[Senate Hearing 109-928]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-928
NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
SECOND SESSION, 109TH CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
NOMINATIONS OF
HON. PRESTON M. GEREN; HON. MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ; JAMES I. FINLEY;
THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO; CHARLES E. McQUEARY; ANITA K. BLAIR; BENEDICT S.
COHEN; FRANK R. JIMENEZ; DAVID H. LAUFMAN; SUE C. PAYTON; WILLIAM H.
TOBEY; ROBERT L. WILKIE; LT. GEN. JAMES T. CONWAY, USMC; GEN BANTZ J.
CRADDOCK, USA; VADM JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, USN; NELSON M. FORD; RONALD J.
JAMES; SCOTT W. STUCKY; MARGARET A. RYAN; AND ROBERT M. GATES
__________
FEBRUARY 15; JULY 18, 27; SEPTEMBER 19; DECEMBER 4, 5, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-311 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
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
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine JACK REED, Rhode Island
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri BILL NELSON, Florida
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina EVAN BAYH, Indiana
JOHN CORNYN, Texas HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
Charles S. Abell, Staff Director
Richard D. DeBobes, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Page
february 15, 2006
Nominations of Hon. Preston M. Geren to be Under Secretary of the
Army; Hon. Michael L. Dominguez to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness; James I. Finley to be
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology; and Thomas P. D'Agostino to be Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration. 1
Statements of:
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas. 2
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado...... 4
Geren, Hon. Preston M., to be Under Secretary of the Army........ 9
Dominguez, Hon. Michael L., to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness............................ 10
Finley, James L., to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology..................................... 11
D'Agostino, Thomas P., to be Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration............. 11
july 18, 2006
Nominations of Charles E. McQueary to be Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense; Anita K. Blair to
be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs; Benedict S. Cohen to be General Counsel of the
Department of the Army; Frank R. Jimenez to be General Counsel
of the Department of the Navy; David H. Laufman to be Inspector
General, Department of Defense; Sue C. Payton to be Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; William H. Tobey to
be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation,
National Nuclear Security Administration; and Robert L. Wilkie
to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs... 155
Statements of:
Lott, Hon. Trent, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi..... 156
Cox, Hon. Christopher, Former Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 158
Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia...... 159
Martinez, Hon. Mel, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida....... 161
Blair, Anita K., to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs................................... 165
Cohen, Benedict S., to be General Counsel of the Department of
the Navy....................................................... 166
Jimenez, Frank R., to be General Counsel of the Department of the
Navy........................................................... 167
Laufman, David H., to be Inspector General, Department of Defense 168
Payton, Sue C., to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition.................................................... 169
(iii)
Tobey, William H., to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration..... 171
Wilkie, Robert L., to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs............................................ 172
McQueary, Hon. Charles E., to be Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation, Department of Defense.............................. 173
july 27, 2006
Nomination of Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, USMC, for Appointment to
the Grade of General and to be Commandant of the Marine Corps.. 327
Statements of:
Conway, Lt. Gen. James T., USMC, for Appointment to the Grade of
General and to be Commandant of the Marine Corps............... 333
september 19, 2006
Nominations of GEN Bantz J. Craddock, USA, for Reappointment to
be General and to be Commander, U.S. European Command; VADM
James G. Stavridis, USN, for Appointment to be Admiral and to
be Commander, U.S. Southern Command; Nelson M. Ford to be
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and
Comptroller; and Ronald J. James to be Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs...................... 367
Statements of:
Craddock, GEN Bantz J., USA, for Reappointment to be General and
to be Commander, U.S. European Command......................... 371
Stavridis, VADM James G., USN, for Appointment to be Admiral and
to be Commander, U.S. Southern Command......................... 371
Ford, Nelson M., to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Financial Management and Comptroller........................... 392
James, Ronald J., to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs................................... 392
december 4, 2006
Nominations of Scott W. Stucky to be a Judge of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; and Margaret A. Ryan to
be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces......................................................... 495
Statements of:
Stucky, Scott W., to be a Judge of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces................................... 501
Ryan, Margaret A., to be a Judge of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces................................... 503
decmber 5, 2006
Nomination of Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense......... 529
Statements of:
Dole, Hon. Robert, Former U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas.. 535
Boren, Hon. David L., Former U.S. Senator from the State of
Oklahoma....................................................... 536
Gates, Robert M., to be Secretary of Defense..................... 541
december 5, 2006
Continuation of the Nomination of Robert M. Gates to be Secretary
of Defense..................................................... 589
december 5, 2006
To Consider Certain Pending Civilian and Military Nominations.... 681
APPENDIX......................................................... 685
NOMINATIONS OF HON. PRESTON M. GEREN TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY;
HON. MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
PERSONNEL AND READINESS; JAMES I. FINLEY TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION AND TECHNOLOGY; AND THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO TO
BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:46 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain,
Chambliss, Cornyn, Thune, Levin, and Dayton.
Also present: Senators Allard and Hutchison.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk; and
John H. Quirk V, security clerk.
Majority staff members present: William M. Caniano,
professional staff member; William C. Greenwalt, professional
staff member; Elaine A. McCusker, professional staff member;
David M. Morriss, counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional
staff member; Stanley R. O'Connor, Jr., professional staff
member; Kristine L. Svinicki, professional staff member; Diana
G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh,
counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Jonathan D. Clark, minority counsel;
Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional staff member; Madelyn R.
Creedon, minority counsel; Gabriella Eisen, research assistant;
Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Gerald J.
Leeling, minority counsel; and Peter K. Levine, minority
counsel.
Staff assistant present: Pendred K. Wilson.
Committee members' assistants present: Christopher J. Paul
and Paul C. Hutton IV, assistants to Senator McCain; Clyde A.
Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Russell J.
Thomasson, assistant to Senator Cornyn; Stuart C. Mallory,
assistant to Senator Thune; William K. Sutey, assistant to
Senator Bill Nelson; Kimberly Jackson and Luke Ballman,
assistants to Senator Dayton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good morning, everyone. This is a very
important day in the lives of four individuals together with
their wonderful families who've joined us here this morning. So
we'll get underway very promptly. As protocol has it, we always
want to start promptly such that our colleagues who've come for
purposes of introduction can return to their respective duties.
So this morning we welcome the Honorable Pete Geren who has
been nominated to be Under Secretary of the Army, the Honorable
Michael Dominguez who has been nominated to be the Principal
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
better known as Charlie Abell's replacement. We also welcome
James L. Finley who has been nominated to be Principal Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and
Thomas P. D'Agostino, nominee to be the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs in the National Nuclear Security
Administration. We have with us the distinguished Senator from
Texas, I think there were two here--oh, there they are, and
we'll at this point in time recognize our colleague, Senator
Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
very pleased to be here to be able to support and ask your
support for Pete Geren who has been a friend of mine for a very
long time. He comes from Fort Worth and I know he is going to
do a terrific job as Under Secretary of the Army. He served in
Congress. When I first got here, he was serving in Congress
representing his district in Fort Worth for four terms and he
was a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He did a
lot of really good work, particularly in coming up with the
first joint Reserve base concept which is now Naval Air
Station, Fort Worth, that included units from the Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corp, and the Texas National Guard. It really
became a model for joint Reserve bases that has been followed
throughout the rest of the country.
He then came back to government, couldn't stay away after
he retired from Congress voluntarily, I might add, and started
working in the Pentagon as an assistant to the Secretary of
Defense, really being very low key. He went to Iraq several
times to try to be helpful there spending a month at a time per
visit. Then when the Secretary of the Air Force position was in
flux, he became the acting Secretary of the Air Force and did
such a great job in all of these positions that he then was
nominated for Under Secretary of the Army.
I know that he knows the military, he knows the Pentagon,
he is very familiar with the efforts to modernize our military
so that it best serves not only our country but also helps to
serve the people in the military as well. I recommend him most
highly, and I hope that you will take an expedited initiative
on this so that he can be confirmed and become an official
Under Secretary with Senate confirmation.
Chairman Warner. Senator, we thank you very much. Indeed we
did expedite this hearing. We had not intended to have it
before the recess, but in consultation with Senator Levin we
also felt it very important. Secretary Rumsfeld is quite
anxious to get this team in place as is the President, of
course, and I compliment both for their selection of
outstanding individuals. I've never seen a better panel. We
thank you for your remarks and I associate myself with your
high regard for this distinguished individual.
Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to
join my colleague, Senator Hutchison, in introducing Pete Geren
to the committee, but obviously he needs no introduction. He's
well known to the committee and has done outstanding work over
the past 4 years in the Department of Defense, most recently as
Acting Secretary of the Air Force. Mr. Chairman, we always
focus on the nominees but really this is a family matter----
Chairman Warner. Would you undertake the honors then.
Senator Cornyn. I'd be delighted. If people will allow me,
I'd like to ask for his wife, Becky, and their three daughters,
Tracy, Annie, and Mary to stand and be recognized. We're glad
to have all of them here, and I know Pete's glad to have them
here as well.
Chairman Warner. We welcome you. This is a very special day
because each of you in your respective ways have contributed to
making possible this day. Let me just give you a little bit of
advice. If he isn't home by around 7:30, forget it, because
they have a tendency in the Department of Defense to work into
the late hours. I had the privilege of spending many years
there myself, and everything done after about 7:30 is changed
the next morning so go home. [Laughter.]
Senator Cornyn. That sounds like sage advice, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much.
Senator Levin. I was going to say, Senator Cornyn, that if
he's not home by 7:30 blame us because he is probably preparing
some report which we demanded. Who are the three daughters
here? Which is the wife? [Laughter.]
This is the way I win elections, folks! [Laughter.]
Senator Cornyn. Now we know the winning formula for Senator
Levin. Just in conclusion, let me add, Mr. Chairman, our Army,
as we all know, is undergoing major changes while fighting the
war on terror, and we are, of course, working closely with the
Pentagon to ensure that as the Army and our Armed Forces are
transformed that it becomes an even more effective fighting
machine while we at the same time watch the budget,
procurement, and acquisition process very carefully to make
sure the taxpayers get all they can for their hard-earned
dollars. Secretary Harvey will be fortunate to have such a
dedicated public servant as Pete Geren working for him. I want
to welcome him to the committee and commend him to you. Thank
you.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Warner. Oh, yes.
Senator Hutchison. Could I reclaim one more minute?
Chairman Warner. Yes, of course.
Senator Hutchison. I'm very remiss not to have mentioned
that he is a graduate of the University of Texas and the
University of Texas Law School.
Senator Levin. How about elementary school? Where did he
go? [Laughter.]
Mr. Geren. You might note that they played in the Rose Bowl
last year against Michigan.
Senator Hutchison. Yes, I won't mention the Rose Bowl last
year, maybe just this year, Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. You had my vote until then. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. We enjoy these moments of levity. They
often occur in connection with the confirmation process, but I
can tell you from my own personal experience, having gone
through this process so many years ago that I don't want to
mention it, but it's something you'll always remember and your
children will remember it. So I thank each of you for bringing
your families.
Now, at this point in time, Senator Allard, you've waited
very patiently. You're a former member of this committee so you
understand the protocol here.
Senator Allard. I do, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. Senator
Hutchison, I appreciated your introductory remarks. Once a
cheerleader, always a cheerleader, I guess.
Chairman Warner. Oh, you're in trouble. [Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
COLORADO
Senator Allard. I've been looking forward to appearing
before the committee. It's a great committee, and one of the
opportunities you afforded me early on in my serving on the
committee was to be chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee and
Charlie Abell, at that time, was my staff person. I
congratulate him on his duties here now with the committee. I
think he's a great person, and I was enthralled that we now
have Mike Dominguez who'll be Charlie Abell's replacement, but
I'd also want to say that in his own right he deserves to be
the Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness there in
the Office of Secretary of Defense.
I've known Michael Dominguez for nearly 5 years. It's a
pleasure for me to be able to introduce him to your committee.
I worked with him on a number of personnel issues, even though
I wasn't on the Personnel Subcommittee. Because of the Air
Force Academy, over the last couple of years, Michael and I
have worked together. I've always valued Michael's candor,
openness, and willingness to pursue the facts. He grew up in
the Air Force as a dependent but later switched services and
attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. After serving
5 years in the Army, Michael attended Stanford's Business
School and later joined the Office of Secretary of Defense
(OSD) as an analyst during the Reagan administration. Michael
entered the senior executive service in 1991 as the OSD
Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, and in 2001,
Michael returned to the Air Force when he was nominated and
confirmed to be the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
I've worked most closely with Michael in solving several
difficult challenges at the Air Force Academy involving sexual
assault and religious intolerance. Michael took a prominent
role in restoring public trust and confidence in the Academy
and was willing to consult with concerned Members of Congress.
He was wise enough to seek outside expertise, particularly when
it came to the difficult issue of sexual assault. I'm pleased
to say that the Air Force Academy's sexual assault response has
become the model for the other Service academies and for many
public universities now.
From March to July 2005, Michael took on the challenging
role of Acting Secretary of the Air Force. His expanded role
included the Base Realignment and Closure round, the
Quadrennial Defense Review, and the restructuring of several
major Air Force Space Acquisition Programs. Michael is well-
prepared for this new position and understands the importance
of leadership. He is willing to tackle the tough issues that
can make things happen in the Department of Defense (DOD), and
I'm confident that Michael can accomplish his new duties with
the same degree of success that he enjoyed elsewhere in his
career. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to introduce Mr. Dominguez and to say hello to you
today.
Chairman Warner. Senator Allard, we thank you very much.
You keep a continuing interest in all areas of national
security, but you have made a major contribution with regard to
the Air Force Academy. Understandably. You're proud that it is
in your State, but we must focus on the importance of these
academies. They are symbols throughout the educational system
of this Nation, and they attract the finest of individuals to
come from all over our Nation. It is extremely important that
all of us work with these academies to make them the models
that America views them as and looks up to them.
Senator Allard. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Chairman.
I couldn't agree more with you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Now we'll proceed with the
regular order here. We thank our colleagues.
Senator Dayton. Mr. Chairman, if I may make one more
introduction, please.
Chairman Warner. I beg your pardon. Of course, we're
delighted to have you.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, sir. I'm honored to introduce
James I. Finley from Chanhassen, Minnesota, who has been
nominated by the President to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology. Accompanying Mr.
Finley, and I ask them to stand and be recognized please, are
his wife, Sharon, one of his six children, Dan, and Dan's wife,
Jessica. Welcome. As true Minnesota natives, Dan and Jessica
dug out from about 2\1/2\ feet of snow in Connecticut to be
here in Washington and join their father today.
Chairman Warner. We welcome you and that's wonderful.
Senator Dayton. Mr. Finley is superbly qualified for this
key position. He has 30 years of experience in successfully
designing and managing acquisition and technology systems in
the aerospace industry. He's held management and senior
management positions at General Electric, Singer, Lear Sigler,
United Technologies, and General Dynamics where he was a
Corporate Officer, President of Information Systems, and Chair
of the Business Development Council.
In 2002, Mr. Finley formed his own consulting company, the
Finley Group. His biography states that his leadership and
strategic planning abilities have led many companies to achieve
double-digit financial growth which commends him very well for
this position. I told him that we would settle for double-digit
improvements in efficiencies for acquisitions, technology, and
logistics.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce Jim Finley to our
committee and also to enthusiastically support his nomination.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator, that's very important that you've
joined in. We thank you very much for that contribution. Given
that my colleagues have fairly well introduced three of them,
with your permission, I'll introduce you.
Thomas P. D'Agostino is the nominee to be the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs in the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA), which was created by Congress.
I remember well participating in establishing that. He
currently serves as the Assistant Deputy Administrator for
Program Integration in NNSA and directs the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. He is responsible for maintaining the
safety, security, and reliability of the Nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile. That's an extraordinarily important function
that you fulfill. That stockpile is carefully monitored by this
committee and in the course of our proceedings today I'll
direct questions to you about that.
He's a captain in the Navy Reserve, served over 8 years on
Active-Duty in the submarine service, and served on the U.S.S.
Skipjack during Admiral Rickover's tenure as the Director of
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. When you visited with me, we
exchanged our particular reminiscences of that distinguished
American, Admiral Rickover, an extraordinary person in the
annals of the history of our Nation. During our office call
last week, I learned that you served under that Navy legend,
Admiral Bulkeley. I knew him so well when I was Secretary of
the Navy. He was an extraordinary man. He was a D-Day
Congressional Medal of Honor winner, and he stayed on in the
Navy many years for the sole purpose of assuring the Navy that
no ship went to sea unless it was technically perfect and you
learned a lot under that wonderful man. So we congratulate you,
sir. Do you have family here today that you would introduce?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have both my parents,
Anne Claude D'Agostino, my mother, my father, Tom D'Agostino,
my son, Tommy, and my wife, Beth. They're all here. They live
locally and were able to make it for the hearing and are here
to look after me.
Chairman Warner. All right. We thank you very much for
coming. Now, Mr. Dominguez, would you introduce your family.
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, Senator, thank you very much. I have
with me here today my wife, Sheila; my daughter, Michelle; and
my brother, who is also serving the Nation as an Assistant U.S.
Attorney in the District of Columbia, John.
Chairman Warner. Delighted to have you. Regarding your
brother, I know the audience is weary of hearing about me but I
served 5 years in that office and they were marvelous years.
That was back in the good old rough and tumble days. I'll
insert the balance of my statement for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
I am pleased to have four distinguished nominees before the
committee this morning.
We welcome the Honorable Pete Geren, who has been nominated to be
the Under Secretary of the Army, and the Honorable Michael L.
Dominguez, who has been nominated to be the Principal Deputy Under
Secretary of Personnel and Readiness. We also welcome James I. Finley,
who has been nominated to be the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and Thomas P. D'Agostino, the
nominee to be the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs in the
National Nuclear Security Administration.
I understand our colleagues, Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn,
will introduce Mr. Geren. Following those introductions, Senator Allard
will introduce Mr. Dominguez and Senator Dayton will introduce Mr.
Finley.
I now ask our nominees to introduce their family members and
guests. Mr. Geren, please start, followed by Secretary Dominguez, Mr.
Finley, and Mr. D'Agostino.
We welcome all of you, and thank you for the vitally important
support you provide to our nominees. They cannot succeed in these
demanding positions without your continued encouragement and support,
as I'm sure they all recognize.
As our colleagues from Texas indicated, Mr. Geren has had a very
distinguished career in public service. He represented the 12th
District of Texas--Fort Worth--for four terms, from 1989 to 1997,
serving on the Committees on Armed Services, Science and Technology,
and Public Works and Transportation. He joined the Department of
Defense in September 2001 to serve as a Special Assistant to Secretary
Rumsfeld. On July 29, 2005, Mr. Geren was appointed Acting Secretary of
the Air Force and served in that capacity until November 3, when
Secretary Wynne assumed that office. Mr. Geren, thank you for your
public service, and, in particular, for your assistance to this
committee as Secretary Rumsfeld's representative. Congratulations on
your nomination for this critically important position.
Michael L. Dominguez has served as Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs since August 2001. He also
served as the Acting Secretary of the Air Force from March 2005 through
July 2005. I note that Mr. Dominguez is a 1975 West Point graduate and
served on Active-Duty in the U.S. Army with the 509th Infantry
(Airborne) and the Southern European Task Force. He will succeed
Charlie Abell, current staff director of the Committee on Armed
Services, who left the Department in August of last year . . .
obviously, for greener pastures. Secretary Dominguez, we thank you for
your public service to date and your willingness to continue serving.
James I. Finley has been nominated to be the Principal Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. Mr. Finley has had
a remarkable career in the private sector with over 30 years of multi-
national business leadership and management experience. Programs he has
headed have included air, land, sea, and space projects for the
Department of Defense, NASA, and the FAA. Mr. Finley has demonstrated
expertise in the challenges posed by advanced research projects and
business transformations, and has most recently headed his own
consulting company focusing on all facets of the business cycle. Mr.
Finley, welcome.
Thomas P. D'Agostino is the nominee to be the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs in the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). Mr. D'Agostino currently serves as the Assistant Deputy
Administrator for Program Integration in the NNSA and directs the
Stockpile Stewardship program, which is responsible for maintaining the
safety, security, and reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapons
stockpile. Mr. D'Agostino is a captain in the Navy Reserve having
served over 8 years on Active-Duty in the submarine service. He served
in U.S.S. Skipjack during Admiral Rickover's tenure as the Director of
the Naval Nuclear Propulsion program. During our office call last week,
I learned that Mr. D'Agostino also served under another Navy legend,
Vice Admiral John D. Bulkeley, the renowned Medal of Honor winner, who,
for many years headed the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey.
Congratulations on your nomination.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, do you have some comments
you'd like to make at this time?
Senator Levin. No, Mr. Chairman. I will just join you in
welcoming our nominees and their families. As you and others
have already pointed out, the families are truly as important
as the nominees in terms of getting this work done. We thank
particularly the children who are here today. They will not see
their dads as often as they would like and your fathers would
like but that's part of the territory. That's some of the
dedication that you will see and have seen all your life in
your parents. So we just want to particularly thank the
children, as well as the brothers, fathers, spouses, and others
who have contributed to their being here today and to their
commitments and to their success.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin. As in all
nominations, again, we commend our President and the Secretary
of Defense and others who made it possible to recruit this
extraordinary team for public service. We asked you a series of
advance policy questions. You have responded to those
questions, and without objection they'll be made a part of
today's record. There are certain standard questions that the
chairman of this committee always propounds to each nominee,
and I will do that now and if you will indicate your
concurrence or nonconcurrence with these questions. Please do
so as a group.
Have each of you adhered to the applicable laws and
regulations governing conflicts of interest?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
Mr. Finley. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Dominguez. No, sir.
Mr. Finley. No, sir.
Mr. D'Agostino. No, sir.
Mr. Geren. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications coming
from the Congress of the United States, including questions for
the record in hearings such as this?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
Mr. Finley. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
Mr. Finley. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
Mr. Finley. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
Mr. Finley. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communications, in a
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee of
the Congress of the United States or to consult with the
committee regarding the basis for any good faith delay or
denial in providing such documents?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
Mr. Finley. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. That concludes our
questions. Now, as you observed, several colleagues came in to
introduce an individual or nominee here this morning. I must
depart for a few minutes to introduce an individual from my
State who's becoming a United States Marshal for the United
States, the entire country. To ensure that, if I'm locked up,
I'll get good treatment, I'm going to get up there and
introduce him. Would you kindly take over?
Senator Chambliss [presiding]. Not that I am a capable
replacement for the gentleman from Virginia, but let me extend
my personal welcome to each of you here. Pete, it's always good
to see you back. You've been here several times before. We're
always glad to see you come back. Gentlemen, we'll begin with
opening statements at this time and Mr. Geren, we'll start with
you.
STATEMENT OF HON. PRESTON M. GEREN, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY
Mr. Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Senator
Levin, members of the committee, I'm honored that the President
has nominated me to serve as Under Secretary of the Army and to
appear before your committee. I want to thank President Bush
and Secretary Rumsfeld for their confidence in me and the
members of this committee for your consideration. I
particularly want to thank Senator Hutchison for being here
this morning and Senator Cornyn, both of them for their very
kind and charitable words. They've been great friends over the
years, and I appreciate very much their taking the time to be
here today. I want to thank Senator Cornyn for recognizing my
family. I'm delighted that they could be here. I want to thank
Becky and our girls for their love and support. We appreciated
the words of Senator Levin and Senator Warner, warm words that
they gave to all these family members. Thank you very much.
All of us in public life have people who have helped us
along the way, friends and family, people too numerous to
mention. There's one person, however, I'd like to recognize
today and thank for his friendship and help with my career. He
was one of your colleagues, Senator Lloyd Bentsen. He's not in
good health today. I wanted the record to reflect the personal
affection, appreciation, and gratitude I hold for him. When I
was young, his leadership drew me into politics. He gave me the
privilege of working on his Senate staff, and he gave
generously of his counsel and his support during my time in
elected politics. I want to thank him and his devoted wife,
Beryl Ann, for the friendship and generosity they've shown
Becky and me over the years. Without them, my life would have
taken a different course.
To serve as Under Secretary of the Army at this time in our
Nation's history is a daunting and humbling task. If confirmed,
I recognize that my success in the job will depend on my
ability to reach out to others, to those who have devoted their
lives to the Active, Guard, and Reserve components of the Army,
to build a team and work effectively with the many stakeholders
dedicated to the success of the Army.
I've been asked my top priority. That is an easy one: the
soldier and his or her family. Everything the Army must
accomplish depends on recruiting, training, equipping, and
retaining the finest soldiers in the world, and the family
cannot be neglected. The old adage, you recruit the soldier,
you retain the family, is more true today than ever before. Our
policies and practices must reflect that reality.
As a former Member of the House, I understand fully Article
I, Section 8, of the Constitution. If confirmed, I look forward
to working with this committee in service to the Army. I stand
ready to answer your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Pete, and I would be remiss
because Watson Brown would be curious why you don't have your
orange tie on today.
Mr. Geren. I wore it yesterday.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Dominguez.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ TO BE DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS
Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
this committee for all you do to support the men and women who
defend the Nation. I am grateful to Senator Allard for his kind
introduction and to Chairman Warner for recognizing my family
with me here today. I am also deeply grateful to the President
for nominating me to this position and to Secretary Rumsfeld
for his confidence in me and his support of this nomination.
For the last 4\1/2\ years, I have been privileged to serve
as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs. These past years have been a time of trial and
challenge as well as enormous opportunity. I am proud of the
airmen with whom I have served, of their sacrifice, their
achievement, and together with their joint service and
coalition partners, of the contribution they make to a secure
future for people who love peace and freedom. It is a great
honor to be offered another opportunity in service to our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you. Mr. Finley.
STATEMENT OF JAMES L. FINLEY TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Finley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Mr.
Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, I am deeply honored and humbled with the trust and
confidence of President Bush to nominate me for the position of
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology. I'm also very appreciative of Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld for his support, trust, and confidence in me
throughout this nomination process. I particularly also want to
thank Senator Dayton for his introductory remarks.
For me, this is a very special occasion. It will be my
first time, if confirmed, to serve in our government. With over
30 years of extensive business leadership, it is with great
passion and experience in acquisition and technology systems
that I come before you today for consideration of confirmation.
I am delighted to have my lovely wife, best friend, Sharon, and
my son, Daniel, and his wife, Jessica, from Connecticut to join
me here today. Dan is a marine, and needless to say, I feel
very safe with a marine at our side.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Levin, and members of the committee, I
have further prepared for this hearing by having read the
recently released Quadrennial Defense Review, as well as the
Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Report. I've also
read title 8, the 800 series section of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. As an outsider and
coming in from Minnesota, it was with great glory to see so
much snow here this weekend which helped keep me inside
reading, reading, and reading a fair mountain of documentation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kind remarks and the
opportunity to appear before this committee. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with you and this committee and
Congress. I stand ready for your questions.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you.
Mr. D'Agostino.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. D'Agostino. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the
committee, I am both humbled and honored to be the President's
nominee for Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs in the
National Nuclear Security Administration. I appreciate deeply
the confidence that the President, Secretary Bodman, and
Ambassador Brooks have placed in me.
If confirmed, I'll work with Congress and the
administration as we continue to assure the safety, security,
and reliability of our Nation's nuclear stockpile. I am blessed
to be entrusted by the President to be his nominee and if
confirmed by the Senate, I hope to lead this organization as we
continue to move forward in maintaining our Nation's security.
I've been with the Department of Energy's nuclear weapon's
program for over 15 years and I've seen great changes in that
time. Through the Treaty of Moscow, we will reduce
operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons to about 1,700
to 2,200 warheads by December 2012. In addition, the President
took further steps to reduce the size of the stockpile, both
deployed and nondeployed. At his direction by 2012, the
stockpile will be lower by nearly one-half from the 2001 level,
resulting in the smallest stockpile since the Eisenhower
administration.
