant............................................ 3 Dec 71
Captain..................................................... 3 Dec 73
Major....................................................... 4 Dec 78
Lieutenant Colonel.......................................... 1 Dec 82
Colonel..................................................... 1 Dec 86
Brigadier General........................................... 1 Jul 93
Major General............................................... 1 Jul 96
Lieutenant General.......................................... 27 Jul 98
General..................................................... 1 Jun 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decorations:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal
Legion of Merit with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters
Distinguished Flying Cross
Meritorious Service Medal with three Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters
Air Medal with two silver and one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster
Air Force Commendation Medal
Summary of joint assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignments Dates Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aide to the CSAF, HQ USAF, Jul. 77-Jul. 78 Captain
Pentagon DC \1\.
Vice Dir (Force Structure & May 95-Jul. 96 Brig. Gen
Resources), J-8, Joint Staff,
Pentagon DC.
Commander, United States Air Jan. 00-Aug. 03 Gen
Forces in Europe, Commander,
Allied Air Forces Northern
Europe, North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and Air Force
Component Commander, United
States European Command,
Ramstein AB, Germany.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joint Equivalent
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior
military officers nominated by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent to the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Gen. Gregory
S. Martin, 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.)
Gregory S. Martin.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, United States Pacific Command, Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii.
3. Date of nomination:
September 7, 2004.
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 24, 1948; Fort Myer, Virginia.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Wendy Bliss Martin (maiden name is Bliss).
7. Names and ages of children:
Daughter: 1Lt Tracie Lyn Martin, 28 years old.
Son: Aaron Todd Martin, 25 years old.
Son: Tyler Webster Martin, 18 years old.
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.
Military Liaison to the Dayton Business Committee.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
USAF Academy Association of Graduates
Order of the Daedalians
Air Force Association
Veterans of Foreign Wars
National Geographic Society
Military Officers Association of America
Air Force Sergeants 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.
Honorary Doctorate, University of Maryland, University College.
Medal of Commander of Order and Valor (Cameroon).
Medal of Merit, Gold (Netherlands).
Legion of Honor (France).
Cross of Merit (First Class) of the Minister of Defense of the
Czech Republic.
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.
Gregory Stuart Martin.
This 12th day of July, 2004.
[The nomination of Gen. Gregory S. Martin, USAF, was
withdrawn by the President on October 7, 2004.]
TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF JOSEPH F. BADER AND R. BRUCE MATTHEWS TO
BE MEMBERS OF THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD; OTIS W.
BRAWLEY AND VINICIO E. MADRIGAL TO BE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS
OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES; AND TO
VOTE ON CERTAIN MILITARY NOMINATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 3:18 p.m. in
executive session in Room SR-222, Russell Senate Office
Building, Senator John Warner (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Inhofe,
Roberts, Allard, Ensign, Talent, Chambliss, Cornyn, Levin,
Akaka, E. Benjamin Nelson, Dayton, and Pryor.
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; L. David Cherington, counsel;
Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff member; Gregory T. Kiley,
professional staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional
staff member; Stanley R. O'Connor, Jr., professional staff
member; Paula J. Philbin, professional staff member; Lynn F.
Rusten, 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; Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional
staff member; Madelyn R. Creedon, minority counsel; Evelyn N.
Farkas, professional staff member; Richard W. Fieldhouse,
professional staff member; Creighton Greene, professional staff
member; Maren R. Leed, professional staff member; Peter K.
Levine, minority counsel; and William G.P. Monahan, minority
counsel.
Staff assistant present: Nicholas W. West.
Committee members' assistants present: Cord Sterling,
assistant to Senator Warner; Richard H. Fontaine, Jr.,
assistant to Senator McCain; John A. Bonsell, assistant to
Senator Inhofe; Darren M. Dick, assistant to Senator Roberts;
Jayson Roehl, assistant to Senator Allard; Arch Galloway II,
assistant to Senator Sessions; James P. Dohoney, Jr., assistant
to Senator Collins; D'Arcy Grisier, assistant to Senator
Ensign; Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to Senator Talent; Clyde E.
Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Christine O. Hill,
assistant to Senator Dole; Mieke Y. Eoyang, assistant to
Senator Kennedy; Christina Evans and Erik Raven, assistants to
Senator Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator
Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Davelyn
Noelani Kalipi and Richard Kessler, assistants to Senator
Akaka; William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Eric
Pierce, assistant to Senator E. Benjamin Nelson; and Todd
Rosenblum, assistant to Senator Bayh.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Secretary, we have a quorum present so
I am going to ask the committee to consider the nominations of
Joseph F. Bader and Bruce Matthews to be members of the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Their nominations have been
before the committee the required length of time and no
objection has been raised.
Is there a motion to favorably report the nominations of
Mr. Bader and Mr. Matthews?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Chairman Warner. Is there a second?
Senator Allard. Second.
Chairman Warner. All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed? [No response.]
Further, we have before the committee the nominations of
Otis W. Brawley, Jr., and Vinicio E. Madrigal to be members of
the Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of
the Health Services. Their nominations being before the
committee the required period of time and no objections have
been raised. Is there a motion to favorably report them out?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Chairman Warner. Second?
Senator Allard. Second.
Chairman Warner. All in favor? [A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed? [No response.]
Now we proceed to a list of 459 pending military
nominations. The nominations being before the committee the
required length of time and no objections being raised in
regards to them, is there a motion?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Senator Allard. Second.
Chairman Warner. All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you, the witnesses,
for deferring to us.
[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 November 17,
2004.
1. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of major
general (list begins with BGEN John H. Folkerts, USAF) (Reference No.
1331-2).
2. Lieutenant General Bruce A. Wright, USAF to be lieutenant
general and Commander, U.S. Forces Japan and Commander, Fifth Air
Force, Pacific Air Forces (Reference No. 2012).
3. In the Navy there are 457 appointments to the grade of
lieutenant (list begins with Armand P. Abad) (Reference No. 2021).
Total: 459.
______
[The nomination reference of Joseph F. Bader follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
January 7, 2003.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Joseph F. Bader, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for a term expiring October 18,
2007, vice Jessie M. Roberson, term expired.
______
[The nomination reference of R. Bruce Matthews follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 14, 2003.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
R. Bruce Matthews, of New Mexico, to be a Member of the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for a term expiring October 18, 2005,
vice Joseph DiNunno, resigned, to which position he was appointed
during the last recess of the Senate.
______
[The nomination reference of Otis W. Brawley follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 1, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Otis Webb Brawley, Jr., of Georgia, to be a Member of the Board of
Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences for
a term expiring June 20, 2009. (Reappointment)
______
[The nomination reference of Vinicio E. Madrigal follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 1, 2004.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Vinicio E. Madrigal, of Louisiana, to be a Member of the Board of
Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences for
a term expiring June 20, 2009. (Reappointment)
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the executive session was
adjourned and the committee 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 the 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------.