Also, as described in the administration's Nuclear Posture
Review, we're in the midst of transforming the nuclear weapons
complex to implement a responsive infrastructure and to provide
for a deterrent that does not rely on significant number of
nondeployed warheads and weapons as a hedge against technical
uncertainty or geopolitical changes.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress on
the transformation of the stockpile and shift to the responsive
infrastructure. This will present challenges that will shape
our nuclear forces to reflect the reality that the Cold War is
over while at the same time maintaining that credible deterrent
consistent with our national security needs. This is the better
future for the nuclear weapons program. It's a future of an
integrated and responsive nuclear weapons enterprise that is
modernized, cost effective, safe, and secure.
Service is important to me, and as Chairman Warner
mentioned earlier, I have over 29 years of military service in
the United States Navy and 16 years of civil service in the
Department of the Navy as well as the Department of Energy
(DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration. As an
officer in the United States Navy, I was selected by Admiral
Rickover and trained as a submarine officer, and in this
capacity, I managed technically complex high hazard operations
onboard nuclear submarines. This training instilled in me a
commitment to quality, discipline, and integrity that are so
vital and important when dealing with nuclear operations.
After over 8 years on Active-Duty in the submarine force, I
continued to serve in the national security arena as a Naval
Reserve Officer and the civil service as a Propulsion Systems
Program Manager for the Seawolf Submarine Program. I then moved
to the DOE and worked in a wide variety of technical and
management positions in the area of tritium reactor restart, as
a Deputy Director for the Office of Stockpile Computing, as the
Deputy Director for the Nuclear Weapons Research and
Development and Simulation Program, and most recently as the
Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration. In that
capacity, I reported directly to the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs to integrate the Stockpile Stewardship Program
and budget across our three national laboratories, four
production sites, and the Nevada Test Site.
For all my professional life, I have focused on service in
support of our Nation's security and with your support I hope
to be able to continue this service as a Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs. I'm privileged to have been able to serve
my country and am confident that my experience will serve me
well, if confirmed.
Along with service, integrity, perseverance, and the proper
attitude are important to me. My father taught me that nothing
is beyond reach as long as you have these attributes. In 1st
Chronicles, King David said, ``I know my God that you test the
heart and are pleased with integrity. All these things have I
given willingly and with honest intent.'' If confirmed, I will
bring all these things to the Deputy Administrator position and
to the men and women of Defense Programs who work so hard on
the important task of preserving our Nation's security. With
your approval, it will be my great privilege to lead Defense
Programs as we meet our challenges and work towards a better
future. Thank you for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. D'Agostino follows:]
Prepared Statement by Thomas P. D'Agostino
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and members of the committee, I am
both humbled and honored to be the President's nominee as Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs in the National Nuclear Security
Administration at the Department of Energy. I appreciate the confidence
that the President, Secretary Bodman, and Ambassador Brooks have placed
in me. If confirmed, I will work with Congress and the administration
as we continue to assure the safety, security and reliability of the
nuclear weapons stockpile to meet our national security requirements. I
am blessed to be entrusted by the President to be his nominee, and if
confirmed by the Senate, I hope to lead this organization as we
continue to move forward in the work of maintaining our Nation's
security.
I have been with the Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear weapons
program for over 15 years, and have seen great changes in that time.
Through the Treaty of Moscow we will reduce operationally-deployed
strategic nuclear weapons to 1,700-2,200 by December 2012. In addition
the President took further steps to reduce the size of the stockpile,
both deployed and nondeployed. At his direction, by 2012, the stockpile
will be lower by nearly one-half from the 2001 level, resulting in the
smallest stockpile since the Eisenhower administration. Also, as
described in the administration's Nuclear Posture Review, we are in the
midst of transforming the nuclear weapons complex to implement a
responsive infrastructure to provide for a deterrent that does not rely
on a significant number of nondeployed weapons as a hedge against
technical problems or geopolitical changes.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress on the
transformation of the stockpile and the shift to a responsive
infrastructure. This will present challenges that will shape our
nuclear forces to reflect the reality that the Cold War is over, while
at the same time maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent consistent
with our national security needs. This is the better future for the
nuclear weapons program--a future of an integrated and responsive
nuclear weapons enterprise that is modernized, cost-effective, safe,
and secure.
Service is important to me. I have over 29 years of military
service in the United States Navy and over 16 years of civil service in
the Department of the Navy and then the DOE and National Nuclear
Security Administration. As an officer in the U.S. Navy, I was selected
by Admiral Rickover and trained as a nuclear submarine officer. In this
capacity I managed technically complex, high-hazard operations on board
nuclear submarines. This training instilled in me a commitment to
quality, discipline, and integrity that are so important when dealing
with nuclear operations. After over 8 years on Active-Duty in the
submarine force, I continued to serve in the national security arena as
a Naval Reserve Officer and in the civil service as a propulsion
systems program manager for the Sea Wolf submarine program. I then
moved to the DOE and worked in a wide variety of both technical and
management positions, in the areas of tritium reactor restart, as
Deputy Director in the Office of Stockpile Computing, as the Deputy
Director for Nuclear Weapons Research, Development and Simulation, and
most recently, as the Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program
Integration. In that capacity, I reported directly to the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs to integrate the Stockpile
Stewardship Program and budget across four production sites, three
national laboratories, and the Nevada Test Site.
For all of my professional life I have focused on service in
support of our Nation's security. With your support I hope to be able
to continue this service as the Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs. I am privileged to have been able to serve my country and am
confident that my experience will serve me well if confirmed.
Along with service, integrity, perseverance, and the proper
attitude are important to me as well. My father taught me that nothing
is beyond reach as long as you have these attributes. In First
Chronicles, King David said, ``I know, my God, that you test the heart
and are pleased with integrity. All these things have I given willingly
and with honest intent.'' If confirmed, I will bring all of these
things to the Deputy Administrator position, and to the men and women
of Defense Programs who work so hard on the important task of
preserving our Nation's security. With your approval, it would be my
great privilege to lead Defense Programs as we meet our challenges and
work towards a better future. Thank you for your consideration.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First, Mr. Geren,
let me ask you a few questions. The Army plans to increase the
operational force by about 40,000 people. In your written
answers to the committee you wrote that there's a two-phase
approach to reduce the institutional Army by first converting a
total of 27,000 spaces from military to civilian, and I'm
wondering if you can tell us about that plan. Is it
progressing?
Mr. Geren. I don't know the details of the plan, Senator,
but the plan is to move 40,000 faces into the operational Army.
They intend to meet the needs in the institutional Army three
ways: one through military/civilian conversions, another is in
some cases discontinuing practices that are determined no
longer to be relevant, and the other is through contracting,
outsourcing, and other business transformation initiatives.
They have, as I understand it, have moved 7,000 or 8,000
already into the operational Army. I don't know the timetable.
I'd be glad to furnish the details of it for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Army has been evaluating force requirements within the End
Strength Plan outlined by the Secretary of the Army in August 2005.
Under this plan, the Army is building an expeditionary, campaign
quality force capable of meeting the broad and complex array of
challenges while ensuring its forces remain the preeminent land power
and ultimate instrument of national resolve. The operational force grew
by approximately 20,000 spaces from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year
2005 (315,000 to 335,000) and is forecasted to grow another 10,000
spaces from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006 (335,000 to 345,000).
The Army will achieve the goal of a 355,000 space operational force in
fiscal year 2007. The Army will realize this growth through gaining
efficiencies in its institutional force and through Business Process
Transformation. The Army's goal is to attain a reduction to 75,000
soldiers in its institutional force and reduce the transients,
trainees, holdees, and students (TTHS) to 52,400 Soldiers. The
military/civilian conversion plan is a key component of the overall
Army End Strength Plan. A two-phase approach to reduce the
Institutional Army through military-to-civilian conversion is being
executed. Phase I (fiscal year 2005-2009) will convert up to 11,000
positions. Phase II (fiscal year 2008-2011) will convert up to 14,000
additional positions and is under review by major commands. Through
fiscal year 2006, we have converted 9,644 Active military positions.
Business Process Transformation will streamline or eliminate redundant
operations to free up human resources to redirect to the operational
force.
Senator Levin. Thank you. In your written answers to the
committee you wrote that one of your highest priorities would
be to work with the Secretary of the Army to enhance the Army's
coordination and communication with Members of Congress and
staff. As a prior member of the House of Representatives and
its Armed Services Committee, I think you have personal
experience. Your commitment is very important to us. Do you
have any specific recommendations that you would give to the
Secretary of the Army on how to improve the Army's relationship
with Congress?
Mr. Geren. I know that he shares the same commitment to
work with the House and with the Senate, and understands fully
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I believe strongly
that if we are going to do our jobs well in the DOD or, if
confirmed, the United States Army, we cannot do it without
being full partners with Congress. The Army has to remain
connected to the people that we represent, has to remain
connected to the people of the Nation, and in addition to the
partnership serving our ability to make the right decisions
about the Army and lead the Army properly, Congress helps us
stay connected with the American people. The American people
must retain faith in the United States Army. They entrust their
sons and their daughters to the care of the Army. They send
their Army all over the world, and I believe a strong, vital
relationship with Congress is key to maintaining that
connection to the people.
Senator Levin. As Special Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense, you were the liaison to Congress on detainee abuse
issues. You may know that I have initiated a factfinding effort
to fill in some of the gaps in the DOD investigations into
detainee abuses and to examine issues of accountability for
policies, practices, and activities that may have contributed
to such mistreatment. Will you cooperate with me in that
effort?
Mr. Geren. I will cooperate, Senator. As I understand it,
the Office of Secretary of Defense has your request under
consideration, but I can assure you, sir, as I have over these
last 2 years, I worked very hard to be forthcoming and provide
transparency and work with you and with your staff in making
sure that we answer all your questions and provide you the
information you need.
Senator Levin. Will you help us get answers from persons
that you have some control over or influence with?
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir, to the extent I can. As I said, the
Office of Secretary of Defense is, I believe, taking that issue
on and I'll work with them and work with Congress. I know their
goal would be to cooperate to the extent possible.
Senator Levin. We also would appreciate, not just that kind
of support and cooperation, but also prompt responses as well.
Can we count on you for that?
Mr. Geren. I understand the value of promptness, yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Are you aware of any additional authority
that the Army needs to mobilize the Army National Guard and
Army Reserve personnel when they are needed?
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir. As I understand it, there are a couple
of initiatives that the Army would like see enacted to support
their mobilization needs. One is, under the President's
authority to call up the Guard, we would like to extend it from
270 days to a year, I believe, and also provide the opportunity
on a voluntary basis, to make guardsmen available for training
in advance of mobilization in excess of 39 days a year. I think
those are the priorities for the Army.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Mr. Dominguez, the Washington
Post a few days ago reported that the Army is projecting a
shortage of 3,500 Active-Duty officers in career fields
strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They indicated
one of the measures the Army is taking to address this
shortfall is recalling officers who have completed their
Active-Duty commitments and are fulfilling the remainder of
their military service obligations in the Individual Ready
Reserve. Are you familiar with those alleged shortages in the
junior officer ranks?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, only generally from my conversations
with my counterparts and my reading in the media.
Senator Levin. Okay. Now, the Air Force as well as the Navy
is downsizing and seeking incentives for excess officers to
leave the Service. If confirmed, will you take actions to
attempt to ensure that Air Force and Navy officers who have the
skills, training, and experience that are in short supply in
the Army are encouraged to serve in or with the Army?
Mr. Dominguez. Oh, absolutely, Senator.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions of
our other nominees. With your permission, and if Senator Dayton
would allow me; then I'd be able to get on to another
commitment that I have, and I would appreciate that.
Secretary Dominguez, there is an article in the Washington
Post on February 9, 2006, where the columnist, Robert Novak,
asserted that Active-Duty servicemembers are being offered to
Republican county chairmen to speak in a duty status about
their experiences in Iraq. Are you aware of any such activity?
Mr. Dominguez. No, Senator, I am not.
Senator Levin. Mr. Finley, you've indicated you have read
the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA). I'm
wondering now if you would tell us what you see as the most
serious problems in the DOD's acquisition of major weapons
systems and what steps you believe we should take to address
those problems, either from that review or from your own
personal experience.
Mr. Finley. Thank you, Senator Levin. The problems and
issues are fairly detailed in the DAPA Report. The number one
issue that was identified was oversight, number two issue was
acquisition strategy, and the number three issue was the
requirements and instability requirements. What I see is
bringing my experience from the business world into this arena
of requirements creep. Scheduled growth and budgeting would put
more stability in what they call the bigger A concept as
opposed to just focusing on individual program performance
areas.
Senator Levin. Mr. Finley, the acquisition of contract
services is too often neglected by senior DOD acquisition
officials who spend much of their time on major weapons
systems. If you are confirmed, can you make it a top priority
to improve the management of contract services within the DOD?
Mr. Finley. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. All right. I just have one question for Mr.
D'Agostino and that has to do with the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator (RNEP) Program. Do you know if the budget request
for fiscal year 2007 includes any money for RNEP or RNEP-
related activities?
Mr. D'Agostino. Senator Levin, there's no money requested
or resources requested for the RNEP in the fiscal year 2007
President's budget.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, again, my thanks to
you and to Senator Dayton.
Senator Chambliss. Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
all four of you for your willingness to serve. Mr. Geren,
yesterday we had a hearing with the Secretary of the Army and
the Chief of Staff of the Army and a subject that came up
frequently was the plans for the National Guard. This occurred
in part because of a lack of ongoing communication with the
Adjutant Generals and even Governors that led to quite a flurry
of contacts between Members of the Senate and the House in the
last couple of weeks. Yesterday, both the Secretary and the
Chief of Staff made a commitment to involve the Adjutant
Generals in ongoing communication about the future plans. I
would ask if you'd be willing to make that same commitment and
assure us when you arrive in your position that ongoing
communication does in fact occur.
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir, I certainly would.
Senator Dayton. All right. Thank you. Secretary Dominguez,
Senator Allard referenced the situation with the Air Force
Academy and the plan, or the program, to combat sexual abuse. I
wonder if you could give some particulars because that's a
subject of great interest to the members of this committee.
What has been done there? What has been instituted? How is it
judged to be effective, and why is it a model for the other
academies?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir. Thank you. Senator, my colleagues
and I responded aggressively to this challenge. We addressed
this problem openly, consulting with Congress and keeping the
press informed. We sought, from outside experts, assistance in
understanding the problem and in fashioning our attack upon the
problem. We focused on prevention through clarified roles and
responsibilities, and we improved training. We improved our
response capabilities through assignment of full-time sexual
assault response coordinators, training for victim advocates,
training for first-responders, and, importantly, implementation
of a confidential reporting avenue. We regained the trust and
confidence of our men and women so that they know when they
report this crime they'll be protected and we will seek
justice.
Senator Dayton. Let me ask, how do you know you have their
trust and confidence? How do you determine that?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, we monitor that through surveys, both
incidents of sexual assault as well as surveys of the attitudes
of our young men and women regarding their trust and confidence
in command. We've seen a major turn-around in that. The
openness with which we address it and continue to address it,
the specific actions that we took, and the monitoring of that
data and putting that data out in front, again, in the open, is
one of the ways we do that. If you're interested, Senator, the
Academy Board of Visitors will be meeting this week, and
they'll see the statistics from the surveys in that public and
open forum.
Senator Dayton. I thank you for your contributions to that.
That's a very important, urgent in fact, reform. Thank you.
Mr. Finley, acquisitions and better efficiencies in
contracting seems to be the Sisyphus that afflicts the DOD.
You've been on the other side in the private sector. Could you
identify what you think are the principal problems and
therefore, opportunities for improvements that will make the
system process more efficient, save taxpayers dollars? What's
going to be critical now is to stretch every defense dollar to
go even farther.
Mr. Finley. Yes, sir. Senator Dayton, I feel a fundamental
common denominator from a business point of view is the
workforce. The people in the workforce make things happen, both
in the senior management all the way down to the people who
clean the floors at night. The first ingredient, I believe, you
need to have is good people. Fundamentally, I believe our men
and women in uniform, as well as our civilian forces, are good
people.
The second requirement is: do they have the right skill
sets and have we trained them properly and have we supported
them properly to get that training? The third requirement is
getting those skilled people in the right place. I believe that
is one of management's biggest challenges, and yet an
opportunity to stop requirements creep, stop cost growth, get
things that are stable from a planning point of view, and push
this ability of the people, accountability, responsibility,
down to the lowest level.
If confirmed, sir, in OSD, I would see a more value-added
approach to business, looking strategically at the services
from the standpoint of eliminating duplication and focusing on
core competencies of technologies to enable our acquisition
systems to be more successful, reducing the cycle of time and
meeting or beating the budget requirements.
Senator Dayton. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the
questions I have.
Chairman Warner. Senator Chambliss, thank you, sir, for
taking the chair while I had to be upstairs for a minute.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Geren, you
and I go back to our days in the House, particularly serving
together on the House Armed Services Committee where you were
such a strong supporter of our men and women in uniform as well
as various weapons systems that they need to make sure that we
are the world's strongest military. I can't thank you enough
for your service that you gave to them and to people of Texas,
both in the House and in DOD.
In your service in the Pentagon since September 2001, I
have had the opportunity to work with you on a number of issues
but to also observe your commitment to the defense of this
country. I thank you for your continued willingness to serve
the people of our country.
Mr. Geren. Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate it
very much.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Dominguez, let me focus on an issue
with you that is very critical to the national security of this
country. About a year ago, we had an issue in the budget
relative to the multiyear purchase of the C-130J airplane.
Obviously, coming from Georgia, that program is very important
to me from a parochial standpoint, but more significantly, it's
been important to me long before it became a parochial issue
with me because not one nut or bolt of that airplane was made
in my former congressional district.
Last year when the budget coming from the President sought
to terminate that multiyear contract, there was a lot of angst
raised on Capitol Hill not just by my office but by dozens of
Members of the Senate, dozens of Members of the House, and the
end result of that was the reinstatement of that multiyear
contract. Now, one of the problems we had was the fact that
that contract when it was initiated was a commercial contract,
which is a little bit unusual from a procurement standpoint,
and at the request of Senator McCain and in discussion within
this committee, the decision was made to convert that
commercial contract back to a more traditional contract.
Would you tell me what your involvement has been from the
early days of last year in the conversion of that contract back
to the more traditional form of procurement contract?
Mr. Dominguez. Certainly, Senator. My involvement was or
began when I became the Acting Secretary of the Air Force on
March 28, 2005, and continued through to July 28 when I handed
the baton off as Acting Secretary. So I inherited a budget
proposal that was under review by the Secretary of Defense. I
also inherited this discussion with Congress over the propriety
of terminating the contract and of the propriety of it being a
commercial acquisition. We had as you're very aware, Senator,
several years of struggle, controversy, between the United
States Air Force and Congress of the United States with regard
to some of our acquisition programs, and I inherited that as
well. I made it my priority, therefore, during my tenure as
Acting Secretary, the number one objective I sought was to
restore the trust and confidence that the Members of Congress
of the United States had in the Air Force leadership and our
ability to acquire weapons systems for the use of the Armed
Forces of the United States.
With that background and the controversy about the
commercial acquisition of that platform, I made the commitment
to convert that platform or that multiyear contract into a more
traditional acquisition contract. We approached that, again as
you pointed out, sir, decision to terminate the contract which
was in the President's budget and was reversed by the Secretary
of Defense about May 10. About May 11, Congress legislated a
prohibition against termination of the contract.
So our efforts focused on modifying the clauses in the
contract to acquire the visibility into production costs that
would be analogous to the kind of visibility we would have had
if back in the 1990s we had started this as a traditional
weapons system acquisition. That's the course I set. That
journey was continuing at the time I left, but we had not
achieved success yet.
Senator Chambliss. Now, were you involved in the original
decision to make this a commercial contract?
Mr. Dominguez. Oh, no, sir.
Senator Chambliss. During the time that you were involved
in this, did you ask the question, or what was the answer to
the question, of whether or not this had ever been done before?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I knew that this had not been done
before. I can't say for sure that I knew before I made the
commitment, but I was confident in our acquisition community
and in our partners in Lockheed Martin that they could do what
needed to be done.
Senator Chambliss. During the course of the work that
you've done on this conversion, have you found the Air Force as
well as Lockheed Martin to be very open in trying to come to
the type of conclusion that this committee mandated in the
legislation that was passed in May 2005, and that ultimately,
became law in January 2006?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, absolutely. As I said, my first
priority was restoring trust and confidence of Congress in our
leadership and our stewardship. I insisted that we be open, and
as a result of that, the Air Force acquisition professionals
reached out to the Office of the DOD Inspector General (IG) to
bring them into the discussions. They reached out to the
Defense Contract Audit Agency to bring them into the
discussions. After they had made what they considered
sufficient progress and thought they had the target in sight,
they reached out to Congress and the staff of this committee to
get feedback on their concept.
Senator Chambliss. So the involvement of the Office of
Inspector General was initiated by you as opposed to somebody
questioning what was happening relative to the conversion?
Mr. Dominguez. That's correct, sir.
Senator Chambliss. During all of this time that you were
involved in this, and tell me again the exact time period that
you were so involved.
Mr. Dominguez. March 28 was when I became the Acting
Secretary of the Air Force. About April 13 is when I visited
with Senator McCain. General Jumper and I committed to convert
this contract to a more traditional acquisition footing, and
then July 28 was when I handed the baton as Acting Secretary
off to my successor.
Senator Chambliss. So, basically, about a 4-month period
was all of the time that you were involved in this and that was
at the initial time of the conversion of this contract to the
more traditional form.
Mr. Dominguez. That's absolutely correct.
Senator Chambliss. Now, during that time, what were the
comments or findings of the Office of Inspector General
relative to the work towards converting this contract?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I don't know of any specific comments
during my tenure. I know because in preparation for this
hearing I've reviewed the history of what transpired. The
consultant that the Air Force acquisition team had working with
them through the summer and from the period of about July 28
when I actually left the office through the early fall, that
consultant was onboard with the approach the Air Force had
proposed. He thought it met the spirit of the congressional
intent and was supportive, and I know by participating in the
ongoing dialogue with Members of Congress and Congress' staff.
Senator Chambliss. After the meeting that you and General
Jumper had with Senator McCain, which I believe you said was
April 13, was there any further discussion between you or
members of your staff with members of this committee or staff
of this committee?
Mr. Dominguez. No, sir. I think that is my deepest regret
at this point, that I did not initiate during my tenure a
followup conversation with the important members of this
committee to apprise you of our strategy and the fact that we
were, in fact, just modifying clauses in an existing multiyear
contract to add the cost visibility.
I did not come back and say, ``that was our strategy, are
you okay with it?'' Nor did I apprise you of the fact that we
planned, and to iterate we were going to bring back a product
that had never been done before for us all to look at and see
if we liked it. But I didn't communicate that clearly, and so
there was an unfortunate misunderstanding that erupted
downstream as a result of that omission on my part, sir.
Senator Chambliss. Was there ever any intention to deceive
this committee relative to the language which was included in
the authorization bill in May 2005?
Mr. Dominguez. Absolutely not, Senator.
Senator Chambliss. By the same token, did you receive any
questions relative to the work on this contract during that 4-
month period from any member of this committee or staff of a
member of this committee?
Mr. Dominguez. I do not recall, Senator, receiving any
communication. I hope that there was communication between our
team and the staff but I don't know it. They didn't apprise me
of it, and I received no direct inquiry.
Senator Chambliss. Now, was it your intention to carry out
the terms of the directive that this committee made in the
authorization bill?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir. I have scrupulously followed the
law, the intent of Congress, and the committee reports.
Senator Chambliss. At the time you left on July 28, 2005,
did you think that was well underway?
Mr. Dominguez. Absolutely, Senator. I thought we were
making great progress.
Senator Chambliss. Have you had any further involvement in
this program or in the transformation of this contract since
that time?
Mr. Dominguez. No, Senator, only the last week of fact-
gathering so that I might be able to answer questions at this
hearing.
Senator Chambliss. Who replaced you from the standpoint of
the Air Force's participation in the conversion of this
contract?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I was replaced as the Acting Secretary
of the Air Force by the Honorable Pete Geren who, as a result
of there not being an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition, also became the Service Acquisition Executive. I
handed the baton off to my friend, Mr. Geren.
Senator Chambliss. Were you satisfied at that time that
everything requested by this committee was in fact moving
forward in accordance with the directions of the legislation
that had been passed by this committee?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, that was my belief.
Senator Chambliss. Okay. Mr. Geren, let me ask you, you've
served as Acting Secretary of the Air Force from April 28 until
I believe, sometime that fall.
Mr. Geren. July to early November.
Senator Chambliss. Tell me what involvement you had with
respect to the changing of this contract from a commercial
contract to the more traditional form?
Mr. Geren. I had no involvement with it at all, sir.
Senator Chambliss. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your
leniency, and I have some documents that I would request I be
authorized to enter into the record, particularly the testimony
of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, Ken Krieg, during his confirmation hearing, news
release coming out of the Air Force dated April 13----
Chairman Warner [presiding]. Senator, you just advise the
staff and without objection we'll put those in.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Warner. I'd like to advise the witnesses that I
anticipate Senator McCain will be down. He's been very active
in this matter, and he will, I hope, have the opportunity to
come down and pursue a line of questions on it, but I thank
you, I think you inquired into it very thoroughly. It's a
matter of concern to the committee, but this is an aircraft
that's been a workhorse. It's an essential one for the
inventory of our services, and I think it's important that this
committee look at the continuing needs and requirements for
this aircraft and make a decision. I thank the distinguished
Senator for his participation in filling in for a while for me
this morning.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I think I'll depart again from formal
procedure and recognize our colleague, Senator Thune. You've
always been very patient to wait. Why don't you take your
opportunity at this time, and then I'll come back in with a
series of questions.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's the
disadvantage of being at the end of this line. I appreciate
your leadership on this committee and getting the active
participation of all of us here, including the freshmen
members.
Mr. Geren, Mr. Dominguez, Mr. Finley, and Mr. D'Agostino, I
want to welcome you and thank you for your commitment to public
service, for your records of service, and your careers and all
the things you have done for this country, and for your
willingness to put your names forward and continue to be
involved. I appreciate as well, the opportunities that I've had
to visit with you, your responsiveness to questions and issues
that we have raised that apply to not only my State but also to
this Nation, and the important work that our military is
undertaking all over the planet.
Just a couple of questions, and I direct this one to Mr.
Geren. The Air Force and the Army have been working since 2004
to create a joint program with the Army's future cargo aircraft
which addresses the Army's organic lift gap and the Air Force's
light cargo airlift, which addresses the Air Force's gap in
intra-theater airlift capability. There have been some reports
that, in addition to organic lift, Army wants to take over the
intra-theater airlift and that there is supposedly a fight
brewing between the Services.
With your time as Acting Secretary of the Air Force, you're
probably aware of this issue. I guess my question has more to
do with any implications based on which direction this program
leads, and how you will work to resolve this issue to meet the
needs of both Services.
Mr. Geren. Thank you for that question. I'm not familiar
with the details of the program or the discussions or
negotiations. I know organic fixed wing and rotary transport
within theater is a high priority for the Army and, if
confirmed, it's a matter which I would want to be involved with
in advising the Secretary as part of his consideration. Beyond
that, I don't have familiarity with details sufficient to offer
an opinion at this time. I'd be glad to offer something for the
record.
Senator Thune. Okay. That would be great if you could. We'd
welcome that.
Mr. Geren. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Future Cargo Aircraft is a complementary system that fills a
gap at the tactical (as opposed to operational or strategic) level;
what we refer to as the Last Tactical Mile. The jointness of the
program is already reflected in the Acquisition Strategy Report (ASR)
for Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA)/Light Cargo Aircraft (LCA). In
addition, the Services have developed a draft memorandum of agreement
we anticipate will be signed by the Vice Chiefs of Staff no later than
May 1, 2006, and a Joint Program Office (JPO) charter that will be
signed by the Services' Acquisition Executives about the same
timeframe. These two documents will establish the JPO effective October
1, 2006, in Huntsville, Alabama, with the Army as the lead agency. The
Army still plans to begin fielding FCA to its aviation force in fiscal
year 2008. The USAF plans to field the LCA approximately 2 years later.
In summary, we are a joint (Army/Air Force) team working together to
field the best equipment possible to meet the combatant commander's
needs.
Senator Thune. Mr. Dominguez, several of these issues I
suspect have been touched upon. I don't want to plow ground
that's already been covered, but one of the issues that has
been raised relates to transforming the force into the modern,
lean force of the future. That's been, obviously, a top
priority for the Department, and some would argue that that
transformation into a smaller force is not feasible when we're
fighting a global war on terrorism. We have a lot of airmen,
soldiers, marines, and sailors who have served multiple tours
supporting the war effort, and I guess my question is how do we
effectively cut end strength while simultaneously fighting the
war without burning out our troops?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, thank you. Senator, that's an important
question. The answer to it is likely to be service specific.
The Navy and the Air Force, in particular, sir, are platform-
centric and technology-driven arms. While we have in the Air
Force, for example, some career fields that are challenged as a
result of the demands of the global war on terror, many other
career fields are not. So it's a question of rationalizing that
structure in those Services. With regards to the Army, I am
just generally familiar with Secretary Harvey's plan that to
move soldiers out of what they call the institutional Army,
that part of the Army that runs the infrastructure, runs the
training establishment, does the acquisition programs, and try
and move soldiers out of that so that those soldiers are freed
to meet the needs and demands in the combat force structure. I
think that strategy of getting leaner and more efficient in our
business operations, getting soldiers out of those jobs that
don't require soldiers, and move the soldiers back into the
combat structure that'll take the stress out of that component
of force structure. I think Secretary Harvey is fairly
confident he can accomplish that within the end strength plans
that he's shared with this committee.
Senator Thune. Let me direct one question to Mr. Finley
that has to do with acquisition reform. That's something I know
that you also probably covered this morning. There are, in that
whole process, factors including cost growth and schedule
delays that continue to drive a decrease in procurement
quantities. I know some of the contributing factors in cost
growth are under-estimating programs, technical problems,
schedule slips, requirements changes, those sorts of things.
I'll take the F-22, and I don't single that out for any
particular reason, but originally the Air Force sought to
procure, I think it was, over 600, 648 F-22s at a unit cost of
approximately $125 million and due to late maturation of
technology, costs have skyrocketed and the schedule has
slipped. Now the Air Force is procuring, I think the number is
183, F-22s at a unit cost of approximately $361 million. That
amounts to 189 percent increase in the cost per unit. Again,
just selecting the F-22 for no particular reason other than to
demonstrate the extent of the problem. This is not an easy
issue to resolve overnight but at the same time we can't take
years to get it right. I'd be interested in what your thoughts
or observations are on actions that we need to take in the area
of acquisition reform.
Mr. Finley. Thank you, Senator Thune. I couldn't agree with
you more, sir. Great to see you again, sir.
Senator Thune. Good to see you again.
Mr. Finley. I believe these problems are not simple. I
think they're complex. Reading a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report over the weekend, I forget the exact title
of it, but one of the things that did strike me in the F-22
program in particular was something in the neighborhood of 14
baselines. The ways to solve these problems I think are also
complex, but we have to keep them simple. One way is to help
get technology maturity faster in the program sooner rather
than later. Sooner rather than later on technology maturity
affects a lot of things in terms of the fielding and the
operational capability of the aircraft. The F-22 is certainly
not the only major weapon system. I've now become familiar with
a number of them. Getting technology maturity upfront earlier
in the acquisition process, I believe, is absolutely critical
as one dimension in stabilizing a program and also firming up
requirements so you do not have this situation, requirements
creep, over and over again. That needs to be stopped.
If confirmed, sir, it will be a very high priority on my
agenda to dig into these details and try to assist and help
stop these events from happening.
Senator Thune. I appreciate your answers to those questions
and look forward to working with each of you in your various
capacities to make sure that we have the leanest, meanest, most
effective warfighter out there and at the best possible cost to
the taxpayer. I think it's really important recognizing that
it's expensive to be the world's super power and to have the
strongest, most lethal military in the world. I know that is
something that we have to deal with in terms of budgets and
that's obviously something that I, and I think every member of
this committee and hopefully most Members of Congress, are
incredibly committed to.
At the same time, we also have a responsibility to make
sure we're getting the best possible return to the taxpayers to
accomplish that objective. So we thank you for your service and
look forward to working with each of you. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, Senator, and I'd like to
recognize right away Senator McCain and I'll follow with my
questions after Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For some
time, this committee has been concerned with accountability in
defense procurement practices. So much so that on May 17, 2005,
this committee reported out the National Defense Authorization
Bill with a provision which prohibited purchase of C-130J
aircraft unless it was a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
Part 15 traditional military procurement contract. The statute
which is now law is simple. Any C-130J, KC-130J aircraft
procured after fiscal year 2005, including C-130J, KC-130J
aircraft procured through a multiyear contract continuing in
force, et cetera, et cetera, should be procured through a
contract under Part 15 of the FAR relating to acquisition of
items by negotiated contract rather through a contract under
Part 12 of the FAR. What it means is that we required the C-
130J procurement to go through the normal contracting
procedures which apply to any major procurement. The Part 12 of
the FAR, and I could quote from the law, is for commercial or
small business entrance, clearly not applying to the C-130J.
Now, with regard to the same program, I was assured by Mr.
Dominguez and General Jumper that in fact the Air Force had
begun to clean up its act. However, recent developments have
dissuaded me from that conclusion.
Today, Mr. Dominguez, I'd like to talk about your
commitments to me about the C-130J contract. Air Force
contracting officers and their leadership should never have
acquired the C-130J using a commercial item acquisition
strategy, but they did. It was done for 10 years. Had it not
been for my staff and the DOD Inspector General, not the Air
Force Inspector General, you with the advice of your
acquisition experts, would have continued to procure the C-130J
aircraft under the multiyear procurement as a commercial item
procurement contract.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take too much time, but there
was a press release put out by the United States Air Force on
April 13, 2005, that the Air Force has begun to implement a
more traditional contract structure with the C-130J. This is an
Air Force press release. This includes future modifications
sustainment, they've initiated discussions with Lockheed to
convert the multiyear to a more traditional structure. I also
met, oh, it's been quite long ago, the Lockheed Martin CEO who
assured me that he would be coming forward with information
concerning this contract, and I've not heard from him since.
Just a brief chronology: on April 26, 2005, the Airland
Subcommittee heard testimony which confirmed the Air Force
acquired the C-130J as a commercial item. So we didn't get the
cost and pricing information that was to assure it was
acquiring this aircraft at a fair and reasonable price. On
April 13, 2005, Acting Secretary Dominguez and Chief of Staff
of the Air Force Jumper indicated they shared my concerns and
in so doing they informed me that the Air Force would convert
the C-130J commercial item procurement contract to a
traditional military item procurement contract and issued a
press release stating the same.
I expressed gratitude at the Air Force receptiveness to the
subcommittee's concerns. On May 17, the Armed Services
Committee reported out the Defense Authorization Bill, part of
the statute I already noted. On June 22, 2005, I wrote
Secretary Rumsfeld, reiterating my concerns concerning the C-
130J multiyear commercial contract and informed him of the
commitment by Acting Air Force Secretary Dominguez and Air
Force Chief of Staff Jumper to change the FAR Part 12
commercial item to Part 15. Mr. Dominguez received a copy of
that letter. I also requested my office be advised when the C-
130J contract would revert to a traditional Part 15 program. On
February 13, 2006, I received a letter from Mr. Dominguez. In
his letter, he stated he never intended to change the existing
commercial item procurement contract and instead pressed ahead
with a modification of the current contract as a commercial
item procurement contract with FAR Part 15-like clauses added.
This statement is fundamentally different from what Mr.
Dominguez and General Jumper committed to me on April 13, 2005,
concerning the C-130J contract. His position is materially and
inexplicably changed.
Furthermore, this statement is in direct contradiction to
legislation that this committee drafted, the Senate passed, and
the President signed into law last year.
Mr. Dominguez, early yesterday evening, my staff received
the Air Force IG's report on matters related to the C-130J
program. I wanted to know who authorized using the original FAR
Part 12 contract with only some terms and conditions changed
instead of changing the original to FAR Part 15 contract. The
entire report is based on a false premise that I expected the
current contract to be terminated and a new one to be rebid.
That's totally false. Accordingly, its conclusion that only I
left the meeting last year with you and General Jumper with an
understanding that so ending the Part 12 multiyear contract was
required to effect a conversion is nothing more than a
strawman.
Equally offensive and ridiculously self-serving is the
report's conclusion that Air Force officials found it
``impossible to meet with my military legislative assistant.''
It just so happens he was the one who found out that the Air
Force's new proposal was not substantially different from what
it had planned to do all along.
I am gratified by Secretary Wynne's recent assurance to me
that as of 10 February 2006 the Air Force has executed an
undefinitized contract action for the fiscal year 2006 aircraft
procurements under FAR Part 15 embracing all the features for
audit and cost visibility, but given the IG's report, I need to
clear up a few points for the record.
Mr. Dominguez, you and General Jumper met with me in my
office on April 13, 2005, is that correct?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, Senator.
Senator McCain. During that meeting, you and General Jumper
assured me--and we'll get a deposition, and remember that when
you testify before this committee you are testifying under
oath--during that meeting, you and General Jumper assured me
that the Air Force would convert the C-130J Part 12 contract to
a Part 15 contract. Now, before you proceed with that answer, I
had two staff members in the room taking notes at the time.
Now, is that correct?
Mr. Dominguez. To the best of my knowledge, it is, Senator.
Senator McCain. In providing me that assurance, you never
intended that only select terms and conditions in the Part 12
contract be changed, ``to provide the government with nearly
the same visibility'' into the contractor's cost as would be
available under a Part 15 approach, is that correct?
Mr. Dominguez. Senator, I intended to get the cost
visibility, the visibility into the cost of production of that
airplane that you and I both needed to assure the American
people and this committee that we were getting value for the
taxpayer dollars, Senator. I absolutely wanted to achieve that
goal.
Senator McCain. The Air Force IG alleges that you neither
sought nor received any advice on the feasibility of converting
the Part 12 contract to a Part 15 version. Is that allegation
true?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes. I relied on General Jumper's assurance
to me. He consulted with our acquisition professionals and with
the CEO of Lockheed Martin who also agreed that we needed to
move in this direction and agreed to cooperate with us to get
there.
Senator McCain. Of course, this is a multi-billion dollar
procurement contract program we're talking about here. Were you
aware that according to the Air Force IG, the legal community
at the Air Force said that such a conversion was impossible?
Mr. Dominguez. I was not, Senator.
Senator McCain. According to the Air Force IG, the Army's
conversion of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) Operational
Tasking Authority (OTA) to a Part 15 acquisition was ``much
simpler than the C-130J situation.'' As you likely know, the
$168 billion FCS is probably the most complex weapon system in
the history of the Pentagon. By all estimates, the FCS by an
order of magnitude more complex than the current $2.4 billion
C-130J procurement program. I'd like to have the production of
the December 16, 2005, Memorandum of Understanding between the
Air Force and Lockheed Martin on the C-130J procurement program
under which, according to the Air Force Inspector General,
Lockheed Martin agreed to modify the Part 12 contract to be
Part 15 compliant. Can you provide the committee with that?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I don't have the authority to do that.
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the committee
subpoena--it's clearly under the supervision and the oversight
of this committee--a Memorandum of Understanding between the
DOD and Lockheed Martin on the C-130J procurement program. Why
don't you have the authority, Mr. Dominguez?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I am not any longer the Acting
Secretary of the Air Force nor the Service Acquisition
Executive. I handed those jobs off on July 28, 2005.
Senator McCain. But they happened on your watch.
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I was the Acting Secretary from March
28, 2005, until July 28, 2005.
Chairman Warner. If I might interject, Senator, I think
your request is an important one. We'll take it under immediate
advisement.
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to tell my friends
at the Pentagon that we went through 3 years on the Boeing
tanker scam. People went to jail. It was established that we
saved the taxpayers of America $8 billion by pursuing this, and
it took us 3 years. I intend to pursue this issue until it is
completely resolved, and Lockheed Martin is held accountable
for whatever part they played in this disgraceful performance.
I do not intend, Mr. Dominguez, to move forward with your
nomination until this issue is cleared up.
What has happened here, Mr. Chairman, is the contract--
since I used a lot of legalese and Pentagon jargon--but for the
record, what has happened here is the C-130J contract was let
by individuals who still have not been held responsible under a
``commercial contract.'' Any rational observer knew that there
was no possible way that there was going to be any commercial
airline going to purchase a C-130J. Indeed, none did, and none
has shown any intention of doing so. But using this cover in
collusion with Lockheed Martin, the contract was let under FAR
Part 12 which relieves both the manufacturing company and the
DOD from any accountability of any significant amount. In other
words, the regular acquisition checks, the audits, et cetera,
are waived because of that kind of contract. Now, we don't know
what the cost of a C-130J is going to be. We hear all different
kinds of numbers. Then, as a result of the Boeing problem, Mr.
Dominguez and General Jumper, then Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, come into my office. I said, ``look, this isn't right,
this isn't right to have this done as a commercial contract
when it's clear there's going to be no commercial use for this
aircraft.'' Both Mr. Dominguez and the then Chief of Staff of
the Air Force not only told me, but issued a press release that
I just quoted from, that they would convert to FAR 15. My
staff, looking through the contract, finds out a year later
that it was really not changed to FAR 15. We pointed it out to
them at that time, and to my knowledge, it is still not. So
then we get incredibly, a Department of the Air Force IG
report, and this is why we're going to need a GAO investigation
and other organizations looking at this, which by the way, was
complicit, the Department of the Air Force IG was complicit in
the Boeing deal, that I believed that there was no conversion,
or conveyed the impression that there was no requirement to
convert from a noncommercial acquisition.
Mr. Chairman, really what this brings up and what we're
going to have to concentrate on for the next several years here
is that the procurement system in the DOD is badly broken.
We've seen the FCS go from $90 billion to $120 billion. In a
hearing that had to be cancelled yesterday, the GAO will report
that 9 of the 11 major acquisitions were behind schedule and
overpriced, and yet received incentive bonuses for being
overpriced and behind schedule. We've gone in the 1980s, when
we used to have fixed-cost contracts now to cost plus contracts
which, of course, in a noncompetitive environment which is
basically what we have now due to the consolidation of the
defense industry, an unregulated monopoly. Meanwhile, people
bounce back and forth from the DOD to the defense industry and
back and forth. Where are the David Packards of this world?
Where are the Mel Lairds, even, of this world?
Mr. Dominguez, I'm sure you're a good man and I'm sure
you're a decent person and you've tried to be very honest with
me, but we have to get this cleared up and now we're going to
get the C-130J cleared up and we're going to get the FCS
cleared up and we're going to get procurement cleared up so
that the taxpayers of America can have some kind of confidence
that their hard-earned dollars are being spent in an efficient
fashion. I thank you for allowing me this time, Mr. Chairman. I
have some documents relating to this matter I'd like to submit
for the record.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Good.
Senator McCain. I look forward to working with you on this
and what I'm afraid may be another emerging scandal.
Chairman Warner. Senator, I'll simply say that this
committee was the last stop for the tanker reprogramming after
three other committees of the Congress of the United States had
approved that program. But in consultation with my longtime
friend and associate here, we decided the buck was going to
stop on this desk and it did. You have recounted the subsequent
history where it was determined that this committee was right,
I repeat, absolutely right in stopping that contract and
requiring certain other considerations be given to that
program. Those considerations revealed the flaws that the
Senator and I felt were present.
We will similarly handle the matters that you have just
recited. Do bear with us, Mr. Dominguez. I share the Senator's
observation that you're a decent and honest man, and you were.
You've been called on by the President to perform this duty. At
this time, the Senator and I will continue to work as partners
until we get to the bottom of this situation. I thank you,
Senator.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to follows:]
Additional Remarks of Senator John McCain
For some time now I have been concerned about the Air Force
acquiring C-130J aircraft as commercial FAR Part 12, rather than as
military FAR Part 15, items. As a result, the Air Force has not
required the aircraft's manufacturer to provide it with certified cost,
pricing, and profit information it needs in order to assure that
taxpayers are not getting ripped off. Against this backdrop, on
February 15, 2005, the aircraft's manufacturer Lockheed Martin agreed
to provide me with specific information necessary to alleviate my
concerns.
On April 21 and July 7, 2005, Lockheed Martin did supply me with
relevant information, regarding cumulative earnings, numbers of C-130Js
produced, whom they were sold to, aggregate development and
nonrecurring costs, and pricing history of C-130Js. But, while helpful,
this information was unfortunately not as responsive to my concerns as
I would have liked. Because the C-130J program is a commercial FAR Part
12 contract, Lockheed Martin Corporation is not required, by
regulation, to apply the same accounting standards and audit provisions
that are required under FAR Part 15 traditional military procurement
contracts. This is the basis for my concern.
Last year, Congress took strong action to reverse the Air Force's
decision to purchase C-130J aircraft as commercial items and directed
them to change the contract to a FAR Part 15 traditional military
contract. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
includes two provisions (sections 135 and 803 of Public Law 109-163,
attached) regarding commercial item procurements of major weapon
systems. One prohibited purchases of C-130J aircraft unless it was
under a FAR Part 15 traditional military procurement contract. The
other provision would require the express congressional authorization
to purchase a major weapon system as a commercial item.
Since then, the Air Force's plan to convert the C-130J multiyear
procurement contract from a commercial, to a military acquisition has,
regrettably, not proceeded as I expected and in accordance with the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. However, Air
Force Secretary Wynne has recently assured me that the future
procurement of C-130J aircraft will proceed in a manner that fully
embraces all the audit and cost visibility features associated with a
FAR Part 15 military item procurement contract. I am gratified by this
assurance and am hopeful that Lockheed Martin and the Air Force will
work together to resolve the substantial difficulties that have
beleaguered this program.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Warner. I'm going to ask Senator Thune if he would
chair. I'm on another committee and Secretary Chertoff is about
to be the witness, and my presence is needed there. I hope to
return here a little later this morning though. Mr. Thune, if
you will chair the committee.
Before going though, I do want to ask you one question, Mr.
D'Agostino, and that is about the $6 billion for the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. We've followed that very carefully.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. When I return, I will press on that
question so be prepared to give me a complete answer.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I thank the witnesses. I thank Senator
Thune for taking over for a few minutes.
Senator Thune [presiding]. All right. We will continue.
Chairman Warner has a series of questions that we want to get
on the record and so I'll start with those. This is directed at
Mr. D'Agostino. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board recently
issued a report titled ``Recommendations for the Nuclear
Weapons Complex of the Future.'' This report recommended bold
changes, including shutting down many of the current facilities
and creating one large consolidated site at a new location. You
have been part of a DOE team reviewing this report. Do you
believe this report contained recommendations which merit
further evaluation or potential adoption by DOE?
Mr. D'Agostino. Mr. Chairman, I do believe the report
identified some areas that we should look at. Since last
November, I have held meetings, brought a team together, we
have looked at the report very closely. There are basically
five major recommendations in the report. It turns out we're
basically proceeding on four of those five recommendations. The
big open question has to do with the consolidated nuclear
production complex which you alluded to in your question with
respect to closing sites across the complex. It's a very
difficult question to address. It's one that we are proceeding
on with a certain methodology. The report was clear that there
are a lot of details behind their broad recommendations that
they have not yet had a chance to examine, and they recommended
the Department take a look at the business cases underneath
their recommendations. We're in the process of taking a look at
those business cases, running them down and putting something
together which essentially, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, would be a responsive infrastructure that brings a
certain amount of integration and interdependency across our
production complex. So we are running that down quite seriously
and we will be briefing the Secretary probably within the next
few weeks on my recommendations to the Secretary, and we'll be,
of course, talking and consulting with Members of Congress as
well.
Senator Thune. As that process moves forward, I'm sure this
committee would welcome your insights and recommendations with
respect to that issue.
For Secretary Dominguez and Mr. Geren, both of you served
as Acting Secretary of the Air Force last year and were
involved in the formulation of interim religious guidelines,
aimed not only at responding to allegations of religious
intolerance at the U.S. Air Force Academy, but also at
providing useful, practical guidance to commanders, chaplains,
and those in positions of authority. How would you assess the
initial guidelines and changes that recently were made at the
direction of Air Force Secretary Wynne? I'll let you answer
that question first and then I'll do a followup question to
that. Mr. Geren.
Mr. Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've not had an
opportunity to see the final product that Secretary Wynne
issued so I can't speak to the details. I'd like to comment on
the process though. I think the process was very open.
Religious matters for all the Services involves some very
difficult issues to work with as a government and as a
military, and the Army works with the same issues as well. You
have to carefully balance the religious freedom that's
guaranteed under our Constitution, as well as make sure that as
a Service you don't run afoul of the establishment clause. It's
an area that Congress has legislated in. In the mid-1990s the
Religious Freedom Act was enacted by Congress which provides
the Services guidance, and the Services all have the
constitutional mission of protecting and defending the United
States, so there's many competing issues that have to be
balanced. I think the multiple Secretaries, Acting Secretaries,
as well as the current Secretary, work very hard to reach out
to many different people, both inside the Service and outside
the Service to achieve a proper balance. I have not seen the
final product but I commend the Air Force for the process they
went thorough. It was open, it was inclusive, and I'm confident
that the product was well thought through and well balanced.
Senator Thune. Secretary Dominguez, do you think that the
Secretary of Defense should assume a leadership role in the
effort to devise a comprehensive policy? It certainly would
appear that the Services are all wrestling with these issues.
Mr. Dominguez. Senator, as we worked through the issue of
guidelines, one of the things that we actually discovered was
the Department's policy in this area is actually quite good,
and that's really what was necessary, was a conversation to
help the force understand how to balance these twin
responsibilities of the non-establishment clause and the free
exercise clause. I think that we have had a conversation in the
Air Force, and between the Air Force and the Nation, because
many thousands of people have commented on these guidelines
with us. I think that the benefits to the departments now are
in taking lessons learned from that conversation and rolling it
into our training, our curriculums, and our professional
military education so that we don't forget these lessons and
then err on one side of that fine balance.
Senator Thune. Mr. Finley. We have covered some of the
issues with respect to procurement and the length of time it's
taking to get these weapons systems fielded. We've touched on
that a little bit, so I won't necessarily re-ask that question,
but I do want to ask you a question about rapid acquisition
initiatives. The Department has initiated several technology
accelerations in rapid fielding initiatives over the last few
years to respond to emergent needs, such as increased armor
protection and to counter-improvised explosive device (IED)
capabilities. In your view, what are the key lessons learned in
technology transition, test and evaluation, production
training, and procurement from these processes? I'll let you
answer that and I'll have a follow-up question to you.
Mr. Finley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not particularly
familiar with those, the armor initiative nor the IED
initiative. In industry, having met with numbers of people to
get a perspective on the rapid deployment of technology, in
industry, there are very similar processes. As an outsider more
or less looking in and not knowing the details, but one of the
key ones is to get the technology maturity up to a level that's
fieldable for our joint warfighter. If confirmed, sir, I will
investigate this as a top area of importance in an open and
transparent fashion and make it a high priority to continue the
momentum built from those programs, take those lessons learned,
and factor them into our processes to make them even more
effective and more efficient.
Senator Thune. I think it's fair to say that, if you are
confirmed, those are things that this committee would have a
great interest in, in learning about a particular plan of
action that you would take to evaluate the long-term
application of those expedited processes for rapidly deploying
needed equipment. It's something that's been discussed a lot in
front of this committee in trying to shorten up the timeframe
to get things out there, and to come up with a plan that would
accomplish that. So from the committee's standpoint, with
regard to the oversight responsibility we have, we're very
interested in specifically what you might undertake in order to
accomplish that objective.
Mr. Finley. Yes, sir.
Senator Thune. Again, for Secretary Dominguez and Mr.
Geren, last year there was strong support in Congress for
legislation that was aimed at curtailing the ability of so-
called payday lenders to target military personnel for short-
term exorbitant interest loans. We've been told by the senior
enlisted advisors that financial difficulties at times related
to payday loans result in indebtedness, lost security
clearances, and so on. What is your assessment of the steps
that can be taken within DOD and the Services to put these
predatory lenders out of business or at least to limit their
ability to take advantage of the most vulnerable service
members?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I don't have any detailed knowledge
right now of the steps. I acknowledge the nature of the
problem. I do know that we have a pretty extensive financial
education outreach to the men and women in our Services because
their financial readiness is critical. Their financial
situation, as you clearly point out, can affect their ability
to do their job, so we pay attention to it. We have outreach
programs and we limit access to our military installations to
institutions that are credible, that we evaluate to ensure that
they are not for profit and, in fact, are educational
institutions and not selling. So that there's not a ``hook and
bait and switch operation'' going on. I hope that answers the
question, sir.
Mr. Geren. I've not worked in the area in my time in the
Pentagon, but I understand the seriousness of the problem and
if I'm confirmed look forward to working with this committee
and looking into the matter.
Senator Thune. It's something that there's been a
considerable amount written on. There have been a number of
reports. The New York Times and other newspapers have sort of
exposed what some of these lenders are doing in terms of
preying on servicemembers and clearly that's something that I
think we want to see addressed. As I said, I assume that
somewhere within the Department there are some people who have
given some attention to this subject, and we would again
welcome as you get an opportunity to further review that, your
comments and what might be done. We don't want to see
servicemembers who are in tight financial situations being
preyed on by financial institutions that are clearly trying to
take advantage of them. Some of the interest rates that are
charged are exorbitant. There's a lot of that activity and it
seems to be congregating very closely around some of the
military installations in this country.
Mr. Dominguez. Senator, if I might followup. That issue in
terms of policy and practice is clearly within the portfolio
that I have now in the Air Force and that I aspire to, subject
to this committee's and the Senate's confirmation. I do want to
point out also, as you very well know, some of the best things
that can be done are between the installation commander, the
commander of the troops, and those local communities, the law
enforcement, the mayors, and the administrations. The
partnerships that we form with our communities in which we live
are invaluable in terms of providing that kind of support and
protection to the men and women in those areas. I wouldn't
discount that, and I would say that's a huge piece of the
solution.
Senator Thune. This one, again, is for Secretary Dominguez,
and Mr. Geren. Another thing that it's been troubling to hear
about is cases in which soldiers are determined to be overpaid
and indebted to the Army, often in large amounts, due to pay
errors. The old pay systems for National Guardsmen regrettably
often contribute to confusion over payment between the State
Guard, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the Internal
Revenue Service, and others who have an interest in pay
matters. There appears to be limited ability to quickly assess
these cases and rapidly come to a conclusion. Can you comment,
either of you, on the experience of the Air Force, Air Force
Reserve, Air National Guard, in these matters, and if
confirmed, will you give consideration and study to these
problems within the Army and try to find a remedy for the many
guardsmen who are trying to resolve pay issues?
Mr. Geren. I know pay issues, confusion, and mixups in the
pay system have been a very serious concern of all the
Services. I don't have details about efforts to correct it, but
we've seen some examples recently on some need for reimbursing
soldiers who had been improperly charged with different
expenses against their pay. It's a very serious issue. We've
asked men and women of our Active-Duty, Guard, and Reserve to
leave their families, make great sacrifices on the part of our
country, and we have to do everything we can to ensure that
they're paid promptly, fairly, and that we have a system in
place to correct mistakes quickly and not force the soldiers
through a bureaucratic maze that unfortunately, too often,
they're forced to contend with these days. It's a very serious
matter and, if confirmed, I look forward to working on it, sir.
Mr. Dominguez. Senator, if I might add to that, I know that
all of the Services have worked with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to put task forces in place to work
personnel pay issues. In fact, there is a personnel pay council
that's running in the DOD to work these issues and there are
mechanisms in place to try and get rapid adjudication of the
errors. Those are brute force, bandaid solutions to the
fundamental problem which is that our basic information
technology infrastructure that does the personnel pay business
is antiquated. The long-term solution to this problem, Senator,
is the deployment of the Defense Integrated Military Human
Resources System (DIMHRS), and we in the Air Force are
aggressively pursuing that. That system has now been elevated
to the personal attention of the Deputy Secretary of Defense
and with the committee's continued support, the Department
intends to aggressively deploy DIMHRS and that's going to be
the long-term solution so we get a 21st century personnel and
pay system where it's integrated into one information
technology (IT) system and a lot of these problems then will go
away.
Senator Thune. Thank you all for your responses to
questions. Chairman Warner may return, and I have other
commitments, so what I'm going to do is recess the hearing
subject to the call of the chair. If Chairman Warner does not
return, there are some questions that we would like to have
answered for the record. Again, we appreciate your time here
today and your responsiveness to the questions and look forward
to working with you. At this point, we will recess. [Recess.]
Chairman Warner [presiding]. I thank you for your
indulgence which you have given us, I appreciate that, and the
understanding why so many members could not be with us.
I'd like to return to the stockpile issue because I've
taken a particular interest in it. I can remember vividly in
this room one day, we had the directors of each of the labs
here. This was a critical juncture in this program, and I
remember one in particular. He sort of got up and--they're
unique people, the directors of those laboratories, they're
technically trained, magnificently, and have an enormous
responsibility, and they don't care anything about politics or
anything else, they just state the facts. I remember one of
them saying, ``this committee's going to have to exercise a lot
of patience, and be careful in its oversight to keep watch on
this program, because it's so essential.'' For those not
familiar with it, our Nation, by necessity, has a very large
inventory of nuclear weapons.
We'd all like to see all nuclear weapons exterminated from
the face of the earth, but the reality is they have thus far
proven to be a deterrent to the utilization of that weapon by
any nation subsequent to the experiences in World War II which
was, in my judgment, having been in uniform at that time, an
absolute necessity on behalf of our President and our
Government given the circumstances.
Anyway, I won't go into all that. I can assure you our
committee's going to keep a watchful eye. We have $6 billion, I
repeat that, $6 billion in this budget going to that program.
You have a lot of experience in this area, beginning with
Admiral Rickover's tutorial and your own experience in the
United States Navy, which I would say, having had the privilege
of association with that Navy for so many years myself, we've
never had a major accident. I want America to understand that.
At one time, I'm trying to think, we had over 100 ships and
nuclear operations going on, some ashore, most at sea, and
today every one of our submarines with the exception of some
test models are powered by nuclear power. Our entire aircraft
carrier fleet, save two conventional ships which are being
phased out in due course, is operated with that system. I point
that out because I hope America can transition to more
dependence upon nuclear power to supply our daily needs for
electricity and other things derived from that power. It's
interesting, France has 85 percent of its power requirements
today met by nuclear plants. France spends, I'm told by a very
able staff member, and I think you know this fine person, she
worked for you or worked with you, 10 percent of France's
military budget goes to its own concept of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program.
Now, to those following this, what is the purpose of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program? One purpose is to monitor these
weapons to make sure they're safe in storage. Remember, they're
stored in various places throughout the United States.
Communities are dependent upon that security. Cities are
dependent upon that security. From time to time these weapons
have to be transported so that those systems which remain in
the state of readiness as a part of our defense mechanism, this
country, they have to be safe for transportation. Most
significantly, in my view, Congress established the Stockpile
Stewardship Program to ensure that the enduring stockpile
remains safe, secure, and reliable. This program provides the
technical data to support this assurance. We owe a high
obligation to the men and women or the Armed Forces and the
civilians who are working with these weapons. So bring us up-
to-date on your opinion as to the stockpile, what does the
future hold, and why is this enormous sum of $6 billion needed
for one program? I'm not questioning it. I support that $6
billion, but I think others would ask that question.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to
answer that question. The $6 billion is indeed a tremendous
amount of money. Over time, within that resource, we have taken
a renewed focus particularly in the area of physical security
of the assets themselves as well as security of the eight sites
that we have across the country to maintain these weapons,
including the security associated with transporting the weapons
and the material between our particular sites, and as we
deliver and receive weapons from the DOD, particularly.
So the security budget within the $6 billion you will
notice over time has increased and appropriately so given the
changing world environment. There is, one could say, close to
but not quite 20 percent of our resources devoted to ensuring
and protecting the material to protect our citizens, to protect
and ensure that these weapons and materials stay in the proper
control and custody.
It's more than just the security part of it that makes up
this $6 billion. We have three national laboratories that are
supported, and they are in charge, as you pointed out earlier,
with providing an annual assessment to the Secretaries and
ultimately to the President which gets delivered to Congress on
an annual basis on asserting the safety, reliability, and
security of the stockpile without underground testing. In order
to do that large task, because we have not taken underground
testing as something that we need to do, we invested a lot of
resources in a broad array of scientific tools and
computational tools as well as gathered data, material aging
data, on our weapons systems themselves and to be able to
process that data, to understand how the weapon changes over a
period of time.
In addition to developing tools, doing this surveillance
activity that gets done on each weapon system, and running them
through our tools and simulation tools, we have a periodic set
of activities known as limited life component exchanges where
there are certain components, in various weapons systems that
periodically over time have to be changed out. So jointly, with
the DOD, we produce these components at our various plants and
transport them for installation by the DOD themselves. There's
a supporting the current stockpile aspect of the $6 billion.
There is an aspect of the $6 billion that's to ensure the long-
term capability for the Nation and the continuance of ensuring
ultimately to the President that this stockpile is safe. Then
there is the question of maintaining this large infrastructure
of three laboratories in the Nevada Test Site as well as four
production plants around the country.
Chairman Warner. When do you think the system will be up
and fully operative?
Mr. D'Agostino. I'm assuming the system you're talking
about is the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Chairman Warner. Yes, yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. In fact, it is fully up and operating right
now. We are gathering data, we continue to learn on a daily
basis about how our weapons age.
Chairman Warner. All right. So you think it is, at present,
up and fully operating.
Mr. D'Agostino. It's fully operating, however, what I would
say is that there are opportunities for efficiency
improvements. Where we are right now with the complex is we
have a roughly 50-year-old nuclear weapons complex that is at a
certain stage in need of capital reinvestment. A question
earlier dealt with responsive infrastructure, and we'll be
looking at that seriously with you, sir.
Chairman Warner. I have other questions here. I'll ask all
witnesses to provide answers for the record for those
questions.
Mr. Finley, in your response to advance policy questions,
you noted continued importance of an independent Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) to ensure effectiveness
and suitability of major weapons systems. This is something
this committee has followed very carefully, this subject,
because as addressed by Senator McCain, we have to make certain
our procurement and our systems are up and running. What are
your views on the effectiveness of the Department's test and
evaluation process in an era of rapid fielding and proposed new
acquisition processes?
Mr. Finley. Mr. Chairman, my view is that effectiveness is
good. I think we can improve upon the effectiveness by
providing a process where the OT&E folks are at the front of
the process, not mid-range, not 25 percent of the way through
the process. We should bring our testing community right up at
the front end of the process where requirements are being
defined, and make this an iterative process of making help
underpin the requirements, if you will, from an OT&E point of
view, so we know going in what our baselines are. That's so we
do not get into a catch-22 situation down the pike after
Milestone A or even Milestone B, all of a sudden we have
ourselves into extremis where the requirements guy says, I'm
raising a red flag about a problem, sir. I think the OT&E folks
are great. I believe strongly in checks and balances. I believe
in the process of open and transparent discussions. Bringing
OT&E further up into the process, I believe, will help make our
process there even more effective, sir.
Chairman Warner. That's a very thorough and reassuring
response. I thank you, Mr. Finley.
Secretary Dominguez, currently DOD has a policy that limits
the involuntary recall of Reserve and National Guard personnel
to 24 cumulative months during this period of national
emergency. In the Air Force, guardsmen and reservists have
performed magnificently in providing air support to the
combatant commander but the 24-month clock has run on many of
these patriotic airmen. The same is true for Army reservists
and national guardsmen. It's an extraordinary chapter in our
history, the performance of the Guard and Reserve. I came up
through the ranks in that system myself, and I tell you it's
far more effective than most realize. In my time, I remember
very well when the Korean War sprung upon us, we had to resort
to the Guard and Reserve very quickly, and it was extraordinary
how quickly in the aviation community our reservists were in
the cockpit flying with the regular forces in a matter of
months. Anyway, given the demands on the Reserve and Guard
since 2001, what is the impact of this policy on the
availability of manpower, in your judgment?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, thank you for the question. I also
acknowledge the extraordinary achievement and service of our
citizen warriors in the Guard and Reserve and their families.
You are correct in pointing out, Senator, they have been
tested, and they met the test in an extraordinary fashion. This
committee can take some credit for that in your stewardship
over the years of the Guard and Reserve.
Chairman Warner. Well, it really started with Secretary
Laird who brought about what we call the Total Force concept.
He did an admirable job in that and also the discontinuance of
the draft which was important. I was a part of the Laird team
at the time those decisions were made and this All-Volunteer
Force has been extraordinary.
Mr. Dominguez. It is, Senator. It is extraordinary. Second
to none, and it will stay that way.
Chairman Warner. But it needs the support of the Guard and
Reserve.
Mr. Dominguez. Absolutely. That is essential and that
partnership between the Guard and Reserve and the Active-Duty
Force is essential. I've seen that partnership in its highest
form of evolution, I believe, in the United States Air Force
today. The Guard and Reserve are intermixed, and entwined with
the Active Force in virtually every mission that force does,
forward or back home, and you can't tell those airmen apart by
their capabilities.
Now, the 24-month mobilization is a barrier but it's a
barrier that, in preparing this Nation and preparing our force
for a very long conflict, we have to figure a way through.
Secretary Rumsfeld is adamant, at least in my conversations or
knowledge of this from in the policy circles in which I
operate, that he's not going to budge on that because we can't
involuntarily mobilize our way through a 50-year conflict. We
have to find mechanisms to bring the volunteers from the Guard
and Reserve into the fight or change the nature of their
enlistment and participation contracts so that as they come
into the Reserve, there's a clear period of when they will be
on Active service. We're thinking through all of those things
now, sir. But I think Secretary Rumsfeld is right on target.
Involuntary mobilization is not the right tool for a very long
conflict. We're in a very long conflict, we'll need our citizen
warriors or citizen soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines in
this fight and we'll have to find mechanisms to be able to
bring them in, in the true spirit of the volunteer force.
Chairman Warner. All right. I thank you, because it's
absolutely essential and needs to be addressed early on.
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Geren, I commented earlier about the
importance of the academies when Senator Allard was making his
introduction. It's essential that DOD and the Army leadership
continues to support the wounded soldiers throughout their
treatment and for those who are medically retired as they
return to civilian life. There are many challenges in making
the Wounded Warrior Program or Marine for Life Program and so
on successful in ensuring our present day veterans have
successful transitions. One area I'm concerned about is
ensuring the health care services and rehab to be available for
convalescing personnel as needed, even if it means seeing a
civilian doctor instead of a military doctor. Will you inquire
into these problems as it relates to your department, the
Department of the Army, and perhaps you can help others with
health care access that wounded personnel receive long after
they've left the military system, and determine what
improvements we can make?
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir. If I'm confirmed, I'll consider that a
top priority. The Wounded Warrior Program is an excellent
program and it is reaching out to service men and women who----
Chairman Warner. Marine for Life, that's a comparable
program.
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. It has a very unique name.
Mr. Geren. Yes, sir, I understand that, and it's a program
that has to remain a top priority. It can't fade from our view
when this conflict is in the distant past. We have to maintain
that commitment. I know Congress feels that way, the Department
of the Army feels that way, and I can assure you if I'm
confirmed it will be a top priority for me. I want to see us
innovate in that area and do everything we can possibly do.
Chairman Warner. I opened up on the question about the
academies but I realize that was asked by my colleague before
he left. That's a very important issue, and you better check on
West Point. When I was in the Department of the Navy's
Secretary's Office we spent a lot of time working Annapolis and
indeed the under secretaries were constituted as a team of
three individuals who used to make periodic inspections of the
academies to make sure that experience gained in one academy
was transferred to the other academy whether it related to
education, religion, or preventing sexual harassment and the
like. I think it might be well-advised that some day when
you're talking to Secretary Rumsfeld to suggest maybe the three
under secretaries be constituted as a team to travel
periodically and do some oversight for the Secretary on those
academies because if one of them has a problem it pops up on
the screen right to the top. It was a very effective system
that Secretary Laird put in place.
Gentlemen, I thank you very much. I thank your families.
The day has been a productive one for all of us and one that
will be remembered in many respects. The President has chosen
well in selecting you, and I wish each of you well and I'll
look to trying to get the confirmation process completed in the
Senate as quickly as possible. In your case, Mr. Dominguez, as
my distinguished colleague has mentioned, we have a little more
to work through but let's hope we can work through that. I'll
give you the assurance that I'll do it fairly and objectively.
Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Hon. Preston M. Geren by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities
and the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These reforms have also
vastly improved cooperation between the Services and the combatant
commanders in the strategic planning process, in the development of
requirements, in joint training and education, and in the execution of
military operations.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions based on your experience in the Department of Defense?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act has made a profound and positive
change within the operation of the Department of Defense. While I
believe that the framework established by Goldwater-Nichols has
significantly improved interservice and joint relationships and
responsibilities, the Department, working with Congress, should
continually assess the law in light of improving capabilities, evolving
threats and changing organizational dynamics.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. This milestone legislation is now 20 years old and has
served our Nation well. If confirmed, I would like to consider with
Congress whether the act should be revised to better address the
requirements of the combatant commanders and the needs and challenges
faced by the Services in today's security environment. I also would
like to assess whether the law could be modified to more effectively
allocate roles and responsibilities among the Joint Staff, the military
departments, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. For example,
the Department has encountered questions about the proper division of
responsibility between the Army and CENTCOM for investigating
allegations of misconduct arising in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is
critical that the Department is optimally organized to meet the
challenges of a dynamic security environment.
duties
Question. Section 3015 of title 10, U.S.C., states the Under
Secretary of the Army shall perform such duties and exercise such
powers as the Secretary of the Army may prescribe.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and powers do you expect to
be assigned?
Answer. The Under Secretary of the Army is the Secretary's senior
civilian advisor on the effective and efficient functioning of the
Army. The Under Secretary carries out those responsibilities and
functions specifically delegated by the Secretary. The Secretary has
not discussed his plans with me in this regard. The Under's
responsibilities also require him, from time to time, to issue guidance
and direction to the Army Staff.
What background and experience do you possess that you believe
qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe that my experience--including serving as a four-
term Member of the U.S. Congress, representing the 12th Congressional
District of Texas, in the private sector, and most recently as Special
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense--has provided me with the
knowledge and insight necessary to contribute in a meaningful way to
the Army's ability to address the challenges it faces today. I served
on the House Armed Services Committee during my tenure in Congress and
worked with DOD on a wide range of policy and acquisition matters. My
service in the House gave me a profound understanding and appreciation
of the important role in national defense matters conferred on Congress
by article I, section 8 of the Constitution. My work in the private
sector has given me experience in the governance of a large
organization that I believe will be valuable in discharging the
management responsibilities of the Under Secretary of the Army. My work
with the DOD, including serving as Acting Secretary of the Air Force,
has enhanced my knowledge and understanding of the unique demands on
today's military. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to serving the
Nation during this era of change and transformation. If confirmed, I
pledge my best effort every day to be worthy of the trust placed in me
and to uphold the proud tradition of selfless service that
characterizes the United States Army.
Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to enhance
your ability to perform the duties of the Under Secretary of the Army?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will work to further my understanding
and knowledge of the Army, its people, the resources necessary to
sustain and transform it and the challenges it faces. I will take
advantage of the many educational programs available to senior Army
officials and draw on the wealth of knowledge and experience available
from dedicated professionals, civilian and military, in DOD and
throughout the Army family--Active-Duty, Guard and Reserve, Active and
retired. I will seek advice and counsel from the many and diverse
stakeholders dedicated to the success of the Army, including Members
and staff of Congress.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be
with:
The Secretary of the Army.
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Secretary of the
Army would be close, direct, and supportive. Within the Department of
the Army, my responsibilities would also involve communicating the Army
Staff's plans to the Secretary of the Army and supervising the
implementation of the Secretary's decisions through the Army. In this
capacity, my actions would be subject to the authority, direction and
control of the Secretary of the Army.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army.
Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Army is the Secretary's principal
military adviser. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Chief of
Staff to supervise the implementation of the Secretary's decisions
through the Army Staff and Army commands and agencies. In this
capacity, my actions would be subject to the authority, direction and
control of the Secretary of the Army. I anticipate working closely and
in concert with the Chief of Staff.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Army.
Answer. The Assistant Secretaries of the Army set the strategic
direction by formulating and overseeing policies and programs within
their functional areas of responsibilities, consistent with statutes
and the objectives of the Secretary of the Army. If confirmed, I will
establish and maintain close, professional relationships with each of
the Assistant Secretaries and seek to foster an environment of
cooperative teamwork as we work together on the day-to-day management
and long-range planning needs of the Army.
Question. The General Counsel of the Army.
Answer. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the
Department of the Army. His duties include providing legal and policy
advice to all members of the Army as well as determining the position
of the Army on any legal question or procedure. If confirmed, I will
establish and maintain a close and professional relationship with the
General Counsel.
Question. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army.
Answer. If confirmed, I will cooperate fully with the Vice Chief of
Staff to further the Secretary of the Army's policies and to advance
the interests of the Army. I will establish a close and professional
relationship with the Vice Chief of Staff and communicate directly and
openly with him on matters involving the Department of the Army.
Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Army.
Answer. The Judge Advocate General plays a significant role in
providing legal advice to the Secretary and Under Secretary of the Army
and Department of Army officers, particularly concerning matters of
military justice. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain an
appropriate and professional relationship with The Judge Advocate
General of the Army. This relationship would be grounded in direct and
open communication. I will seek his counsel on the important legal
issues confronting the Army.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
face the Under Secretary of the Army?
Answer. As the senior civilian advisor to the Secretary, the Under
Secretary will work in support of the Secretary in his duties.
Conducting a global war against an asymmetric enemy while
simultaneously planning and executing broad strategic transformation
efforts presents unprecedented challenges. In my view, the Army's major
challenge is to meet the Nation's global land power requirements and
sustain its strategic balance while fighting the global war on terror,
synchronizing transformational initiatives, executing Base Realignment
and Closure activities, and implementing the Integrated Global Presence
Basing Strategy. Force protection should also be an Army top priority
as it faces an evolving enemy. Initiating comprehensive Army-wide
business transformation will improve overall efficiency and reorient
available resources better to support the Army's warfighting
capabilities and meet current and future threats. Other major
challenges facing the Army are to sustain the All-Volunteer Force and
to provide the best possible training and equipment for all of its
soldiers. Force protection in irregular warfare poses challenges that
require constant attention from senior leadership. The Army must push
to develop the techniques, tactics, and procedures to enhance force
protection, push research in relevant technology and continue to
improve body and vehicle armor.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. Providing ready, relevant land power to meet global
commitments now and in the future will require resourcing the Army's
requirements for resetting and restructuring the Army to achieve a
proper balance of capabilities in all components. It will be necessary
to obtain adequate funding to achieve critical recruiting and retention
goals needed to sustain the All-Volunteer Force and grow its
operational forces. The Army must work relentlessly to improve force
protection.
Housing and other Army initiatives to provide predictability and
stability for soldiers and their families in both the Active and
Reserve components are critical to this effort. The Army must develop
training to shape military and civilian leaders to lead in the complex
and uncertain 21st century security environment. The Army must continue
to support efforts that speed state-of-the-art force protection systems
and weapons to its soldiers in the field.
The Army must be funded to execute a synchronized plan to achieve a
new global basing posture, implement stationing decisions, execute Base
Realignment and Closure decisions, and advance the Modular Force
initiative. Adopting management reforms and best business practices are
necessary to achieve targeted efficiencies and secure the financial
resources needed for operational needs and Army initiatives. Force
protection must remain a top priority of the civilian Army leadership
with the Secretary and the Under continuing to push the system to make
improvements.
reserve and national guard deployments
Question. Deployments completed since the attacks of September 11
of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have significantly depleted
the number of soldiers available for involuntary mobilization under the
Department's policy limiting involuntary recalls of Reserve personnel
to 24 cumulative months.
How should the Army's Reserve component forces best be managed to
provide essential support for operational deployments in Afghanistan
and Iraq?
Answer. The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve are critical
to the success of the Nation in fighting and winning the global war on
terrorism. Given the demand of the global war on terror, the use of the
Army National Guard and Army Reserve will continue to be necessary. To
best manage and meet requirements, the Army is instituting the Army
Force Generation Model (ARFORGEN), a rotational system to supply Army
units to meet the demands of the national security objectives. This
system enables predictable, rotational deployments for soldiers on a 6-
year cycle for Army National Guard and Reserve units. The Army must
also move toward making the Reserve components more capable to respond
to missions in the homeland and abroad. The Army is committed to fully
man, train, and equip the Guard units with $21 billion in funding over
the POM to address equipment shortfalls. Additionally, the President is
committed to funding the National Guard at current manning levels and
up to the congressional authorization of 350,000 as the National Guard
continues recruiting. To ensure that the Army and Air National Guard
are prepared, the President's budget more than doubles the funding for
equipment and modernization over the next 5 years. If I am confirmed, I
would fully support the President and the Department's commitments in
this critical area.
Question. What is your understanding of the Army's plans to avoid
excessive demands on personnel and units in low density, high demand
specialties whose skills are found primarily in the Reserve, such as
civil affairs, military policy, and logistics?
Answer. I understand that the Army plans to rebalance the force and
move the Guard toward more high demand skill sets as it transitions six
combat brigades into Combat Support, Combat Service Support, and
Engineering missions. The Army anticipates that the rebalance will
generate more high demand forces to meet requirements. In conjunction
with the implementation of the Army Force Generation Model, a larger
pool of critical capabilities is available in a predictable manner,
providing the necessary trained and ready units to meet requirements.
recruiting and retention
Question. The Army's Active-Duty recruiting goal for fiscal year
2006 is 80,000. The Army has achieved its monthly recruiting goals so
far this fiscal year, but the first quarter has only produced about
11,000 new soldiers. Retention in fiscal year 2005 exceeded the Army's
goal, but signs in early fiscal year 2006 have shown some weakening of
retention behavior, particularly among soldiers completing their first
term of service.
What is your assessment of the Army's ability to reach its Active-
Duty recruiting goal by component in fiscal year 2006?
Answer. Although the current recruiting environment remains
challenging, the Army is optimistic about achieving Active and Reserve
component goals for fiscal year 2006. Mission accomplishment in 06 and
follow on years requires greater recruiter productivity, incentives and
other resources necessary to meet these goals, effective communication
of the Army message to the Nation's youth and influencers, and
continued congressional support. Congressional support was evident in
the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 which provided the crucial foundation for this year's
recruiting efforts. The Active component has achieved its recruiting
goals for the last 8 months, the Guard the last 5 months, with only the
Army Reserve component falling short of its goals.
Question. If the Army is able to achieve its recruiting goal of
80,000 recruits, will the Army meet its authorized end strength for
fiscal year 2006 of 512,400 soldiers?
What are the fiscal year 2007 recruiting goals by component?
Answer. I have been informed that the Army's projected Active-Duty
end strength for fiscal year 2006 is 500,334 soldiers. As of the end of
January 2006, counting Active Army, mobilized Guard and Reserve,
Active-Duty special work, and retiree recalls, the Army strength was
approximately 574,000 soldiers. The Army's current recruiting goals for
fiscal year 2007 are: 80,000 for the Regular Army; 36,500 for the U.S.
Army Reserve; and 70,000 for the Army National Guard.
Question. What is your assessment of the impact of multiple
deployments of troops to Afghanistan and Iraq having on retention,
particularly among young enlisted and officer personnel after their
initial obligated service has been completed?
Answer. The Army has not seen a negative impact on the retention of
enlisted soldiers who have served in deployments to Afghanistan and
Iraq. It is my understanding that the 3rd Infantry Division recently
returned from its second deployment to Iraq and achieved 166 percent of
their year-to-date initial term retention mission. The 4th Infantry
Division and 101st Airborne Division are currently on their second
deployment to Iraq and have accomplished 114 percent and 109 percent of
their year-to-date initial term retention mission, respectively. As of
31 January 2006, the Army has achieved 109 percent of its year-to-date
initial term retention mission and 107 percent of its overall year-to-
date retention mission. Recent results are satisfactory, but this
matter requires constant attention. It is a barometer of the health of
the Army and must be watched, analyzed in whole and in subsets, and
understood.
women in combat
Question. Section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 requires the Secretary of Defense to report to
Congress not later than March 31, 2006, on his review of the current
and future implementation of the policy regarding assignment of women
in combat. In conducting the review, the Secretary of Defense must
examine Army unit modularization efforts and associated personnel
assignment policies to ensure their compliance with the Department of
Defense policy on women in combat that has been in effect since 1994.
What lessons have been learned about the feasibility of current
policies regarding women in combat from Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom?
Answer. The Department no longer confronts the prospects of a Cold
War linear battlefield. The irregular warfare and nonlinear battlefield
of today's conflicts raises questions about the application of the
policy regarding the assignment of women in combat regions. Women make
up about 14 percent of the Active Army, 23 percent of the Army Reserve,
and 13 percent of the Army National Guard. Approximately 10 percent of
the forces deployed in support of the global war on terrorism are women
soldiers. Today, almost 14,000 women soldiers are serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Forty-seven women soldiers have made the ultimate
sacrifice in support of the global war on terrorism. Women soldiers
have been killed in action, have suffered wounds from hostile action,
and have been held captive by our enemies. The study requested by
Congress and underway at DOD will help the Department understand the
implications for and feasibility of current policies regarding women in
combat.
Question. How do you anticipate you will participate in the review
of the policy required by section 541?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has undertaken to
complete the comprehensive review requested by this committee and
Congress. The Army will support OSD to complete this review. This issue
poses complex and critical issues for the Department. If confirmed, I
will look to the Secretary for guidance with regard to any role he asks
me to undertake in this matter. It is an important study and will
inform Department and congressional review of this critical matter. The
Army and Congress must work together closely if this matter is to be
addressed properly.
missile defense
Question. In December 2002, President Bush announced the deployment
of an initial set of missile defense capabilities, including ground-
based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, and additional Patriot PAC-
3 units.
In your view, is the Army fielding Patriot PAC-3 missiles in
sufficient numbers to meet the threat posed by short-range ballistic
missiles?
Answer. I do not have sufficient background in this highly
technical area to offer an informed opinion on this matter. The Army
has advised me that the Combined Acquisition Program strategy has
allocated sufficient numbers of PAC-3 missiles to defeat the short
range ballistic missile threat. If confirmed, I will study this
further.
Question. Do you support continued development of the multi-
national Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) as a follow-on to
the Patriot system, and what is the Army's timeframe for fielding of
this important capability?
Answer. I do not have sufficient background in this highly
technical area to offer an informed opinion on this program. From the
information I have received thus far, the direction the Department has
taken in the development of the Medium Extended Air Defense System
appears reasonable. On July 1, 2004, the Defense Acquisition Board
approved Milestone B for all three increments of the Patriot/MEADS
Combined Aggregate Program with a MEADS First Unit Equipped date by
fiscal year 2015. If confirmed, I will study this further.
Question. What is your understanding of when the Department plans
to authorize the transfer of the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD)
system from the Missile Defense Agency to the Army?
Answer. I understand that the transfer of the GMD System will be
governed by the BMDS Transfer Plan that currently is in staffing
between the Missile Defense Agency and the Military Departments.
Transfer will be based on technical maturity and demonstrated military
utility.
Question. Do you believe the fielding of ground-based interceptors,
which began in 2004, is keeping pace with the long-range ballistic
missile threat to the United States?
Answer. I do not have sufficient background in this matter to offer
an informed opinion. I have been advised by the Army that the pace of
missile fielding is consistent with intended defensive capability. If
confirmed, I will look into this further.
Question. The Army's Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) has
been developing laser concepts for application on the battlefield. What
are the Army's plans with respect to fielding laser weapons capable of
defending against rockets and tactical missiles?
Answer. The SMDC Solid-State Laser (SSL) Science and Technology
(S&T) program goal is to develop a SSL demonstrator of at least 100 kW
by 2013. The Army intent is to begin the weapon system development
process to employ this rapidly emerging SSL technology as soon as it
reaches the required maturity level. The Army's current weapon system
development goal for fielding a Multi-mission Directed Energy Weapon
System (MDEWS) interim capability is 2014, and to attain the MDEWS
objective weapon system capability by 2020. These future weapon systems
are envisioned to counter the rocket/artillery/mortar (RAM),
manportable Air Defense System (MANPADS), and other tactical missile
threats.
tricare fee increases for military retirees
Question. Press reports indicate that the Department of Defense
will recommend significant increases in TRICARE costs for certain
beneficiaries, including higher enrollment fees for military retirees
and their families.
What is your understanding of the Department's proposals for
changes in TRICARE fees for retired soldiers, and, if they are
implemented, what do you see as the likely impact of these changes on
the Department of the Army?
Answer. I understand that the President's budget is proposing a new
fee structure for retirees under 65 that will increase enrollment fees
for TRICARE Prime, and assess new enrollment fees and increased
deductibles for Standard coverage. I understand that the proposed
rebalancing of cost contributions is intended to slow the rate of
increase in health care costs and compensate for the increases in
covered benefits. Currently, 8 percent of the total DOD budget is spent
on health care, with a projection of 12 percent in 2015. This proposal
will have no impact on Active-Duty personnel and minimal to no impact
on TRICARE for Life beneficiaries.
Question. What is your personal view of the justification for
increases in TRICARE enrollment fees for retirees and are there
alternatives to such increases you would recommend if confirmed?
Answer. The DOD faces the problem of escalating health care costs
shared by everyone in the United States. I do not understand all the
implications of the proposal, but the provision in the President's
budget appears to me to be a reasonable approach to an undeniable
problem. This year's budget and authorization process will not be the
final word on this matter. If confirmed, I would work with DOD
officials and Congress, learn from the experience in the private sector
and other governmental entities, and seek creative solutions to this
challenge. There are few issues more difficult to address, both
substantively and politically. In my opinion, the Department of Defense
must partner with Congress and tackle this problem. The path we are on
is unaffordable in the long run.
sexual assault prevention and response
Question. The Department of the Army is in the process of
implementing changes in policy and procedures aimed at preventing and
responding appropriately to incidents of sexual assault.
What is your view of the appropriate role for senior military and
civilian leaders in the Department of the Army in overseeing the
effectiveness of implementation of new policies relating to sexual
assault?
Answer. The Army has initiated the Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Program. Support for this program must come from the top and
address both the subtle and blatant factors that contribute to the
persistence of this problem. Senior leaders in the Department must
communicate by word and deed a zero tolerance policy of sexual
harassment and must become personally involved in sexual assault
prevention programs if they are to succeed in attacking this problem.
Sexual assault is a national problem and the most under-reported crime
in America. The military should provide a model for the Nation in
addressing this issue. While at the Air Force, I worked on this issue
and, if confirmed, would consider it a high priority. If confirmed, I
will work with the Army leadership to ensure that Army leaders at all
levels understand their responsibility to support fully the
implementation of this critical program.
Question. What is your view of the confidential reporting options
made available to victims of sexual assault as part of the revised
policy?
Answer. I support affording victims of sexual assault the
confidential reporting options to ensure first and foremost that
victims receive the help and care they need as quickly as possible.
united states military academy
Question. Complaints of sexual assault and harassment at the U.S.
Air Force Academy in 2003 demonstrated, among other things, the
importance of focused, informed oversight by service civilian and
military senior leaders of conditions for female cadets and midshipmen.
The Service Academy 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault Survey completed
by the Defense Manpower Data Center in December 2005 found that even
with the implementation of corrective measures, sexual assault and
harassment continue to be factors negatively affecting female cadets at
the military academies and that the highest reported rates by cadets
came from the U.S. Military Academy.
What actions would you expect to take, if confirmed, to address the
problems of sexual assault and sexual harassment at the U.S. Military
Academy and with respect to the Army's programs in this regard?
Answer. Senior Army leaders must communicate clearly and
consistently that sexual harassment will not be tolerated and ensure
that leaders at the U.S. Military Academy understand the gravity of
this matter. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the
Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy has the resources and
support necessary to advance the Army's commitment to attacking this
problem. The Academy must improve support for victims, together with
preventive education and awareness efforts. The Academy must continue
to evaluate and shape its culture to create an environment in which the
cadets understand that sexual harassment is antithetical to everything
the Army stands for and will not be tolerated. If confirmed, I will
support the Academy's progress toward these goals.
national security personnel system (nsps)
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 provided
significant new authorities for the Department of Defense to hire, pay,
and manage its civilian workforce.
What is your assessment of the high priority skill needs within the
Army's civilian workforce, and, if confirmed, how would you anticipate
employing the new authorities of NSPS to achieve a more effective
civilian workforce?
Answer. NSPS is a key pillar in the Department of Defense's
transformation plans and is essential to creating an environment in
which the Total Force (military personnel, civilian employees, and
contractors) thinks and operates as one cohesive unit. While retaining
the core values of the civil service and merit principles, NSPS allows
employees to be paid and rewarded based on performance, innovation, and
results. Army civilians must complement and support the military around
the world in every time zone, every day. If confirmed, I will seek to
leverage authorities within NSPS to promote a performance culture in
which the performance and contributions of the civilian workforce are
more fully recognized and rewarded. NSPS will allow the Army to be more
competitive in setting salaries and afford it the ability to adjust
salaries based on various factors, including labor market conditions,
performance, and changes in duties. The Army will use the flexibilities
provided in NSPS to attract and retain skilled, talented, and motivated
people. NSPS will provide greater opportunities for Army civilians by
easing the administrative burden routinely required by the current
system and providing incentives for managers to turn to them first to
accomplish certain vital tasks. This will free Army soldiers to focus
on matters unique to the military.
Question. With respect to the Army's Senior Executive Service, what
recommendations, if any, do you have to improve professional
development and overall management of the Army's senior civilian
executives?
Answer. I understand that the Army recently centralized the day-to-
day management of its senior executives into a new office that reports
directly to the Secretary of the Army. This new organization contains a
separate branch dedicated exclusively to the ongoing professional
development of its civilian executives. It is the Army's intent to
develop these executives in a manner similar to that in which they have
historically developed their general officers. This includes
implementing a systematic and progressive assignment pattern leading to
positions of greater responsibility. Such a program also includes
periodic educational experiences to complement such an assignment plan.
support for army families in the rebasing initiative
Question. Plans for the relocation of numerous Army units under the
Department's rebasing initiative will present significant challenges to
continental United States (CONUS) installations and their surrounding
local communities in order to ensure adequate resources, including
housing and schools, are made available.
What is your understanding of the steps being taken by the Army to
ensure the successful implementation of rebasing for both soldiers and
receiving communities?
Answer. Full and open communication between military officials and
state and community leaders is the key to successfully implementing
rebasing for soldiers. At locations impacted by rebasing, installation
and garrison commanders must work closely with state officials, mayors,
city managers, county commissioners and school officials to ensure that
adequate schools, housing, and child care services are being planned to
support an increased military population. The Army must form an
effective partnership with all stakeholders to make this a success for
soldiers and their families.
Question. What actions will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
the challenges associated with rebasing are met?
Answer. I do not know what my responsibilities would be in this
area if I am confirmed. Realizing that rebasing must be resourced and
executed over time, the Army has developed a detailed plan that
prioritizes the movement and relocation of operational units, schools
and headquarters. It is necessary that senior Army leadership work with
Congress to ensure that the rebasing initiatives are adequately funded
and supported. I believe that my experience in working in the political
arena could be valuable in this effort.
interservice transfers
Question. At the same time that the Army and Marine Corps are
working harder than ever to achieve recruiting goals, the Navy and the
Air Force are planning for significant reductions in military
personnel. Under section 641 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006, an inter-service bonus for transfer of $2,500 was
authorized. Additional incentives may be necessary, however, to
encourage ``blue to green'' transfers in order to retain sailors and
airmen with valuable military training, skills, and experience.
What is your assessment of the adequacy of existing incentives for
interservice transfers?
Answer. This program has not achieved its goals so far and should
be re-evaluated to determine what it will take to make it a success. It
is in our national defense interest to promote interservice transfers.
The Services must work together to make this program a success.
Financial incentives alone may not be sufficient to make it succeed.
Force shaping tools should be designed to support the effort. This size
of the bonus should be reconsidered as, after taxes, it essentially
covers only the cost of new uniforms and other expenses related to the
transfer. If confirmed, subject to the direction of the Secretary, I
will work with Department leadership and Congress to identify and
establish programs to attract quality personnel from the other
Services.
Question. If confirmed, and given your experience as Acting
Secretary of the Air Force, what steps would you take to enhance the
number of ``blue to green'' interservice transfers?
Answer. The program has not worked up to expectations so far. I
believe the Army needs additional research to better understand the
program's shortcomings and the lack of attractiveness of the
interservice transfer option. My experience at the Air Force leads me
to believe that there are issues that must be better understood if the
program is to succeed and that will not be addressed solely by
financial incentives.
quadrennial defense review
Question. The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is the first
major review of defense strategy, policies, and force structure since
the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Do you think the review adequately positions the Army to face the
future threats to our national security?
Answer. The 2006 QDR provides a sound strategic game plan to guide
the Army in meeting the challenges it faces in today's national
security environment. The 2006 QDR also recognizes the unique needs of
the long global war in which the Army is engaged, including the need to
rebalance Active and Reserve capabilities, expand capacity of both
multipurpose and Special Operations Forces, and transform the Army
Reserves from the strategic Reserve of the Cold War era to an
operational force trained and equipped to meet current and future
challenges. To ensure Army forces are prepared for anticipated
challenges, the QDR endorses robust and continuous modernization,
including accelerating the spin-outs of advanced capabilities from its
Future Combat Systems into the Army modular force.
Question. Aside from validating the ongoing Army transformation to
modularity, are there other structural changes you would suggest
resulting from the QDR review?
Answer. Structurally, I think the Army's organizational
transformation is sound, including fully manning, equipping, and
training its Reserves as an operational force.
Question. Do you see the Army's roles and missions transforming
along with the move to modularity?
Answer. The Army's roles and missions continue to expand. In large
measure, the Nation's ground forces--multipurpose and special
operations, Army and Marine Corps, Active and Reserve--are the
principal deterrence force for the challenges the Army will face in the
early decades of the 21st century. The roles and missions of the
Reserve component is a priority of the Guard and Reserve Commission
established by Congress. Future planning for the Reserve component can
be enhanced by the Commission's findings.
Question. What are your views regarding the QDR recommendation to
increase the role of the combatant commanders in the budget and
acquisition process?
Answer. It is my opinion that the budget and acquisition process
would benefit from better input from the combatant commands in
identifying operational needs that influence departmental priorities;
however, the Department must be careful to properly balance short-term
and long-term needs. Near-term needs must not be allowed to crowd out
necessary long-term investments. Military departments must continue to
serve as the developers, integrators, and providers of decisive and
interdependent joint capabilities, supporting the needs and priorities
of the combatant commands.
army force structure and end strength
Question. The Army, pursuant to the 2005 QDR, has modified its plan
to increase the number of combat brigades in the Active and Reserve
components. The Army will increase the Active component force structure
to 42 combat brigades and will increase the Army National Guard force
structure to 28 combat brigades. This action represents a reduction
from previous planning of one Active component combat brigade and six
Army National Guard Brigades.
What are your views regarding the QDR recommendation to reduce the
number of Army and Army National Guard combat brigades?
Answer. As a result of detailed analysis and the application of the
professional judgment of senior leaders across the Department in the
context of the 2006 QDR, the Army will continue to expand the
capabilities and capacity of Army forces to meet the demands of the
National Defense Strategy. The Army is growing capacity and building
readily available combat and support forces that are fully manned,
equipped, and trained. The rebalanced force will be more relevant and
ready for the needs at home and abroad, today and tomorrow. The
decision to change the planned 43rd Active component brigade to Special
Forces is a reasonable response to the challenges facing our Nation.
The Army's plan to fully man, train, and equip the Guard will provide
enhanced CONUS and outside CONUS (OCONUS) capability in the Reserve
component. The transition of six combat brigades to Engineering, Combat
Service and Combat Service Support will provide resources better suited
to the homeland and the national defense needs of our Nation.
Question. Do you believe that the QDR has sufficiently taken into
consideration the Army National Guard's state mission, especially
homeland security and disaster relief?
Answer. Yes, the rebalanced force will significantly increase the
forces and capabilities readily available for State missions, and will
provide a broader set of capabilities of increased applicability to
homeland security and disaster relief operations. The Army is committed
to ending the ``haves and have nots'' paradigm of the past. The ongoing
transformation is creating, in all components, combat and support
forces that are fully manned, equipped, and trained, posturing its
Reserves as a ready and relevant operational force.
Question. The Army has asserted that 43 Active component combat
brigades and the 34 Army National Guard combat brigades would ensure
the Army could maintain a 17 brigade force deployed with Active
component brigades having 2 years between rotations and the Army
National Guard combat brigades having 5 years between rotations.
How will fewer combat brigades impact on the anticipated ``dwell''
time in the U.S. between rotations?
Answer. The current projected force pool will sustain operational
commitments over the long-term without compromising the ``dwell'' time
goals of 6:1 and 3:1. The Army Force Generation model (ARFORGEN) was
developed to support sustained operations, as well as additional
contingencies, and to help manage unit rotations. ARFORGEN will help
reduce stress on the force by using a reset-train-deploy cycle that
allows units to anticipate deployment timelines.
Question. Despite the continuing pace of operational deployments,
the Army does not intend to seek permanent increases to its Active-Duty
end strength as part of its overall plan to increase the number of
combat brigades that can be operationally deployed.
What is your view of the Active-Duty end strength necessary to
support worldwide Army operational deployments, including Operations
Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom?
Answer. It appears to me that there is general agreement on the
need to increase the size of the pool of soldiers available for world-
wide deployments. Some experts advocate a permanent strength increase.
The Army leadership has developed a plan to accomplish this goal with a
temporary increase in end strength and transformation of all three
components of the Army to increase the number of high demand soldiers
and assets. Included in this plan is the increase in the size of the
Operational Force from 315,000 to 355,000 and reduction of the size of
the Institutional Force. The plan appears sound to me. It will require
careful execution and sustained support and funding to be successful.
The Army has been evaluating force requirements within the End Strength
Plan outlined by the Secretary of the Army in August 2005. Under the
Secretary's End Strength Plan, the Army is building an expeditionary,
campaign quality force, capable of meeting a broad and complex array of
challenges, while ensuring its forces remain the preeminent land power
and ultimate instrument of national resolve. Key to this plan is the
President's approval of the 30,000 temporary end strength increase
above the 482,400 program that allows the operational force to undergo
transformation while at the same time deploying to meeting force
commitments. The effort has focused on the completion of modular
transformation, aligning the force to QDR and BRAC, incorporating
institutional force restructuring, to include business practice
initiatives, addressing risk in combat support and combat service
support structures and continuing the refinement of Active Army and
Reserve component balance. The Active Army will revert to a 482,400
force in the later years of the POM.
Question. What is your assessment of the impact on individual state
National Guard mission capability of the proposed cut in the Army
National Guard force structure and end strength by 17,000 soldiers?
Answer. The Army leadership has committed to Congress to fund the
National Guard at its actual troop strength level. This commitment was
confirmed by the President Bush in his remarks on February 9. The Army
will fund to whatever that level the Guard is able to recruit, up to
the statutory limit of 350,000. The Army's plan to train and equip all
National Guard brigades and invest $21 billion over the FYDP will
enhance the ability of the National Guard to respond to state and
national defense missions. This will also enhance mission capabilities
and provide skills better suited to mission requirements. The plan
builds up to 28 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and retains 78 supporting
brigades, for a total of 106. Importantly, this includes the transition
of six Guard combat brigades to support and engineering brigades,
increasing the number of currently high demand low density assets and
personnel. The National Guard plays a central role in homeland
security, while simultaneously supporting operational deployments. The
Army could not perform full-spectrum operations without the
contributions of the Army Guard and Army Reserve. For example, last
year the Army National Guard had 10 BCTs and a Division Headquarters
serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans for at least a portion of
the year. Despite that overseas commitment, the National Guard was
still capable of responding with 42,000 soldiers in 7 days to support
Hurricane Katrina relief operations, with tens of thousands more
National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers available as needed. The Army
is committed to balancing its capabilities within and across the
Active, Guard, and Reserve components. The work that the Army is doing
will increase the quality and effectiveness of its fighting force and
create a more capable force across all components. The Army is also
increasing its capacity to ensure that the right capabilities are
available to support current global operations, prevail in the war on
terrorism, and respond to expanded homeland defense requirements by
broadening the options available to civil authorities. This effort is
essential to having the kinds of current and future capabilities and
forces needed across the Army for sustaining the warfight and support
to civil authorities.
Question. Based on the current demands on the Army Reserve and
existing policies pertaining to involuntary mobilization, what is your
view of the justification of proposed cuts in the Army Reserve Force
structure and end strength from 205,000 to about 188,000?
Answer. The Army is working to balance force capabilities within
and across the Active, Guard, and Reserve to develop a total force with
greater capabilities and greater accessibility. This rebalancing is
designed to create a larger operational Army and should improve
readiness and reduce the impact on Reserve component structure. It is
my understanding that the Army is budgeted to go to a 200,000 end
strength, and that the Army Reserve will retain 58 supporting brigades.
Question. Based on the current demands on the Army National Guard
and existing policies pertaining to involuntary mobilization, what is
your view of the justification of proposed cuts in the Army National
Guard force structure and end strength from 350,000 to 333,000?
Answer. President Bush and the Army leadership have made the
commitment to fund the ARNG to the level it can recruit--up to its
Congressionally mandated end strength of 350,000. Within this end
strength, the ARNG will retain 28 combat BCTs and 78 supporting
brigades.
Question. What is your opinion about the plan to reduce the total
number of Active and Reserve brigade combat teams from a total of 77 to
70? Will this provide an adequate basis for the frequency of rotations
planned while still ensuring adequate assurance for successful
recruiting, retention, and training?
Answer. The Army is restructuring to form a rotational pool of 70
BCTs and 211 supporting brigades of various types among the 3
components. This effort will increase the quality and effectiveness of
the fighting force and create a more capable force across all
components. This work also increases Army capacity to ensure that the
right capabilities are available to support current global operations,
prevail in the war on terrorism, and respond to expanded homeland
defense requirements by broadening the options available to civil
authorities.
Question. What is your understanding of the overall number of
personnel the Army seeks to move from the ``institutional Army'' to the
operational Army and how many soldier billets have already been moved?
Answer. The military/civilian conversion plan is a key component of
the overall Army End Strength Plan. The Army plan optimizes the
Operational Force, that portion of the Army that deploys to meet world-
wide requirements, at 355,000, a growth of nearly 40,000 spaces over
the fiscal year 2004 total. A two-phase approach to reduce the
Institutional Army through military-to-civilian conversion is being
executed. The Phase I (fiscal year 2005-2009) plan to convert 13,000
military positions to civilian fills are currently underway. Phase II
(fiscal year 2008-2011) proposes to convert an additional 14,000
military-to-civilian positions and is under review by major commands.
Through fiscal year 2006 the Army will have converted 9,644 Active
military positions to civilian positions.
Question. What are the means the Army plans to use to accomplish
these moves?
Answer. I am advised that the Army intends to accomplish this with
military-to-civilian conversion, business process changes, and
divestiture of functions.
Question. How does the Army propose to accomplish the functions the
military billets being transferred were intended to perform?
Answer. I am advised that the Army intends to accomplish this with
military-to-civilian conversion, business process changes, and
divestiture of functions.
quadrennial defense review ``execution roadmaps''
Question. The Department has announced that it will initiate eight
follow-on assessments, or ``2005 QDR Execution Roadmaps,'' following
completion of the QDR with the objective of continuing to examine a
wide range of key issues, including such topics as DOD Institutional
Reform and Governance, Irregular Warfare, Joint Command and Control,
and Strategic Communications. You have been designated to lead an
assessment of ``Authorities,'' i.e., the need for legislative and
regulatory change to ensure operational effectiveness in the face of
new threats.
What do you consider to be the most significant recommendations of
the QDR relating to necessary changes in existing law and
regulationsand what legislative and regulatory areas, in general, do
you anticipate your group will explore?
Answer. The tasking of the authorities group is to seek interagency
and congressional approval of the legislative proposals endorsed by the
QDR. The senior leadership of the Department endorsed the proposals as
key to advancing the goals of the QDR. The initiatives are top
legislative priorities of the Department. The group is not tasked to
consider or develop additional initiatives. The proposals are:
Building Partner Capacity
Creation of Presidential Security Investment Fund
Exception to Legislative Restrictions on IMET
Expansion of COCOM's Initiative Fund
Extension of CERP-Plus Authority to Every SSTR
Operation
Increase of Funding Cap on Counterterrorism Fellowship
Program
Homeland Defense
Expansion of WMD-CST Operations Across U.S./Canada/
Mexico Borders
Human Capital Strategy
Creation of Operational Reserve Force (15 percent
SELRES)
Expansion of Presidential Reserve Call-Up from 270 to
365 days
Expansion of Presidential Reserve Call-Up to include
response to natural disaster
Creation of Force Shaping Options for USAF and USN
Medical Transformation
Expansion of bonuses for Pre-Trained Specialists'
Recruitment
Increase Unspecified Minor MILCON and O&M Construction
Health care rates
Question. Based on your experience in both the legislative branch
and in the Department of Defense, what areas are in need of change?
Answer. The Department would be well served by more interagency
collaboration, and early and continuous consultation between DOD and
our Nation's Congress. Congress should consider expanding both the
Defense and State Departments' authorities to train and equip foreign
security forces. The Department should institutionalize authorities
from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom to conduct
humanitarian assistance and stability operations. Additionally,
increasing opportunities similar to International Military Education
and Training (IMET) can assist in shaping relations and developing
future partners.
acquisition program reform
Question. At an Air Force Association conference in Washington, DC,
in September 2005, you outlined what you viewed as the ``root causes of
poor program execution'' within the Air Force. You indicated that these
included: unstable and expanding requirements; a lack of test community
buy-in; inadequate systems engineering; unstable and unpredictable
funding levels; and faulty cost estimates for new weapon systems.''
Do you believe that these conditions are problems for the
Department of the Army?
Answer. Yes, all of the Services face these challenges. Stability
of programs is essential to delivering needed capability to the
warfighter in a timely manner. This includes the requirements process,
the budgeting and funding process, and testing--as well as what the
Department thinks of as ``traditional acquisition.'' Without the
stability and integration of these aspects, root causes of poor program
execution will not be adequately addressed.
Question. If confirmed, what role, if any, would you expect to play
in the oversight of the Army's acquisition programs?
Answer. The Secretary has not informed me of his plans for my role
in the acquisition process. Reform of major acquisition programs is a
priority in the Secretary of the Army's Business Transformation
Initiatives. His goal is to streamline or eliminate redundant
operations to free financial and human resources to redirect to core
warfighting missions. If confirmed, I would enthusiastically support
the Secretary's initiative.
detainees
Question. If confirmed, what do you see as your role, if any, with
respect to issues pertaining to detainees?
Answer. The Secretary has not told me of his plans for my
involvement in detainee matters. The Army is the DOD Executive Agent
for administering detainee operations policy. The Secretary of the Army
should continue to coordinate with OSD, the combatant commands and
Joint Staff, and with other Services to broaden its capability to
source and sustain short-term and long-term detainee operations in
support of the global war on terrorism. I have worked in this area
since May 2004. I believe I could offer relevant experience in this
area if asked to by the Secretary.
Question. In addition to corrective actions taken by the Army to
correct detention and interrogation policies, what are the leadership
lessons the Army learned from incidents involving abuse of detainees,
and, in your view, how should these lessons be incorporated into the
professional military education of Army officers?
Answer. In post September 11 operations, the Department of Defense
experienced a paradigm shift in detainee operations from the Cold War
model--in which DOD detained a disciplined, uniformed Enemy Prisoner of
War (EPW) population--to the current environment in which DOD detains a
complex set of enemy combatants, characterized by high-risk insurgents
and terrorists. The Department is adapting to meet these challenges.
The Army should continue to leverage the lessons learned in over a
dozen strategic detainee assessment and investigative reports. Army
leaders must ensure that the Army completes and effectively implements
the programmed adjustments to its current doctrine, organizations,
training, leadership and education. These adjustments will better
enable Army leaders to anticipate, plan, prepare, and execute detainee
and detainee interrogation operations.
domestic surveillance
Question. Policies relating to domestic surveillance currently are
a matter of intense interest currently as a result of Presidential
directives to the National Security Agency following the attacks of
September 11, 2001. The activities of Army intelligence components
which affect United States persons are governed by Executive Order
12333, DOD Directive 5240-1 (DOD Intelligence Activities), and Army
Regulation 381-10 (U.S. Army Intelligence Activities).
What is your understanding of how the Department of the Army
oversees the implementation of its intelligence oversight program?
Answer. The Army employs a number of mechanisms to ensure effective
oversight of intelligence activities at all levels of staff and
command. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2 is responsible for formulating
the Army's Intelligence Oversight policy and maintaining its currency
and compliance with the laws of the United States. Army policy on
intelligence oversight requires that intelligence oversight officers be
appointed in all Army organizations with an intelligence mission. The
Army General Counsel exercises oversight of Army intelligence
activities on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, especially as
pertains to the legality and propriety of such. The Inspector General
(TIG) of the Army has a cadre of personnel with intelligence expertise
who conduct inspections worldwide of Army intelligence organizations
for the purpose of ensuring compliance with intelligence oversight
directives. The TIG is also responsible for receiving and coordinating
reports of questionable intelligence activity in the Army. The Army has
mandated annual training on intelligence oversight in all intelligence
organizations. The Commander, Intelligence and Security Command,
employs staff legal officers at all levels of command to oversee
intelligence operation, ensuring legality and propriety.
Question. How does the civilian leadership of the Department
maintain effective oversight to ensure compliance?
Answer. The principal mechanism for ensuring compliance with
intelligence oversight policy in the Army is the intelligence chain of
command, which maintains oversight of intelligence activities through
the use of intelligence oversight and staff legal officers embedded in
their organizations. In addition, all intelligence personnel,
supervisors, and commanders in the Army are required to be familiar
with Army policies and to ensure that their intelligence activities are
compliant. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2 exercises oversight through
his staff, which is responsible for ensuring that he is knowledgeable
of significant intelligence activities in the Army. Additionally, the
Department of the Army Inspector General conducts periodic inspections
of intelligence unit oversight programs and processes.
military role in domestic emergencies
Question. The shortfalls in the emergency response to Hurricane
Katrina along the Gulf Coast have resulted in debate about the
appropriate role of the Department of Defense and the Armed Forces in
responding to domestic emergencies.
In your view, should the Army have a more expansive role in
responding to natural disasters?
Answer. The administration and Congress are engaged in a
comprehensive review of our Nation's preparedness for domestic
disasters in the light of the Katrina response. Until that review is
complete, I want to reserve judgment on the question of an expanded
Army role. As far as Army capability, the Army plan to invest $21
billion over 5 years in the Guard and transitioning six Guard combat
brigades to Engineering, Combat Service and Combat Service Support will
enhance the Guard's ability to respond to domestic incidents. The
Department of Defense's primary missions are to protect the United
States, prevent conflict and surprise attacks, and prevail in war.
Question. What is your assessment of the Army National Guard's
ability to meet its state contingency and homeland defense missions,
given its operational commitments overseas, current equipment
shortfalls, and proposed reductions in force structure and budget?
Answer. The Army National Guard has proven itself capable of
meeting its homeland defense mission while providing vital support to
international operations, even with the heavy demands placed on it
following Hurricane Katrina last year. The Guard has been stretched in
responding to the demands placed upon it since September 11, but it has
met all of the challenges it has been asked to undertake. As the
President recently acknowledged, ``Across the world and on every front,
the men and women of the Guard are serving with courage and
determination, and they're bringing us to victory in the global war on
terror.'' The Army's 5-year plan will further enhance the Guard's
ability to meet domestic and international obligations. The Army plans
to fully man, train and equip all Guard units and invest $21 billion in
equipping the Guard over the next 5 years. By converting six combat
brigades to Engineering, Combat Support and Combat Service Support, and
increasing the availability of high demand assets and skills, the
Guard's ability to respond to domestic and international contingencies
will be strengthened. The plan to institute a 1 out of 6-year
deployment maximum will provide predictability and stability for
members of the Guard, their families and their employers. I am
confident that the Army's plan for the Guard will improve its ability
and continue its record of service so vital to security of the country
and peace in the world.
aerial common sensor
Question. On 2 August 2004, the U.S. Army awarded a $879 million
system design and development contract for the Aerial Common Sensor
(ACS). ACS was intended to serve as the next-generation airborne
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) and target
identification system. Furthermore, ACS was designed to replace current
aircraft including, the Army's Guardrail Common Sensor, the Airborne
Reconnaissance Low aircraft, and the Navy's fleet of E-P3 aircraft. The
ACS program was terminated on 12 January 2006.
What is your assessment of the Army's ability to meet the near-term
signals intelligence needs given a current shortage of Guardrail Common
Sensor systems?
Answer. The Guardrail Common Sensor fleet has been in heavy demand
since September 11, providing the tactical maneuver commander with
actionable signals intelligence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The fleet
will remain in high demand for the foreseeable future. I understand
that the Army is modernizing the system's core capabilities, based on
feedback from commanders, better to support the warfighter.
Additionally, the Army is modernizing the Airborne Reconnaissance-Low
fleet with a modern signals intelligence payload to help prosecute high
priority targets in Iraq and relieve demands on the Guardrail fleet.
Question. In your opinion should the Army, and its initial ACS
partner, the Navy, continue to collaborate to find a joint service
solution to meet the needs of the ISR gap particularly since some Navy
EP-3s have already reached retirement age?
Answer. I do not have the knowledge to offer an informed opinion on
the value of continued collaboration. I understand that the Army and
Navy are in the process of completing the Joint ISR study that was
directed by OSD as a result of the ACS contract termination. The study,
which will be completed sometime this summer, will help inform the
Services' discussions on the best path forward regarding ACS.
support for wounded soldiers
Question. Wounded soldiers from Operations Enduring Freedom and
Iraqi Freedom deserve the highest priority from the Army for support
services, healing and recuperation, rehabilitation, evaluation for
return to duty, successful transition from Active-Duty if required, and
continuing support beyond retirement or discharge.
What is your assessment of the effectiveness of Army programs now
in place to care for the wounded, including the Wounded Warrior
Program, and programs for soldiers in a medical hold status?
Answer. The U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program (AW2) is an
outstanding program and has been effective, but the Army must always
strive to improve services in this critical area. This outreach-driven
program provides severely-wounded soldiers and their families with a
system of advocacy and personal support from the time of initial
casualty notification to return to military service or to the civilian
sector. If confirmed, I will be committed to ensuring that injured
soldiers receive the best care possible and receive support to address
their needs and issues throughout the recovery process and beyond. I
will continually assess the effectiveness of this program and would
like to work with Congress and the private sector to develop innovative
programs tailored to the long-term needs of our severely wounded
soldiers.
Question. How does the Army provide follow-on assistance to wounded
personnel who have separated from Active service? How effective are
those programs?
Answer. I understand that AW2 Soldier Family Management Specialists
initiate and maintain contact with Veterans Affairs (VA) personnel
providing VA services to soldiers while they are on Active-Duty and
through their transition to veteran status. The AW2 and the VA have
forged a strong relationship to provide comprehensive assistance to
wounded Army personnel. The Army assigns a VA Liaison in the VA
Seamless Transition Office to allow the AW2 to ensure wounded soldiers
receive optimal and timely services and to close potential gaps that
may arise in the transition process. Based on the information I have
received thus far, the Army is doing a good job in providing necessary
follow on assistance to wounded personnel; however, as stated above, I
would like to see DOD (all Services), VA and Congress continue to
explore innovative approaches to this challenge.
Question. If confirmed, are there additional strategies and
resources that you would pursue to increase the Army's support for
wounded soldiers, and to monitor their progress in returning to
civilian life?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with Department leaders,
Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) and Congress to continue to seek
innovative approaches to this critical challenge. To properly monitor
progress of its wounded soldiers, the Army must continue to develop and
implement a decision support and soldier tracking system. The
Department must also continue strategies that will result in health
care advances and promote rehabilitation research for its severely
injured soldiers with traumatic injuries. Private industry should be
engaged in pursuing strategies for expanded employment opportunities.
joint acquisition programs
Question. What are your views regarding joint acquisition programs,
such as the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) and the Joint Strike
Fighter?
Answer. There are great efficiencies to be gained by joint programs
as opposed to individual Service procurements. Joint programs have the
advantages of: economies of scale, reduction in Service spares
inventories, and Service sharing of training costs. However, the
critical start-point for a joint program is a ``joint'' requirement.
Without a solid joint requirement, it is doubtful that a joint
acquisition program will be cost effective.
The JTRS program has been plagued with problems. The management of
the program was not established with a clearly defined chain of command
and decision making mechanism. The Army, as executive agent, attempted
to manage the JTRS program, but different Service desires, lack of
discipline in requirements growth, and the complexity of the program,
hampered those efforts. Earlier this year, the Department changed the
management structure by establishing a Joint Program Executive Office
with the requisite authority to manage the program. I believe this to
have been a positive change that will accelerate the development and
fielding of the JTRS program.
Question. Do you see utility in encouraging the Services to conduct
more joint development, especially in the area of helicopters and
unmanned systems?
Answer. Yes, I believe a joint development approach has utility for
helicopters and unmanned systems and for all types of systems used by
multiple Services. A successful joint program demands that the Services
develop a well defined joint requirement as a starting point and
vigilant oversight and discipline thereafter.
Question. If so, what enforcement mechanisms would you recommend to
implement more joint program acquisition?
Answer. I have not received sufficient information on the scope of
the problems and the challenges confronting joint programs acquisition
to make fully informed recommendations. If confirmed, I will, pursuant
to the Secretary's guidance, work with Army Department acquisition
leadership to address this area.
morale, welfare, and recreation
Question. Morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs are
critical to enhancement of military life for members and their
families, and must be relevant and attractive to all eligible users,
including Active-Duty and Reserve personnel and retirees.
What are the challenges in sustaining Army MWR programs that you
foresee, and, if confirmed, what improvements would you seek to
achieve?
Answer. I agree that high quality and affordable MWR programs are
critical in providing the quality of life that soldiers, their families
and retirees deserve. This must be a priority for all the Services and
must be properly funded. The challenge is for Garrison Commanders to
provide quality programs and effectively compete for and manage
resources to maintain viability of Army MWR programs. If confirmed, I
will seek to ensure that MWR programs meet the Army's standards for
service delivery and satisfy soldiers' priorities and needs.
soldiers' post-deployment health concerns
Question. The health-related problems experienced after Operations
Desert Shield and Desert Storm led to the Department, at Congressional
direction, undertaking extensive efforts to establish a comprehensive
health database on deployed forces based on pre- and post-deployment
health surveys.
If confirmed, what actions would you expect to take to ensure that
the Army uses available data on the health of returning soldiers to
ensure that appropriate treatment is available and that all signs of
deployment-related illnesses or potential illnesses are identified?
Answer. It is critical that all the Services have in place an
effective system to identify deployment-related illnesses as quickly as
possible, evaluate and address the adequacy of available behavioral
health support services, and address any shortfalls. In an effort to
ensure early identification and treatment of emerging deployment-
related conditions, the Army has implemented the Post-Deployment Health
Reassessment Program. Under this program, soldiers will be evaluated
90-180 days post-deployment in an effort to identify health concerns.
requirements and planning processes
Question. For the last several years, the Department of Army has
relied on supplemental and reprogrammed funds to help pay for ongoing
operations in the global war on terrorism and for Army modularity.
Funding for expected ongoing operations and planned Army modernization
efforts are not yet part of the Army's annual requirements and planning
process.
What changes in the Army's planning process do you view as
necessary to mitigate the need for supplemental funding and extensive
reprogramming requests?
Answer. Recent years' supplemental funding and reprogramming
requests were to support the sustained level of conflict in Iraq and
Afghanistan, evolving operational and security requirements, and repair
or replacement of the equipment used in those conflicts. Such wartime
needs are immediate in nature, unpredictable, and difficult to
incorporate in budgets planned a year in advance of their execution. If
confirmed, I will work to identify and incorporate better planning
tools, recognizing however, that annual budgeting will never accurately
anticipate nor fully incorporate the costs of war and obviate the need
for supplemental funding.
Question. As rising personnel and operations and maintenance costs
expend an increasing portion of the Army's budget authority, and as
competing demands for Federal dollars increase in the future years, the
Army will have to address the challenges of modernization and
transformation with fewer and fewer resources.
What changes would you recommend to the way the Army prioritizes
resources to maintain the momentum of Army transformation, while at the
same time reducing future force protection shortfalls?
Answer. While I cannot speak to the criteria currently used in Army
prioritization, the QDR sets the course for future capabilities and
defense forces. The transformation to Army Modular Force structure and
continued investments in force protection will be key elements of the
Army's role in achieving that force. I believe the roadmap for change
in the QDR should provide the overall framework for Army resource
priorities. From that will follow sustained transformation momentum and
enhanced force protection. I expect budgets will continue to be a
struggle in years ahead. The Army must work closely with Congress to
ensure that the mission critical needs are funded.
relationships with congress
Question. Effective coordination and consultation between the
Department and the congressional defense committees--especially with
regard to force structure issues--continues to be a challenge. Having
served four terms in the House of Representatives, as a Special
Assistant to Secretary Rumsfeld, and as Acting Secretary of the Air
Force, you have extensive knowledge and experience about the manner in
which effective legislative and executive branch relationships should
be conducted.
If confirmed, what proposals or suggestions for the Department of
the Army, if any, would you expect to make?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my highest priorities would be to work
with the Secretary of the Army to enhance the Army's coordination and
communication with Congress, Members, and staff. Given my background, I
understand the constitutional role of Congress in national defense
matters and the need for effective, prompt, and accurate communication
with Congress. Effective and trusted working relationships with
Congress are critical to the success of every Army endeavor.
future cargo aircraft
Question. What is your view of the proper roles and missions for
the Army and Air Force in supplying front line troops?
Answer. When it comes to intratheater airlift, specifically at the
strategic and operational levels, no one in the world can match the
U.S. Air Force's ability to deliver personnel, supplies, equipment, or
outsized cargo rapidly across strategic distances. Within a theater of
operations, it is necessary that the Army maintain an organic rotary
and fixed wing capability to meet the Army's need to transport
personnel and mission critical materiel within a theater of operations.
army modularity infrastructure
Question. The Army used emergency authorities in 2004 to procure
and install temporary facilities to support modularity units preparing
for deployments in support of the global war on terrorism. The cost of
installing these temporary facilities will exceed $1.4 billion in
combined military construction, procurement, and operations and
maintenance funds, resulting in hundreds of trailers at each of ten
locations around the country to house and provide work areas for over
40,000 Army personnel for an undetermined amount of time.
If confirmed, what plans would you propose to address the Army's
requirement to provide adequate, permanent living quarters and work
facilities for personnel affected by the Army's transformation
initiatives?
Answer. The Army provided temporary facilities over the last 2
years because permanent Army Modular Force basing decisions were not
made until BRAC decisions were approved. The fiscal year 2007 budget
requests funding to start providing adequate, permanent facilities at
U.S. installations impacted by Army Modular Force transformation
initiatives. Soldiers and their families are the foundation of the Army
and they must have the quality housing they deserve. If confirmed, I
will work to ensure budgets provide sufficient funding to give all
personnel and their family's quality living and working conditions.
Question. In your opinion, what policy and guidance should be
implemented in order to ensure that the relocation of forces into
temporary facilities does not detrimentally affect morale and the
quality of life afforded Army personnel and their families?
Answer. Where interim facilities are being used, the Army must
continue to ensure that they are quality structures, while at the same
time programming and budgeting for permanent facilities. Local
commanders must carefully monitor living conditions and the impact on
morale and be prepared to address any problems that occur. Senior Army
leadership should be prepared to support commanders in their efforts to
address concerns. ``You recruit the soldier, you retain the family.''
housing and barracks privatization
Question. In recent years, the Department of Defense and Congress
have taken significant steps to improve family housing. However, it
will take many more years and a significant amount of funding to
adequately meet the Department's housing needs. The housing
privatization program was created as an alternative way to speed the
improvement of military family housing and relieve base commanders of
the burden of managing their family housing.
What are your views regarding the privatization of family housing?
Answer. I strongly support using the authorities provided by
Congress in 1996 to privatize military family housing. The program
continues to demonstrate success in leveraging appropriated funds and
housing assets to improve the quality of family housing quickly and
economically. As of 1 February 2006, the Army has privatized family
housing at 27 locations--over 64,000 homes. At these 27 locations, the
scope of work during the initial development period is estimated to be
$8.4 billion, of which the Army contributed $562 million in direct
support. Although most projects are in the early stages of initial
development, the Army has constructed over 4,700 new homes and
renovated 6,600 more. I expect the program will continue to show
success in improving the quality of life for soldiers and their
families.
Question. What are your views regarding the privatization of
unaccompanied barracks?
Answer. In light of the successes in family housing privatization,
the Army should examine the potential costs and benefits for
privatizing unaccompanied personnel housing (including barracks, and
single senior noncommissioned officer and officer housing). However,
any decision regarding replacing current barracks with privatized
apartments must consider: standardization, impact on warrior ethos and
unit cohesion, access of non-military personnel, and costs.
Question. If confirmed, how would you recommend that the Army use
privatization as a means to address the Army's unaccompanied housing
requirements?
Answer. Further study is required before committing to a large
scale program. The Army is reviewing some smaller scale projects for
possible implementation in the near future.
Question. In addition to MILCON and privatization, do you believe a
change in existing unaccompanied housing policy to permit more
unaccompanied personnel to reside off base is needed?
Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with this issue to ascertain
whether policy changes are required at this time. In 2005, the Army
began allowing unaccompanied personnel in the grade of E-6 to receive
basic allowance for housing and reside off-post. (Personnel in the
grade of E-7 and above already were allowed to receive BAH and reside
off-post.) Garrison Commanders may authorize unaccompanied junior
enlisted soldiers to reside off-post when space is not available on
post. I believe that the Army should continue to review its policies to
ensure that all soldiers are adequately housed.
oversight of the army corps of engineers
Question. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has assumed a key role in the development and
supervision of repairs to our critical infrastructure in the region, in
particular, the levee system in New Orleans, Louisiana.
If confirmed, what role do you expect to have in the oversight of
activities conducted by the Corps of Engineers?
Answer. Under current Army guidance, the Under Secretary of the
Army exercises oversight responsibility for Army Civil Works functions.
If confirmed, barring a change in guidance, I would provide this
oversight through the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works who is
responsible for supervision of the Army Civil Works program, the Corps
of Engineers' reimbursable activities in support of other non-
Department of Defense agencies, and the Corps international activities
other than those directly in support of U.S. forces overseas. If I am
confirmed, I would expect to serve as an advisor to the Secretary of
the Army on all matters related to these programs that may come to the
Secretary's attention.
base closures and realignments
Question. The 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) has
concluded and the military services are in the process of developing
business plans for the implementation of BRAC decisions.
What do you see as the responsibilities of the Department of the
Army in implementing BRAC decisions?
Answer. The Army is responsible for executing both the Army's BRAC
recommendations and a portion of the joint cross service group
recommendations, as assigned by the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics). For this part of the BRAC
recommendations, the Army is developing implementation plans and budget
justification materials, and will execute the program in accordance
with those plans and the BRAC appropriations.
Question. What do you see as the priorities of the Department of
the Army in implementing BRAC decisions?
Answer. I understand that the Army, faced with the Iraq/Afghanistan
deployments, the Army plans to invest the bulk of the BRAC funding for
fiscal year 2006 and 2007 in the movement of the tactical Army units
that are in rotation schedule for deployment to support modularity and
the return of overseas forces. The Army also plans to invest in the
movement of two schools that train soldiers and the movement of
associated headquarters and administrative organizations. While
completing these three priorities, the Army will construct 125 Armed
Forces Reserve Centers over the 6-year implementation period.
Question. When will the Army have the BRAC implementation plans
completed?
Answer. The Army has developed implementation plans and these plans
become the basis for the initial BRAC budget justification material for
fiscal year 2006-2011. This budget document was submitted to OSD and is
currently in review with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations
and Environment).
Question. When will Congress be able to review this plan?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD will release the Army's
volume of the BRAC budget justification materials along with the other
component's budget justification materials as part of the fiscal year
2007 President's budget detail. It is also my understanding that the
Army does not yet have a release date.
Question. The DOD installation closure process resulting from BRAC
decisions has historically included close cooperation with the affected
local community in order to allow these communities an active role in
the reuse of property. In rare cases, the goals of the local community
may not be compatible with proposals considered by the Department of
Defense. For example, the recent closure of the Walter Reed Medical
Center in Washington, DC, will present opportunities for both the local
community and the Federal Government to re-use the land based on
potentially competing plans.
If confirmed, what goals and policies would you propose to assist
affected communities with economic development, revitalization, and re-
use planning of property received as a result of the BRAC process?
Answer. As a Member of Congress, I represented a community that had
an Air Force base closed in the 1991 BRAC. I worked extensively on the
re-use plan for the facility. If confirmed, and with the guidance of
the Secretary, I will work closely with the Office of Economic
Adjustment, the Local Redevelopment Authorities, the Governors, and
other appropriate State and Local officials to accelerate the property
disposal process whenever possible. The Army has completed the initial
phase of Federal screening and is in the process of evaluating
applications and notifying local communities of the Federal interest in
the Army BRAC properties. This process will be complete with the
determination of surplus decisions. From there the Local Redevelopment
Authorities must submit redevelopment plans that will be folded into
the Army property disposal process.
Question. What lessons did the Army learn during the BRAC process
that you would recommend be included in future BRAC legislation?
Answer. I believe the Army is generally satisfied with the current
BRAC authorities, and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with
Congress to execute BRAC 2005.
contractors on the battlefield
Question. More and more of the Department's maintenance and support
functions are outsourced. These ``contractor logistics support''
agreements have resulted in the deployment and employment of civilian
contractors in combat areas.
What problems have emerged for the Department as a result of
increased numbers of contractors on the battlefield?
Answer. The Department has identified several focus areas,
including knowing the exact location of contractor personnel who are
deployed with the armed forces; force protection issues and arming of
civilians; delineating command/control responsibilities over contractor
personnel with contract language; and providing life support for
deployed contractors which have proven to be problematic. The Army has
developed doctrine and policy to address accountability and force
protection for contractor personnel. The Army is working to improve
housing, dining facilities and other life support to deployed
contractor personnel. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that the
Army policies and procedures effectively address these areas.
Question. What is the status of the Department's initiative to
review over 300,000 military billets to determine the feasibility of
shifting various functions into the civil service and private sector
for potential outsourcing?
Answer. The 300,000 military billets are Department-wide. I
understand that the Army's goal is to grow the Operational Army from
315,000 to 355,000 soldiers by 2013. The Army plans to rely on
military-to-civilian conversions and business transformation to
accomplish this change. Through fiscal year 2006, the Army will have
converted 9,644 Active military positions and realigned these positions
to the operating forces.
investment in weapon systems acquisition
Question. The investment budget for weapon systems has grown
substantially over the past few years to $150 billion per year. An
increasing share of this investment is being tied up in ``mega
systems'' like Joint Strike Fighter, Future Combat Systems, and Missile
Defense Agency.
How can we sustain this growth at the same time we are covering the
increasing costs of operations, Army modularity, and asset
recapitalization?
Answer. The DOD cannot sustain the rate of increase and cost
overruns in major defense systems that it has experienced over the last
decade. Acquisition reform is necessary and should be a top priority of
the Department and Congress. I understand that the Army is attempting
to mitigate cost growth first by using evolutionary development
strategies. The Army plans to reduce costs through standardization,
economies of scale, equipment standardization, requirement discipline,
and common unit designs. More needs to be done DOD-wide. If confirmed,
I would seek to work with Congress in this critical area.
Question. How can the budget absorb this kind of cost growth in
mega systems?
Answer. The Army has terminated numerous programs and reinvested
the proceeds into FCS and into technologies that could be quickly
fielded to current forces. The Army has leveraged technologies
developed in these terminated systems into the development of FCS
systems such as the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon. If confirmed, I will
continue to leverage resources by examining how the Army could use
equipment jointly and multiplying its capabilities through joint
networks, such as the Single Integrated Air Picture. I also would seek
the reduction of costs in all areas of operations through business
transformation initiatives. In my opinion, this must be a high priority
for the Department and for Congress if progress is to be made in this
critical area.
force protection programs
Question. Over the past several years, the Army, with the
assistance of Congress, has spent billions of dollars on force
protection measures (e.g., Interceptor Body Armor, up-armored high
mobility multipurpose vehicles, counter-improvised explosive device
measures) primarily using supplemental appropriations.
If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Army continues to
support and fund force protection programs, even in the absence of
supplemental appropriations provisions?
Answer. If confirmed, I would share the view held by Army
leadership and place the highest priority on force protection measures
in developing the Army budget and support OSD and the other Services in
this area. In the area of force protection, the war drove dramatic
changes to respond to an adaptive enemy. The Army has worked diligently
to provide the best and tested force protection equipment in the world
to soldiers, but can never be satisfied and must be relentless in its
efforts to do better. Supplemental funding has been required to support
the costs associated with quantities, technology, and tactics required
to quickly respond to the changes. The effort has received strong
support and leadership from Congress, with over $5 billion in funding
for Up-Armored HMMWVs and Armor Kits, for over $2 billion in body
armor, and millions of dollars for other efforts. While the loss of one
soldier is too many, these programs are showing dramatic results in
protecting soldiers. For the longer term, the Army is integrating force
protection initiatives into the Army at large. Force protection is a
broader issue than adequate funding and fielding improved equipment. It
requires innovative research and development, evolving training,
refinement of tactics, and changes in doctrine to adapt to an adaptive
enemy. If confirmed, I am committed to continuing a proactive and
aggressive approach to this area.
technology transition
Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the
last few years. Challenges remain in institutionalizing the transition
of new technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons
systems and platforms.
What challenges to transition do you see within the Army?
Answer. In fighting the current war on terrorism, the Army has had
significant success in fielding improved technology to its soldiers and
the other Services as part of the Joint Forces. These include Force
Protection technologies, such as the Warlock family of Improvised
Explosive Devices countermeasures and the Soldiers' Enhanced Small Arms
Protective Inserts. Rapid technology transition challenges are not
unique to the Army. The major challenges are technical complexity and
maturity, programmatic timing and stable resources. Fielding new
technologies has inherent risks. The Army's strategy is to maintain its
science and technology (S&T) investments to mature technology
sufficiently for rapid transition into its acquisition programs based
on operational needs and the flexibility within Programs of Record to
accept new technology.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that technologies are
rapidly transitioned from the laboratory into the hands of the
warfighter?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary and the Chief
of Staff to improve the Army's acquisition processes to reduce cycle
time for technology transition into useful capability. The Army, with
the help of Congress, has embraced the concept of Spiral Technology
Development and has applied that to its largest program of record, the
Future Combat System. If I am confirmed, I will work to overcome
obstacles or inefficiencies and ensure the Army seizes opportunities to
insert technology into the Current Force to meet operational needs and
improve capability.
Question. What steps would you take to enhance the effectiveness of
technology transition efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Army Acquisition and its
warfighting requirements professionals to ensure that we identify
improvements to warfighting systems capabilities that are offered by
new technologies. The decisions to transition these technologies must
be based on operational needs. The Army is enhancing technology
transition efforts by increasing its use of Technology Transition
Agreements between the S&T developers and the FCS Program Manager (PM).
These agreements between the technology community and the acquisition
PM clearly define the technology ``products'' relevant to the program
and when they are available.
officer promotion selection boards
Question. Under section 506 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the Services must provide substantiated
adverse information to promotion selection boards for officers in the
grades of O-7 and above.
What problems, if any, do you foresee in the Army's ability to
implement this requirement?
Answer. At this time, I am informed that the Army does not
anticipate problems implementing this requirement. The Army has a
system for providing adverse information to General Officer Selection
Boards. In the event an officer is selected and adverse information is
discovered or substantiated after the board adjourns, the Army has a
post-board review process. This process, if necessary, could require
the convening of a Promotion Review Board to determine if the adverse
information is grounds for changing a board's recommendation.
Question. OSD is preparing guidance for the Services concerning the
implementation of this provision and the Army is awaiting specific
guidance on any revisions the Army might need to make to its current
processes.
If confirmed, what guidance would you provide to promotion
selection board members about the manner in which such adverse
information should be considered?
Answer. When considering the impact of substantiated adverse
information on an officer being considered for promotion, board members
must make a determination that the qualifications and potential of that
officer outweigh the qualifications and potential of the next officer
on the Order of Merit List who was not tentatively recommended for
promotion. In applying this standard, board members must keep in mind
that the selection of an officer for promotion to (or within) the
general officer ranks should be based on the highest standard that
exists. The substantiated information must be considered as part of an
officer's overall record and performance of duty, and should be weighed
to determine how it may reflect on an officer's judgment, integrity, or
other qualities necessary to demonstrate potential to perform at a
higher grade. Ultimately, board members must endeavor to recommend
officers who have consistently demonstrated the highest standards of
integrity, personal responsibility, and professional ethics. Board
members must be convinced that the selection of an officer with
substantiated adverse information is in the Army's best interest. It is
their discretion to recommend for promotion a clearly deserving officer
despite substantiated adverse information.
investment in infrastructure
Question. Witnesses appearing before the committee in recent years
have testified that the military services underinvest in their
facilities compared to private industry standards. Decades of
underinvestment in 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 Army is investing enough in
its infrastructure? Please explain.
Answer. Despite the current operations tempo, the Army is making
steady progress in reducing the backlog of restoration and
modernization with current levels of military construction funding.
However, unless the Army is able to maintain these investments through
a steady and predictable infusion of sustainment dollars, gains will
erode. The Army continues to focus on its most critical needs and
balance resources against competing requirements, i.e., quality of
life, equipping and resetting the force, military pay, medical care,
enlistment/reenlistment incentives. Facilities are a high priority but
compete for scarce resources.
body armor
Question. Since combat operations began in Afghanistan in 2001,
there has been a need to improve individual protection for our service
members on the battlefield. As requirements emerge, the Army has
responded in several ways, e.g., by speeding up production of the new
Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) to replace the older, less capable, Kevlar
body armor for everyone in the combat zone, not just the ground combat
units. Most recently, as a result of a study done for the Marine Corps,
by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), the Army is in the
process of buying side plates to improve the overall effectiveness of
the IBA.
Do you believe the Army's programs to protect its soldiers
adequately address the requirements for its personnel in combat zones,
and if confirmed, what, if anything, would you do to accelerate the
program?
Answer. Soldier protection is the highest priority at all levels
within the Department and, if I am confirmed, will be my top priority.
The Army continually receives input from commanders in the field and
rapidly provides solutions to the battlefield commander. As new
technologies emerge, the Army must continue to work aggressively with
industry to develop, test, produce, and rapidly field the best possible
equipment for its soldiers. Body and vehicle armor is only part of the
answer. The Department must continue its focus on counter-IED
technology and improving operations. The enemy constantly changes its
tactics to exploit seams. Techniques, tactics, and procedures must
constantly evolve to meet the changing threat. If confirmed, I will,
pursuant to the Secretary's guidance, work with Army leadership in
support of these efforts.
equipment reset
Question. The ongoing requirements of the global war on terror have
significantly increased usage rates on the services equipment. As a
result, we know there will be a requirement to ``reset'' the force once
combat operations wind down. However, given the ongoing nature of both
the war in Iraq, and the larger war on terror, we need to ensure that
our force remains ready to respond to whatever contingencies are
required.
Do you think that the Army's equipment reset program meets the
requirements of the global war on terror, as well as the requirements
for changing to a modular force?
Answer. The Army's budget provides a reset program that meets the
equipment requirements for the global war on terror as well as the
requirements for changing to a modular force. The Army is committed to
ensure that soldiers have what they need to fight and win the global
war on terror. The Army's primary supporting effort is transforming to
a more agile and lethal force--modularity. The purpose of the total
Army's (Active and Reserve) reset program is to restore unit equipment
used in the global war on terror to full operational capability. Reset,
together with the procurement of new equipment, and the Army's Force
Generation Management Model (ARFORGEN), meets the Army's equipment
needs for both missions. In order for the Army to continue resourcing
its equipment requirements for the global war on terror and transition
to Modularity, it is essential that the Army work with Congress to gain
its ongoing support.
special operations civil affairs unit
Question. What is your view on whether all Civil Affairs (CA) units
should remain within the Special Operations Command? Please explain.
Answer. In accordance with the QDR 2005 directive, all U.S. Army
Reserve Civil Affairs (CA) and Psychological Operations (PSYOP) Forces
will transfer from the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to the
U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC). USSOCOM will retain the proponency
function for all Army CA and PSYOP capabilities and thereby remain
connected to the USAR CA and PSYOP for qualification training, doctrine
development, and force structure design. In close coordination,
USSOCOM, USARC, and the US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) are
analyzing the requirements and developing the execution plan for this
action. USSOCOM will provide the plan to OSD Programs, Analysis and
Evaluation by March 30, 2006.
Question. With the goal of maintaining skills and enhancing
professional advancement of CA personnel, what advantages and
disadvantages do you see in integrating Reserve and Active component
units and personnel?
Answer. It has been explained to me that the advantages of
integration for Active and Reserve Forces outweigh the disadvantages.
Army Modularity and the ARFORGEN model formally link AC and USAR
capabilities and doctrine. The proponency and responsibility for all CA
and PSYOP is in the Active Army under USSOCOM. This ensures a common
baseline standard for qualification, doctrine and force structure.
Integrating the AC and USAR Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations
capabilities operationally has been shown to be beneficial to both
components as they each bring complimentary capabilities to the
supported force and receive the benefit of learning from the strengths
of the other. Integrating these CA and PSYOP capabilities enhances the
overall capability available to the Regional Combatant Commander to
address Civil-Military issues from the tactical to the strategic,
National Policy, level.
stability operations
Question. What do you view as the highest priorities for the Army
in implementing the recently issued DOD Directive 3000.05, ``Military
Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction
Operations''?
Answer. I believe that the Department should work toward building
strong International and Interagency partnership capabilities to
enhance Stability, Security, Transition and Reconstruction Operations.
Continued support for existing proven programs, such as IMET, Foreign
Military Training, Security Assistance and Cooperation should continue.
The Services should also focus on improving planning, information
sharing, increasing language and cultural awareness training and
education.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of the
Army?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, in fiscal year 2005, the Army Reserve
achieved less than half of its goal in recruiting physicians, and a
quarter of its goal in recruiting dentists. For an Army that relies so
heavily on its Reserves for medical support in war, this is a troubling
and dangerous situation. Are you aware of the critical shortages in
medical personnel?
Mr. Geren. The Army Reserve is acutely aware of this situation. The
Army Reserve provides the bulk of medical support to the total force
picture. As an example, the Army Reserve provides 63 percent of the
total force's plastic surgeons, a critical specialty with regard to our
current operations. The bulk of nurse anesthetists are also within the
Army Reserve. Thoracic surgeons, also in high demand, are found
primarily within the Army Reserve (61 percent) and over half of the
surgical nurses are within the Army Reserve ranks. This highlights the
importance of ensuring we get the correct formula for attracting these
professionals.
What is troubling about our medical professional recruiting picture
is we are in the same place that we were last year (production) and
will probably conclude this year in a similar fashion. The numbers show
little change in the actual mission number, a mere nine-person
difference between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 for Army
Nurses, for example. Unfortunately, the production rate is stagnant as
well. This will not begin to address the critical shortages we are
experiencing of these professional personnel. If we continue to
approach the problem with the same tools, the trend will continue. We
have to be more aggressive in terms of incentives. We are not the only
agency competing for their skills. These professionals have several
choices. There are both civilian and government entities competing for
their skill sets, and many attract these potential candidates with a
more appealing incentive package, to include full tuition reimbursement
and stipends.
Tuition rates have been rising at double-digit rates for years.
Medical, dental, and other health professional students are stuck with
crushing debt following their college experience. Two hundred thousand
dollars in student loans is not unheard of medical and dental school
graduates Our Health Professional Loan Repayment Program doesn't begin
to address it with a $50,000 lifetime cap (payable at no more than
$20,000 per year on current principal balances) at the end of each year
of satisfactory service in the Selected Reserve. We can begin to get
realistic by raising the maximum levels from $50,000 to $250,000.
The Specialized Training Assistance Program (STRAP) is another
avenue to assist health care professionals in critically short
specialties complete their rigorous training programs. This program
provides a monthly stipend of $1,279 per month adjusted annually on 1
July (full rate). Due to the critical shortage of company grade Army
Nurse Corps officers, we are also able to offer STRAP to Nurse Corps
officers that were commissioned with less than a baccalaureate degree
in nursing, who will complete that requirement before consideration to
Major. Medical and Dental students may also participate in the STRAP-JR
program, for a stipend of $1,235 per month. The Army Nurse Candidate
program assists those looking to become an Army Nurse with a $1,000 per
month stipend.
Realistically, with tuition rates at their current levels, and
their rate of inflation, is this enough? No. It is imperative we be
flexible with these programs and adjust them when needed. Currently,
these programs are only updated when a ``crisis'' in manning occurs. No
intense management occurs unless there is an emergency. This is not a
cost-effective way of doing business, nor does it assure we'll have the
personnel we need, when we need them.
The Army Reserve provides for a ``bonus'' incentive for medical
professionals through the Health Professions Bonus Program (BONUS) and
the Health Professions Bonus Program (Retention). The ``Bonus'' program
pays an annual bonus of up to $10,000, not to exceed $30,000, in return
for participation in the Selected Reserve (SELRES).
Payments will be made effective on the date of orders. The
specialties included in the BONUS Program are reviewed and revised
annually, as needs change and funding is available.
The Health Professional Bonus Program-Retention (HPB-R) may be used
as a retention bonus for Medical Corps and Dental Corps officers.
Individuals contracting for the HPB-approved Army Reserve critical
skills specialties will receive up to $10,000 per year. Participants
must choose 1, 2, or 3 years of affiliation with the Army Reserve
Selected Reserve (SELRES) at the time of application.
We can recognize the commitment medical professionals are making
and the additional sacrifice with the mobilization/deployment schedule
we're asking them to take. We can recognize this commitment by
establishing a dental special incentive pay, as well as increase the
retention bonuses for our health service professionals. There are
several actions we are pursuing and will need assistance in getting the
authorizations for them.
When soldiers, professional or otherwise, are not content, they
speak with their feet and walk, and choose another agency or company to
work for. It is imperative we make it more attractive for them to join
our ranks as well as stem the tide of losing these professionals.
2. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, what authorities or initiatives are
needed to remedy this situation?
Mr. Geren. The Army Reserve provides over half of the Army's assets
for nurse anesthetists, thoracic surgeons, operating room and surgical
nurses, and occupational therapists. We are looking at several
initiatives to address the critical shortfall of medical personnel.
First, incentives in the form of retention bonuses and loan repayment
will target the significant educational costs incurred by individuals
completing their medical education. Most students leave academic
institutions with a debt load of over $100,000. Tuition costs have
outpaced the inflation rate for several years, usually at a double-
digit pace. We can begin to address this by improving the Health
Professional Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP). We are asking for an
increase in this program to a maximum of $50,000 per year, with a cap
at $250,000. This will begin to address the double-digit inflation in
tuition rates and the crushing debt these students incur in order to
complete their programs of professional education. Our Health
Professions Bonus Program currently pays $10,000 annually to a maximum
of $30,000 for participation in a Reserve unit. We believe that
increasing the Health Professions Bonus from $10,000 per year to
$25,000 per year annually, until 15 years of service, will have a
positive impact on recruiting.
Competition from the private sector for top quality medical
professionals continues to challenge the military's capability to
recruit. Without increased bonuses and loan repayment programs that
provide substantial reduction in the economic impact of these
educational debts, we will continue to be challenged to recruit top
caliber officers. With the significant percentage of medical
professionals within the Reserve component, we must look to creative
recruiting opportunities. Currently, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command
is looking at several innovative initiatives, and with congressional
support, we believe we can address these critical issues.
women in combat report
3. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, section 541 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 codified the Department of
Defense (DOD) policy that has been in effect since October 1, 1994,
which excludes women from assignment to units or positions--below the
brigade level--whose primary mission is to engage in direct ground
combat. That provision also required the Secretary of Defense to review
current and future implementation of the women in combat policy, and to
closely examine personnel policies associated with creating the Army's
new modular combat units to ensure compliance with the ground combat
exclusion rule. What is your understanding of whether the full report
reviewing the Army's current and future assignment policies will be
provided to Congress by March 31, 2006?
Mr. Geren. The Department of Defense plans to provide an initial
reply to Congress by the end of February 2006; the final report is
targeted for completion within the next 180 days. This report is
considerably broader in scope than the question outlined in section
541. The Department of Defense, with the assistance of the Department
of the Army, owes Congress, the men and women who serve the military,
as well as the American people, an unassailable and comprehensive
report which thoroughly examines the current women in ground combat
policy and analyzes its implications for the future. That task demands
considerable research effort, understanding, and expertise. The RAND
Corporation will conduct extensive research regarding women in ground
combat policy and its implications given the emerging Army modularity.
Thereafter, the Secretary of the Defense will report conclusions to
Congress.
support for army families
4. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, you understand the importance to
readiness and morale of providing support for families of soldiers,
particularly those who have deployed to combat zones. We noted,
however, that the Army's budget for family center support has declined
since 2004. In particular, family support for the Guard and Reserve
since that time has declined by half. What is your understanding of the
rationale for these reductions?
Mr. Geren. Senator Warner, funding for Guard and Reserve family
support since fiscal year 2004 is as follows: fiscal year 2004-$10
million; fiscal year 2005-$25 million; fiscal year 2006-$41 million;
and we are requesting $20 million for fiscal year 2007. Fiscal year
2004-2006 includes additional global war on terror funds in support of
family support centers during periods of high operational tempo. If the
high operational tempo of family centers continues into fiscal year
2007, additional global war on terrorism funding will be provided to
meet the increased needs.
5. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, if confirmed, will you determine
where the impact of these cuts will be felt and report back to us on
your assessment of whether these reductions for family support are
justified?
Mr. Geren. Although there is no intent to decrease funding for
family support centers experiencing high rates of operational tempo, I
will report back on any reductions, should this occur. Each year, the
Army National Guard and Army Reserve will assess requirements for
global war on terrorism funding and request the additional funds as
necessary to address family center needs.
impact of brac, army modularity, and rebasing on local communities
6. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, the Army modular force initiative,
restationing of forces from Europe, and base realignment and closure
(BRAC), will have a significant impact on local communities which
receive large increases in military personnel. Quality education for
school-aged children is one important concern for military families
affected by these realignments. What is DOD, and the Army in
particular, doing to ensure that local school districts are prepared to
receive and educate military children when they arrive as a result of
the realignment of forces or BRAC?
Mr. Geren. The Army is working closely with the Department of
Defense and Department of Education. The Army has identified the need
for an Army School Transition Plan to develop strategies for successful
transition of more than 35,000 military-connected students transferring
from overseas locations to continental United States schools systems as
a result of the Army Modular Force transformation, the Integrated
Global Presence and Basing Strategy, and Base Realignment and Closure.
Local education agencies have expressed concerns about adequate
school facilities to accommodate the influx of transitioning students.
Some communities have moved ahead with bond issues, and others have
made contact with the Department of Education and/or Department of
Defense to explore new avenues for funding facilities, transportation,
teachers, and textbooks.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
future combat system
7. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2006,
Congress instructed the Pentagon to report on every program that costs
at least 50 percent more than initial projections. The provision was
designed to tie programs to their original cost estimates, rather than
updated cost and schedule baselines. The Pentagon has been allowed to
change its baseline without invoking the penalty. For example, the
Army's Boeing-led FCS program has not triggered an official breach
despite a $161 billion cost estimate that is more than double its
original baseline estimate. What plans do you propose to ensure
programs are held to their original baseline figures instead of
allowing the current practice of rebaselining?
Mr. Geren. While the Army's implementation plans for this new
requirement will be influenced by guidance from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Army intent is full, timely compliance with
the law. Oversight of the program baselines will continue through
milestone decision reviews and program executive officer updates to the
Army Acquisition Executive. Deviation reports using the new criteria
outlined in the amendment will be reported using current processes and
procedures.
While this amendment does not prohibit the re-baselining of
programs, it does hold program managers accountable to the original
baseline estimate. By keeping the original estimate as a data point in
Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR), the entire Department of Defense
acquisition chain is sensitive to the cost growth of the entire
program. This is an improvement of the current practice of re-
baselining which does not retain the original baseline estimate in
official reports.
With respect to the FCS program, the $161 billion figure cited in
the question represents the total acquisition cost in then-year
dollars, and was reported in the November 2005 SAR. The comparable
original baseline figure is $92.2 billion, a 75-percent increase. When
calculated using base-year dollars so that the rate of inflation (which
is beyond a program manager's control) does not influence the result,
the overall increase is 54 percent (from November 2005 SAR: SAR
Development Baseline of $77.8 billion; acquisition program baseline
objective of $120.15 billion.)
8. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, how do you plan to implement this new
amendment with regard to Nunn-McCurdy specifically as it applies to the
FCS?
Mr. Geren. In compliance with the new amendment, each Selected
Acquisition Report (SAR) must reflect the originally established
baseline estimate along with the estimate deemed to be the original
under this amendment. Under this amendment, the FCS current baseline
would be deemed the original baseline estimate. The current FCS
acquisition program baseline was signed by the Defense Acquisition
Executive on November 2, 2005, and reported in the November 2005 SAR.
Oversight of the program baselines will continue through milestone
decision reviews and program manager updates to the Army Acquisition
Executive. The Army will not lose sight of the baseline estimate that
was originally established for the program in 2003.
9. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, what is the status of the transition
of the FCS contract from an OTA to a FAR Part 15 (traditional military
procurement) contract which was enacted in the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2006 and which the Secretary of the Army agreed to do in April 2005?
Mr. Geren. The Army awarded a System Development and Demonstration
(SDD) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based letter contract on
September 23, 2005, consistent with section 212 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163). The Future
Combat Systems (FCS) SDD contract (W56HZV-05-C-0724) is a negotiated,
sole source contract in accordance with FAR Part 15. The FCS SDD
contract is fully compliant with the Uniform Contract Format (UCF)
specified in FAR Subpart 15.2 and includes all appropriate FAR
prescribed clauses. The FCS SDD FAR-based letter contract was
definitized on March 28, 2006.
kc-135 replacement
10. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, in August 2005, as Acting Secretary
of the Air Force, you released a request for information (RFI) for the
KC-135 Replacement Tanker Aircraft program prior to an analysis of
alternatives (AOA) being completed. Why did you feel it was necessary
to release the RFI?
Mr. Geren. The RFI should not have been released prior to the
completion of the AOA. After discussion with Senate staff and with DOD
officials it was rescinded.
11. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, please explain why it should be
assumed the AOA was not conducted in an unbiased and untainted manner
with a predetermined outcome?
Mr. Geren. Based on congressional concern, OSD took extraordinary
steps to ensure that an unbiased and objective process was established,
to include the creation of an independent, joint Senior Steering Group
to provide oversight and guidance on the conduct of the AoA. The 3-star
level Senior Steering Group, with members from all Services, the Joint
Staff, OSD, and USTRANSCOM, oversaw the study.
In addition to the SSG's oversight, USD(AT&L) contracted with the
Institute of Defense Analyses (IDA), another FFRDC, to conduct an
independent assessment of the AoA. IDA focused on the RAND methodology
and their objectivity. IDA worked closely with RAND for over 18 months
as members of AoA Integrated Product Teams and as participants in cost
and effectiveness panels. IDA obtained AMC and RAND computer models and
ran them independently to substantiate results, suggest new approaches,
conduct excursion analyses, and comment on draft versions of the AoA
report. IDA's assessment, pending receipt of RAND's formal report, is
that the AoA is objective based on study balance; correctness; clarity
in explanation; verifiability and traceability; logic and consistency;
completeness; and clarity in presentation. IDA stated in their outbrief
that they had never seen a more complete and thorough AoA and that the
AoA provides a good foundation for the Department's acquisition
planning.
OSD(PA&E), after delivery of the draft AoA in August 2005, also
performed a sufficiency review of the AoA. PA&E assessed the extent to
which the AoA illuminated capability advantages and disadvantages;
considered joint operation plans; examined sufficient feasible
alternatives; discussed key assumptions and variables; assessed
technology risk and maturity; and calculated costs. In addition PA&E
worked closely with RAND in a collaborative, transparent environment
throughout the entire development of the AoA. PA&E participated in AoA
working groups, Integrated Product Teams, and SSG meetings. PA&E made
site visits and reviewed and analyzed all of the data, assumptions,
models, spreadsheets and programs used in the AoA. PA&E also performed
independent research, using outside sources to verify the results of
the models used in the AoA through validation of input data,
assumptions, and methodology. Their assessment, pending receipt of
RAND's formal report, is that the AoA is sufficient. PA&E found that
all discrepancies were resolved, the rigor of review and analysis were
unprecedented, that the AoA met all guidance provided by USD(AT&L), and
that a competitive acquisition strategy based on the AoA results should
yield the best value for the Department.
guidance at army prisons
12. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, what specific Army guidance will you
give to soldiers, military police (MPs), interrogators, translators,
intelligence soldiers, etc. at army prisons throughout Iraq and
Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay (GITMO)?
Mr. Geren. All members of the U.S. Armed Forces, regardless of
specialty or profession, must understand the requirement to treat all
detainees humanely at all times and under all circumstances, from the
moment a detainee falls under U.S. custody and control to the moment of
release or repatriation. A soldiers also must understand their
obligation to report any deviation from this standard to the proper
authority. These basic concepts of responsibility and accountability
are emphasized in the recently published DODD 3115.09, Intelligence
Interrogation, Detainee Debriefing, and Tactical Questioning and
Medical Program Memorandum, Medical Program Principles and Procedures
for the Protection and Treatment of Detainees in the Custody of the
Armed Forces of the United States, and in AR 190-8, Enemy Prisoners of
War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees. DOD
and the Army are in the process of reviewing and updating other
policies, doctrine and training plans to ensure that these core
concepts are trained, emphasized, and implemented in each and every
military operation in which members of the U.S. Armed Forces are
involved.
Current pre- and post-deployment training for all military
services, civilians, and contractors is continuously updated, based on
training guidance, theater mission requirement, and the Center for Army
Lessons Learned (CALL) data, with additional training requirements for
contract interrogators. Internment/Resettlement (I/R) mission pre-
deployment training for Army and Sister Service units is conducted at
Fort Dix, NJ, Fort Lewis, WA, and Fort Bliss, TX. The Combat Training
Center (CTC) Program has incorporated detainee operations lessons
learned vignettes in all rotations since January 2004. Current
Operational training guidance includes increased cultural awareness
leader training and country orientation, updated and increased Law of
War training, theater specific training that includes handling enemy
personnel and equipment, and an introduction to detainee operations
using the US Army Military Police School exportable Detainee Operations
Training Support Packages. The Army continues to support ongoing
training with Mobile Training Teams tailored to meet unit mission
requirements.
Additionally, all soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are
under the combatant command of the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM)
while they are deployed. Because USCENTCOM organizes and employs
forces, assigns tasks, designates objectives, and gives
theauthoritative direction necessary to accomplish the missions in Iraq
and Afghanistan, it is imperative that deployed soldiers are aware of
and follow any AOR specific orders or policies pertaining to detainees
which are published by USCENTCOM through the operational chain of
command.
13. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, Major General Geoffrey Miller, who
ran the GITMO camp from October 2002 to March 2004 and GITMO-ized Abu
Ghraib and has been linked to the abuse scandal in certain reports, is
declining to answer questions in two court martial cases involving the
use of dogs during interrogations at the camp. I would like to hear
your thoughts on this issue and if you are confirmed, what are you
going to do about it?
Mr. Geren. I have been informed that Major General Miller has
invoked his Article 31 rights under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice by declining to answer pretrial questions in a court-martial
case involving other service members. It would be inappropriate for me
to comment on his invocation of rights. Since General Miller's original
declination, I have been informed that he has since met with the
service member's attorneys in the ongoing court-martial and answered
their questions. I understand that the SASC plans hearings on this
matter and the Army will support the committee in its effort.
As far as the Army's review of MG Miller, the Department of the
Army Inspector General (DAIG) independently investigated the
allegations made against General Miller concerning detainee operations.
The DAIG determined the allegations to be unsubstantiated. After
multiple reviews, the DAIG report of investigation has been approved by
the Army leadership. I have been informed General Miller has cooperated
with the DAIG throughout its investigation of the allegations against
him.
14. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, can you provide the current
procedures under which DOD makes available to Congress the confidential
reports the U.S. receives from the International Committee of the Red
Cross concerning U.S.-operated places of detention in Guantanamo Bay,
Afghanistan, and Iraq?
Mr. Geren. DOD policy requires that the International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC) reports received by a military or civilian
official of the DOD at any level shall, within 24 hours, be transmitted
to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)). The DOD policy
further provides that all ICRC communications shall be marked with the
statement ``ICRC communications are provided to DOD as confidential,
restricted-use documents. As such they will be safeguarded the same as
SECRET NODIS information using classified information channels.
Dissemination of ICRC communications outside of DOD is not authorized
without the approval of the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense.''
According to an agreement worked out between DOD and Armed Services
Committees leadership, the OUSD(P) has committed to provide the Senate
Armed Services Committee (SASC) and House Armed Services Committees
(HASC) with access to ICRC working papers, reports, and letters on DOD
detention facilities. Under the agreement, OUSD(P) will provide ICRC
working papers, reports, and letters to the SASC and the HASC on a
quarterly basis. Prior to this hearing on February 15,2006, our last
brief on ICRC documents to the SASC occurred in November 2005.
______
Question Submitted by Senator John Thune
army/air force aircraft
15. Senator Thune. Mr. Geren, the Air Force and the Army have been
working together since 2004 to create a joint program with the Army
Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA) and the Air Force Light Cargo Aircraft
(LCA). There have been reports that in addition to organic lift the
Army wants to take over the Air Force intra-theater airlift mission as
well, which has created some tension between the Services. If
confirmed, how will you work to resolve this contentious issue to meet
both Services' needs?
Mr. Geren. There are ongoing discussions and agreements between the
Army and the Air Force on the FCA and LCA programs. When it comes to
intratheater airlift, specifically at the strategic and operational
levels, no one in the world can match the U.S. Air Force's ability. The
Army's FCA was never intended to compete with the Air Force's C-17 or
C-130 aircraft roles and missions. The FCA is a complementary system
that fills a gap at the tactical level. That gap is the movement of
time sensitive, mission critical resupply and key personnel transport
from the Initial Staging Base or Port of Debarkation (POD) to the
brigade combat team (BCT); what we like to describe as the last
tactical mile in the end-to-end distribution system. These BCTs are
often deployed to austere locations across the noncontiguous
battlefield. Today we are mitigating our risk associated with this gap
through employment of a combination of tactical wheeled vehicle
convoys, CH-47 helicopters, and the use of our smaller, less capable
cargo and utility aircraft such as the C-23, C-12, and C-26. The FCA
will enable the Army to lighten the heavy burden on our CH-47 (Chinook)
helicopter fleet so they can focus on supporting division-level and
modular brigade force structure warfighting requirements. Furthermore,
the FCA will reduce the risk to soldiers' lives associated with convoy
operations and forward arming and refueling points required to support
extended CH-47 helicopter long haul cargo operations.
We are in the process of developing a Joint Program Office (JPO)
that will be established, at least initially, with an Army lead. The
Services anticipate a JPO Charter will be approved by the Services'
Acquisition Executives prior to the Army reaching Milestone C on the
FCA program. The Army still plans to begin fielding FCA to its aviation
force in fiscal year 2008. The USAF will follow with the fielding the
LCA approximately two years later.
In summary, we are a Joint (Army/Air Force) team working together
to field the best equipment possible to meet the combatant commander's
needs.
______
[The nomination reference of Preston M. Geren follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
January 18, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Preston M. Geren, of Texas, to be Under Secretary of the Army, vice
R.L. Brownlee, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Preston M. Geren, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Preston M. Geren
Pete Geren joined the Department of Defense in September
2001 to serve as Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
with responsibilities in the areas of interagency initiatives,
legislative affairs and special projects. Mr. Geren served as
Acting Secretary of the Air Force from July to November 2005.
Prior to joining the Department of Defense, Geren was an
attorney and businessman in Fort Worth, Texas.
From 1989 until his retirement in 1997, Geren was a Member
of the U.S. Congress, representing the 12th Congressional
District of Texas for four terms. He served on the Armed
Services, Science and Technology, and the Public Works and
Transportation Committees during his tenure in Congress.
Geren received his BA degree from the University of Texas
in 1974 and his JD from University of Texas Law School in 1978.
He and his wife, Beckie, have three daughters: Tracy, Annie,
and Mary.
------
[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 Preston M.
Geren 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.)
Preston ``Pete'' Murdoch Geren III.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of the Army.
3. Date of nomination:
January 18, 2006.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
January 29, 1952; Fort Worth, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Rebecca Ray Geren.
7. Names and ages of children:
Tracy Elizabeth Geren, 16; Sarah Anne Geren, 12; and Mary Caroline
Geren, 9.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Georgia Tech, 1970-1973, no degree.
University of Texas, B.A., 1974.
University of Texas, J.D., 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.
November 2005-present - Special Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense.
July 2005-November 2005 - Acting Secretary of the Air Force.
September 2001-July 2005 - Special Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense.
April 1999-August 2001 - Attorney, self-employed - 210 W. 6th
Street, Fort Worth, Texas.
January 1997-April 1999 - Management Consultant, Public Strategies,
Inc., 2421 Westport Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas.
September 1989-January 1997 - Member of Congress, 12th
Congressional District of Texas.
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.
D/FW International Airport - Board of Directors, 1999-2001.
Executive Assistant to Senator Lloyd Bentsen, 1983-1985.
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.
See SF 278 and Ethics Agreement.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Honorary Member, Rotary Club of Fort Worth.
Member, Excahnge Club of Fort Worth.
Member, State of Bar of Texas.
Member, Fort Worth Club.
Member, City Club of Fort Worth.
Member, Rivercrest 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.
Candidate for U.S. Congress: 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994.
(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.
January 5, 2001, Presidential Inaugural Committee, $475.
February 19, 2001, Jim Lane for City Council, $100.
February 26, 2001, Wendy Davis for City Council, $100.
March 20, 2001, Martin Frost for Congress, $250.
March 21, 2001, Frank Moss for City Council, $100.
March 22, 2001, Granger for Congress, $250.
April 25, 2001, Dionne Bagsby for County Commissioner, $150.
June 25, 2001, Blunt for Congress, $500.
October 8, 2003, Charlie Geren for State Representative, $1,000.
December 16, 2003, Friends of the University of Texas PAC, $500.
April 15, 2004, Koehler for School Board, $250.
April 25, 2005, Carter Burdette for City Council, $100.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Honorary PhD University of North Texas.
Outstanding Young University of Texas Alumnus.
Distinguished alumnus, University of Texas Law School.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None, other than newsletter-type material when I was in Congress. I
do not have copies.
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.
Preston M. Geren.
This 23rd day of January, 2006.
[The nomination of Preston M. Geren was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on February 16, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on February 17, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Michael L. Dominguez by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the Military Departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
In your responses to advance questions prior to your previous
nomination hearing on July 31, 2001, you indicated that ``there are
dynamics today different from 15 years ago that may warrant review of
some provisions [of Goldwater-Nichols], such as the personnel
assignment rules and how we select joint specialty officers.'' You
expressed an interest in exploring these issues to ensure the services
have ``sufficient flexibility in the management of our personnel
resources in a joint environment.''
Based on your experience as the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, are there specific
modifications to the Goldwater-Nichols Act for which you see a need?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act deserves credit for creating a
strong framework for today's joint warfighting capabilities. Two
decades of U.S. military successes bear witness to this. However, while
operational jointness has matured, the personnel system for Joint
Officer Management has not kept pace. In the global war on terrorism,
members are integrated within Joint Task Force organizations, serving
various tour lengths on a rotational basis. The intensity of these
joint experiences is almost certainly beyond the scope framers of
Goldwater-Nichols contemplated. We should build on the foundation
established by Goldwater-Nichols and devise mechanisms to recognize
joint competencies accrued in these joint operational experiences, as
well as those derived from joint training and exercises we now
routinely conduct in preparation for combat.
Finally, I believe that ``jointness'' is no longer a desirable
attribute limited merely to the Active component, and the time has come
to integrate the Reserve component in this valuable framework, and to
recognize the role of senior non-commissioned officers and senior
civilians. This means offering joint education, training and
experiences that will fully acculturate all of these key contributors
to joint performance; which necessarily entails tracking/recognizing
joint qualifications. If confirmed, I would enter policy discussions
from this general platform.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take in the areas
you have identified?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary, Joint Staff,
combatant commands, military services, and Congress to advance the
vision documented in the Department's recently developed Strategic Plan
for Joint Officer Management and Joint Professional Military Education.
duties
Question. Section 136a of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness shall
assist the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness in
the performance of his or her duties.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect you will be
assigned?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assist the Under Secretary of
Personnel Readiness in carrying out every aspect of his
responsibilities, functions, relationships, and authorities in law
consistent with DOD Directive 5124.2, ``Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R))'' and DOD Directive 5124.8,
``Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness (PDUSD(P&R)).'' I will be his principal staff assistant and
advisor in all matters relating to the management and well-being of
military and civilian personnel in the DOD Total Force structure. I
will provide oversight for the direction of policies, plans, and
programs governing Total Force management as it relates to manpower;
force management; planning; program integration; readiness; National
Guard and Reserve component affairs; health affairs; training;
personnel requirements and management; and compensation. This includes
equal opportunity, morale, welfare, recreation, and quality of life
matters for both civilian and military personnel and their families.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be
with:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to serve the Secretary as an advisor
and advocate for the management of human resources in the Department.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect my relationship with the
Deputy Secretary to be fundamentally the same as that with the
Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness.
Answer. If confirmed, I would work directly for the Under
Secretary. I would take my direction from Dr. Chu and assist him in
carrying out his duties and responsibilities to ensure personnel
readiness and quality of life for our military and civilian personnel.
I would expect to interact with the Under Secretary on a daily basis
and assist him in formulating policies and providing advice and
recommendations.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Reserve Affairs
and Health Affairs.
Answer. If confirmed, I would anticipate a close working
relationship with the Assistant Secretaries toward the achievement of
Department objectives with respect to our mutual goals. I would expect
each Assistant Secretary to provide expertise and leadership in his or
her area of responsibility, to help carry out the responsibilities for
which I might be held responsible.
Question. The DOD General Counsel.
Answer. The General Counsel performs a vital function in support of
departmental policymaking and the review of myriad decisions. If
confirmed, I would anticipate regular communication, coordination of
actions, and exchange of views with the General Counsel and the
attorneys assigned to focus on personnel policy matters. I would expect
to seek and follow the advice of the General Counsel on legal, policy,
and procedural matters pertaining to the policies promulgated from the
Personnel and Readiness office.
Question. The Service Secretaries.
Answer. If confirmed, I would hope to work closely with the
Secretaries of the Military Departments on all matters relating to the
management and well-being of military and civilian personnel in the DOD
Total Force structure.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
Answer. If confirmed, I would hope that I could look to these
officials as partners in carrying out the human resource obligations of
the Services.
Question. The Deputy Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force for
Personnel, the Chief of Naval Personnel, and the Deputy Commandant of
the Marine Corps for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
Answer. If confirmed, I would hope to have effective working
relationships with these officers to ensure that DOD attracts,
motivates and retains the quality people it needs.
Question. The Joint Staff, particularly the Director for Manpower
and Personnel (J-1).
Answer. If confirmed, I would hope to have a close coordinating
relationship and open channels of communication with the Joint Staff
regarding manpower and personnel policy issues.
Question. The combatant commanders.
Answer. If confirmed, I would hope to foster mutually respectful
working relationships that translate into providing the Total Force
capabilities needed to complete combat missions.
major challenges
Question. Prior to assuming the duties of Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, in responding to
advance questions, you anticipated that your top challenges would be
``recruitment, retention, civilian force management, and preservation
of quality military health care.''
What do you consider to be your most significant accomplishments in
meeting these challenges?
Answer. Less than a month after my confirmation as Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force, our problem set was changed by al Qaeda's
attack on the U.S. Homeland. Instead of recruiting and retention, the
Air Force's principal force management challenge of the last 4 years
has been force shaping--re-sizing career fields within the force to
distribute stress equitably and meet the demand for skills needed to
fight the global war on terrorism.
In the area of civilian force management, the standout achievement
of the last 4 years is authorization by Congress of the National
Security Personnel System, and the subsequent design and development of
the specific policies that will improve the agility of the Defense
Department's civil workforce and emphasize achievement of the
Department's national security mission over seniority in setting
compensation.
The quality of the Military Health System remains superb, and we
should all note with pride the system's astounding achievements in
battlefield care and rapid evacuation of casualties. The cost of the
system--particularly the rapid increase in costs of care for our
retired constituents--remains of concern.
I also look back with pride at achievements in two areas that, in
2001, were not anticipated as problems. First, sexual assaults at the
U.S. Air Force Academy highlighted this serious problem in the Air
Force. The Air Force's aggressive attack on this crisis laid much of
the foundation for the policy architecture the DOD deployed to deal
with this tragedy. Second, the war on terror has placed demands on the
Reserve components unprecedented in their depth and duration. I am
proud to have facilitated and enabled the Air National Guard and the
Air Force Reserve in meeting those demands to the greatest extent
possible with volunteers, and through the practices they developed, to
have defined much of what it means to be an ``operational reserve.''
Question. What do you anticipate would be the most significant
challenges you will face if confirmed as the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and how would do anticipate
addressing these challenges?
Answer. Recruiting and retaining quality men and women to serve in
the military and as civilians in the Department is a significant
challenge. Building and sustaining a correctly shaped and skilled force
to meet the validated demands of the combatant commanders will remain a
challenge and we will need additional authorities from Congress to
ensure success. We must not only attract the people who are able to
carry out the duties required of a 21st century Department of Defense,
we must retain them by providing appropriate compensation and benefits,
predictable deployment schedules, care for their families while they
are away, and work environments free of harassment and prejudice. In
light of ever-changing threats and operational demands, we must see to
it that the Total Force, made up of well-balanced Active and Reserve
components, is trained and ready to defeat our adversaries. When these
men and women have completed their service, we must help them or their
survivors transition to different lives, letting them know that their
contributions made a difference and are appreciated. To meet these
challenges, I will review current policies and initiatives from the
broad OSD perspective and recommend adjustments in order to accomplish
the goal of building and maintaining a military and civilian force that
can carry out the duties required of a 21st century Department of
Defense.
active-duty end strength
Question. For fiscal year 2006, the Department of Defense requested
an authorized Active-Duty end strength for the Army of 482,400. In
order to meet the manpower demands for current operations, however, the
Army's actual Active-Duty end strength on a daily basis has averaged
over 495,000, and strong arguments have been advanced that the Army
must have substantially more Active-Duty personnel to support
transformation and operational demands.
What is your view of the required Active-Duty Army end strength
needed to perform its various missions?
Answer. Since 2001, the Army has grown by almost 12,000 soldiers in
order to support the current national emergency. However, this does not
imply a need to permanently raise the Active end strength of the Army.
The Army is taking measures to create a more capable force within its
current resources. The measures include:
Reallocating personnel from low demand skills to those
experiencing greater stress.
Rebalancing skills between and within the Active and
Reserve components (70,000 through fiscal year 2005; 55,000
more through fiscal year 2010).
Converting historically military positions to civilian
performance.
The net result of these actions should allow the Army to add
additional Brigade Combat Teams to the Force which will increase the
combat capability of the Army and reduce operational stress.
Question. The Air Force is under budgetary pressure to reduce its
Active-Duty end strength, as well as its Reserve components and
civilian workforce by as much as 40,000 individuals.
What is your understanding of the steps that will be taken in 2007
and beyond with respect to the military and civilian employee manning
of the Air Force and what impact do you foresee on Air Force readiness?
Answer. I firmly believe that the decisive and timely actions Air
Force is taking to shape a stream-lined and more cost effective team of
uniformed, civilian and contractor personnel will prevent a future
readiness problem. Moreover, the Air Force will achieve its personnel
reductions in three broad areas: organizational efficiencies, process
efficiencies, and manpower reductions tied to legacy force structure
changes. This, in turn, will free up the resources necessary to address
compelling recapitalization needs. This manpower realignment will be
deliberate and carefully controlled. As we secure our future
capabilities we will not sacrifice today's readiness.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in
assisting the Air Force in balancing its manpower needs against other
requirements?
Answer. Manpower is not a requirement in itself. Our manpower
investments must complement those in many areas, such as platforms,
weapons, maintenance and training, to deliver capabilities (such as
combat air dominance or logistics airlift). These capabilities are the
real requirements. For manpower we believe it is important to help the
Air Force, and all the Services, define their workload requirements
such that capabilities can be operationalized in a cost-effective
manner. Otherwise we would fail to have adequate funds to pay for other
required capability enablers. In addition to helping the Air Force
arrive at a fiscally informed Total Force manpower solution, we must
work with them to ensure they have the tools to build and shape the
cost-effective force we have defined.
reserve and national guard deployments
Question. Current policy of the Department provides that under
section 12302 of title 10, U.S.C., members of Reserve components shall
not be required to involuntarily deploy more than 24 months
cumulatively in response to the existing national emergency. This
policy has exempted thousands of members of the Selected Reserve from
additional involuntary call ups in support of overseas operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
What is your understanding of the number of members of the Selected
Reserve, by Service, who are unavailable for deployment as a result of
the 24-month policy?
Answer. As of November 30, 2005, the current Selected Reserve
population was 826,171. Of that population, 381,180 (or 46.1 percent)
have been or are currently mobilized. Based on the best available data
there are 37,007 servicemembers who have served more than 21 months,
with the overwhelming majority of these personnel being volunteers.
Question. What is your assessment of the Army's ability to support
scheduled troop rotation planning beyond 2006, particularly in combat
support and combat service support missions, given the 24-month policy?
Answer. The Army in coordination with the Joint Staff is currently
planning for rotations in 2007 and beyond. It is important that we
recognize that neither the Army nor the United States are in this
conflict alone. The Army's Sister Services, our coalition partners, or
our immensely capable contractor partners can provide capabilities to
offset any shortfalls that might emerge.
Question. What measures are being taken in the Department to
respond to operational requirements for low density, high demand units
and personnel whose skills are found primarily in the Reserve
components, e.g., civil affairs, special operations, military police,
truck drivers?
Answer. The Services are conducting a ``Rebalancing'' program where
structure that is in low demand or no longer required is converted to
skills and capabilities that is in high demand. Over time, rebalancing
will help ease the stress on the force caused by repeated deployments
in these skill or capability areas. In the near-term, while the
Services are conducting rebalancing, the Department is also using Joint
solutions to meet Combatant Commander Requirements.
operations and personnel tempo
Question. In your view, what would be the effect on recruiting,
retention, and readiness of the Army and Marine Corps of continuation
of the current rates of operations tempo and personnel tempo through
2010?
Answer. High tempo is stressful, and protracted high tempo
compounds the stress. Recruiting and retaining the right numbers of
people in the right skills has always been a challenge and continues to
be our challenge today. Yet the Department has well demonstrated, with
strong support of Congress, that we can sustain recruiting and
retention despite those challenges.
Question. In your judgment, what would be the impact on the current
rates of operations and personnel tempo of assigning principal
responsibility for crisis and consequence management for natural,
domestic disasters to either our Active or Reserve component forces?
Answer. Historically, we have always responded to natural, domestic
disasters as a Total Force, employing state or Federal authority, as
appropriate. This allows the President and the Secretary of Defense the
greatest possible flexibility in meeting both forward defense and
defense at home needs. Because future demand in these two conflict
domains is uncertain, specialization is apt to be exactly wrong--
increasing stress in some areas and creating surplus capacity in
others. In my opinion, the Nation is best served with robust general
purpose forces in both Active and Reserve components.
individual ready reserve recall policy
Question. The Department of Defense established a policy in July
2005 mandating the discharge of officers in the Individual Ready
Reserve (IRR) who are beyond their military service obligation (MSO)
unless the officer specifically requests retention in the IRR. These
policies have not been applied to enlisted personnel.
Such a policy cannot be applied to enlisted personnel since they
are governed by their enlistment contracts, whereas officers serve
indefinitely, even after completion of their MSO. This policy
emphasizes communication as a critical aspect in managing the officer
corps. It focuses on ensuring that our IRR is a viable military asset
comprised of officers who desire to remain available to the military
after completing their obligation.
What are your views about policies affecting continued service by
officer and enlisted personnel in the Reserve component who have
fulfilled their MSO?
Answer. The Department views all service, including that served
beyond MSO, for both officers and enlisted members, to be voluntary,
and our policies support that view. Simultaneously, we recognize the
value of retaining trained and motivated members in the service and we
therefore continue to offer opportunities to retain our members.
Question. In your view, should members of the Reserve who are
deployed when they reach the end of their MSO be treated differently?
Answer. Department policy treats deployed and nondeployed members
the same regarding expiration of their MSO unless a stop-loss policy
has been implemented. Currently, only the Army has a stop-loss policy
in effect. For Army Reserve component members, this means that they
will be retained on Active-Duty for the duration of their mobilization
tour plus 90-days to ensure proper post-deployment transitioning. Use
of stop-loss policy is sometimes necessary for force stabilization and
continuity purposes to ensure the safety and security of units and
members.
mobilization and demobilization of national guard and reserves
Question. In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001,
the National Guard and Reserves have experienced their largest and most
sustained employment since World War II. Numerous problems have been
identified in the planning and procedures for mobilization and
demobilization, e.g., inadequate health screening and medical readiness
monitoring, antiquated pay systems, limited transitional assistance
programs upon demobilization, lack of access to members of the
Individual Ready Reserve.
What is your assessment of advances made in improving mobilization
and demobilization procedures, and in what areas do problems still
exist?
Answer. There have been advances in the mobilization and
demobilization procedures. Notification lead time for mobilization has
a goal of 30 days or greater for individuals and units ensuring
individuals have sufficient time to prepare prior to their
mobilization. Mobilization lengths are being more closely examined to
ensure prudent and judicious use of Reserve component units and
individuals. Post mobilization training is more efficient, shortening
post mobilization training time without endangering the individuals due
to insufficient or incomplete training. Demobilization advances include
providing medical screening as soon as possible, sometimes even
conducting screening in the theater of operations prior to
redeployment. An issue we will be watching as part of the
demobilization process is the re-equipping of the Reserve component,
particularly the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.
Question. What do you consider to be the most significant enduring
changes to the Reserve components aimed at ensuring their readiness for
future mobilization requirements?
Answer. Among the most significant and enduring changes for our
Reserves in the Total Force is the shift in the paradigm of their use--
from the traditional strategic Reserve to today's operational Reserve.
As such, our Reserves are an integral part of all service operations
across the whole spectrum of conflict. To ensure the maximum readiness
of the Reserves, the Department in conjunction with the Services, is
actively working a number of initiatives. We are actively reshaping
both our Active and Reserve Forces through Rebalancing. We are
establishing predictable timetables for Reserve component use. With the
``train, mobilize, and deploy'' approach to Reserve component
employment we are working to capitalize our efforts on scarce
resources, reduce cross-leveling of units, and limit unit disruptions.
Lastly, the improvements legislated in recent years to improve the
timely access to TRICARE for Reserves, both the members and their
families, have allowed the Reserves to be ready to be employed with
less disruptions.
medical and dental readiness of the reserves
Question. Medical and dental readiness of Reserve component
personnel has been an issue of significant concern to the committee,
and shortfalls that have been identified have indicated a need for
improved policy oversight and accountability. For example, significant
problems occurred when mobilizing and demobilizing soldiers were placed
on medical hold for extended periods of time due to lack of
coordination and insufficient medical resources. More recently, the
threatened cancellation by the Department of Health and Human Services
of a contract for health care services for reservists revealed a lack
of communication between the Army Reserve, Office of Health Affairs,
and Reserve Affairs.
If confirmed, how would you seek to clarify and coordinate
reporting on the medical and dental readiness of the Reserves?
Answer. Tracking the medical readiness of the force is an important
issue. Health Affairs has established a standardized management
framework for quality assurance and a compliance monitoring program to
measure Individual Medical Readiness (IMR). On January 3, 2006, DODI
6025.19 was published. It implements responsibilities, and prescribes
procedures to improve medical readiness through monitoring and
reporting on IMR.
Question. How would you improve upon the Department's ability to
produce a healthy and fit Reserve component?
Answer. A fit and healthy Reserve Force is a shared responsibility
between the Department and each individual member of the Reserve
components. Ensuring a fit and healthy force is of prime importance to
the Department and several key initiatives are currently underway to
support that goal. Making the reservist a partner in managing and
reporting on their physical, medical and dental readiness through
periodic health assessments and annual dental screenings is already
having a positive effect on individual medical readiness. This approach
is not only revolutionary but is proving to be successful.
implementation of tricare for reservists
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006 authorized new categories of eligibility for TRICARE for members
of the Selected Reserve, which are required to be implemented by
October 1, 2006.
What is your assessment of the Department's ability to timely
implement the new benefits and the challenges it will have to overcome?
Answer. In order to implement the expanded TRICARE Reserve Select
program on October 1, 2006, we will need to determine the program
design and documentation requirements for reservists who are eligible
unemployment recipients or not eligible for an employer-sponsored
health plan, establish procedures for an open enrollment season,
publish regulatory changes, modify the Defense Enrollment Eligibility
Reporting System to include new categories of eligible beneficiaries,
modify our TRICARE contracts, and work with the Reserve components to
educate Selected reservists on their new health care opportunities.
This is clearly a daunting set of tasks, but I am confident that it can
be accomplished. Last year, through the untiring efforts of many
dedicated OSD and Military Department staff members, we implemented the
initial TRICARE Reserve Select program in a 6-month timeframe.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in coordinating
the efforts of the Assistant Secretaries of Health Affairs and Reserve
Affairs in the implementing these new benefits?
Answer. As noted, several steps are required to meet the deadline
of October 1, 2006 for implementation, and these steps involve several
elements within the Personnel & Readiness organization--including
Reserve Affairs, Health Affairs, and the Defense Manpower Data Center.
My role would involve tracking progress on the needed tasks,
coordinating our efforts with those of the Military Departments, and
quickly resolving issues.
training transformation
Question. The Department has implemented its Training
Transformation plan and made progress in articulating milestones for
establishment of a joint national training capability. Despite the
importance of achieving realistic joint training, however, achievement
of key goals aimed at supporting joint training, such as establishment
of a fully trained Standing Joint Force Headquarters, will not be
achieved until October 2009.
If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in overseeing the
DOD Training Transformation Implementation Plan?
Answer. Realistic joint training within the DOD is not solely
dependent upon Training Transformation (T2). The Department conducts
many realistic joint training events. Training Transformation has a key
role in accelerating progress toward more effective and efficient joint
operations. I, along with my Service and OSD counterparts, have been
actively engaged in shaping the strategy and implementing direction
since the inception of the T2 Program.
Since we began this program in 2001, the spirit of cooperation and
collaboration among the Services, Joint Forces Command, Special
Operations Command, the other combatant commands, and the Joint Staff
only deepens and broadens. The T2 business process can be described as
open, collaborative, incentivized and transparent.
Question. What do you consider to be the greatest challenges to be
overcome in establishing realistic and required joint training
opportunities?
Answer. DOD must persist and expand in its transformation of joint
training and education of the Total Force (Active military, Reserve
components, career civilian, and contractor). The goal is to better
enable joint force operations. We will also build partner capacity and
enable the continuous, capabilities-based transformation of the
Department.
The emergence of new joint mission areas and the inevitability that
more irregular warfare challenges will surface in the future
necessitate innovative, effective, and efficient training and education
concepts to address them without increasing the stress on the force.
These imperatives require a new approach in providing training and
education initiatives to equip civil and military warfighters to
overmatch any future opponent. The Department should continue to pursue
increased joint training efficiency and capability through live,
virtual, and constructive technology tradeoffs and explore alternative
business practices to ensure efficient alignment and consolidation of
joint training programs and resources with joint training priorities
based on mission needs.
Question. How do you evaluate the performance of the services to
date in supporting joint training initiatives?
Answer. We have, with your support of the T2 Program and the
President's budget, made significant progress in the creation of T2's
three supporting joint capabilities: Joint Knowledge Development and
Distribution Capability (joint training and education for individuals);
Joint National Training Capability (joint unit and collective
training), and Joint Assessment and Enabling Capability (assessments to
answer the question are we truly transforming training).
The Joint Knowledge Development and Distribution Capability (JKDDC)
has fielded its JKDDC.Net website to provide a centralized location for
accessing Service and DOD Agency learning management systems, populated
with 19 joint courses for wide area distribution on prioritized
combatant command needs and with their sponsorship. Another success for
JKDDC is their hosting of the Combating Trafficking in Persons course
which was developed collaboratively with the Department of State and
our Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co-laboratory at the
University of Wisconsin. Over this year the office of primary
responsibility for JKDDC will transition from the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to Commander, Joint Forces Command.
Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) works to provide
realistic distributed joint context to Services' sites and events and
to the combatant commands as well. JNTC has already moved from discrete
events to one that is venue centric with significantly decreased
planning time for the distribution of joint training by moving
electrons and not people.
Participation by the Services in Joint National Training Capability
(JNTC) events has not interfered with their title 10 responsibilities
to train their forces for the combatant commands. JFCOM achieved JNTC
Initial Operational Capability in 2004 and we are on track to meet Full
Operational Capability in 2009 although we will never really have an
end point to transformation. The asymmetric threats in the 21st century
will require new, realistic, innovative, and adaptive joint training
constructs and capabilities to be able to provide robust joint training
prior to deployment in support of the global war on terrorism
operations, so that those who serve never experience a joint task in
combat for the first time.
The Department is also migrating from the construct under which
staff and other collective training was planned and completed in an 18-
24 month pre-deployment cycle. JNTC has allowed us to insert
appropriate joint training into these Service events and mission
rehearsal exercises. Through your support the JNTC program has started
to create, for the Department, a Live, Virtual, Constructive (LVC)
environment that will support efficient participation of joint forces
in appropriate training across the country and around the world. When
not utilized for joint training, this LVC environment is being used by
the Services to improve their own training capability.
We will, with your help, over the next year expand the persistence
of JNTC to be more globally postured. The need to build this capacity
to train with our multinational partners is imperative. When we look at
the breadth and depth of current and recent operations we have seen the
need for a persistent global joint training environment so that the
Department can habitually interact with allies and partners in the
joint, multinational, intergovernmental, training environment to avoid
playing a game of pick up football. JNTC will become a Joint Global
Training Capability (JGTC) in the future.
Regarding our Joint Assessment and Enabling Capability they created
this past year a T2 performance assessment architecture and used it as
a start point for the conduct of a block assessment and balanced
scorecard assessment. Our first block assessment, due shortly, will
serve as a baseline set of metrics to measure T2. Are we enabling the
joint force and are we indeed transforming training? Upon completion of
these assessments and outcome measurements of T2 missions and programs
we will adapt and revise our strategic guidance and programmatics.
sustainable ranges initiative
Question. The adverse effects of encroachment pressures, including
private development, restrictions imposed by environmental regulation,
and growing competition for airspace and frequency spectrum, on the
ability to conduct realistic training are well recognized.
The Department has implemented its Sustainable Ranges Initiative as
a comprehensive strategic plan at local, State, and national levels
aimed at preventing further deterioration of the utility of military
training ranges.
What do you consider to be the most serious dangers at present to
essential military training as a result of encroachment?
Answer. Encroachment is a many-faceted challenge, and requires the
Department pay comprehensive attention to a number of issues. At the
root of many of these issues lies incompatible development and urban
growth adjacent to our training ranges or under key airspace or low-
level training routes, whether within the U.S. or worldwide. DOD is
working to improve its cognizance of land use activities outside our
fence line and to partner with States and communities to promote more
compatible uses around our installations and ranges. Congress has
provided us with valuable tools in this endeavor, such as the authority
and funding to partner with conservation organizations and states to
secure buffer lands around ranges. Success on land use will also help
address many other encroachment concerns, such as noise complaints,
further loss of endangered species habitat off DOD lands, and some
types of frequency interference, to name a few.
Question. What additional steps are needed, in your judgment, to
address problems caused by encroachment of all types to enhance the
effectiveness of the Sustainable Ranges Initiative?
Answer. The key to counteracting encroachment is understanding and
managing all the diverse issues and their interdependencies. I believe
the Department has a comprehensive approach to range sustainment in
place that will enable us to stay ahead of encroachment. But we must
remain vigilant, and continue to recognize the importance of test and
training resources to live training, readiness, and national defense.
As resource competition increases and undeveloped lands shrink, we must
place a high priority on protecting the land, air, sea, and spectrum
resources necessary to prepare our forces for combat. Congress clearly
recognizes this need; we ask for your continued support in our efforts
to craft encroachment solutions that protect readiness while also
safeguarding our environment and the health and welfare of our
neighbors.
defense readiness reporting systems
Question. The Department is developing guidelines and procedures
for a comprehensive readiness reporting system that evaluates readiness
on the basis of the actual missions and capabilities assigned to the
forces. DOD Directive 7730.65, ``Defense Readiness Reporting System''
(DRRS), directed the implementation of a capabilities-based, adaptive,
near real-time readiness reporting system. This system is required to
measure and report the readiness of military forces and supporting
infrastructure to meet missions and goals assigned by the Secretary of
Defense.
What is the status of the DRRS, and what advantages over existing
systems does it possess?
Answer. DRRS is a single, comprehensive readiness reporting system
for the Department of Defense. DRRS achieved initial operating
capability in October 2004, and is on schedule to be fully operational
by the end of fiscal year 2007. DRRS is data driven, and uses web-based
software on DOD's classified internet to provide near real time
readiness information. DRRS is mission and capability focused, and
provides global visibility of DOD forces. DRRS provides more accurate,
thorough, and comprehensive readiness information of DOD force
capabilities to aid in war planning, force management, and risk
assessment.
Question. Given the importance to the success of DRRS of
Department-wide collaboration and cooperation, what is your assessment
of the support provided by the stakeholders?
Answer. We have broad DOD support for DRRS. DRRS was fully
supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a recent DRRS update
briefing. Furthermore, the Secretary of Defense is briefed every other
month on the status of DRRS implementation. The combatant commanders
are some of the strongest DRRS supporters, with PACOM, STRATCOM, and
NORTHCOM leading the way in realizing the DRRS vision.
Question. Under section 117(e) of title 10, U.S.C., a report on the
results of the most recent joint readiness review, including current
information derived from the readiness reporting system, must be
submitted on a quarterly basis to the congressional defense committees.
What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that the
readiness information available through DRRS and its web-based
reporting system is made available to the congressional defense
committees in a timely manner?
Answer. We are currently developing a DRRS module that will greatly
reduce the time required to prepare the Quarterly Readiness Report to
Congress. We have also used DRRS functionality to assist in answering
readiness questions of the congressional defense committees.
defense prisoner of war/missing personnel office (dpmo)
Question. In 2005, the leadership of DPMO came under criticism from
survivor family groups who alleged that insufficient attention and
resources were being committed to recovery of U.S. personnel missing
from conflicts from World War II to the present.
In view of the mission of the DPMO, do you think that this
organization, as well as the U.S. Army Central Identification
Laboratory in Hawaii (CILHI) would more appropriately be placed under
the proponency of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness?
Answer. I believe the DPMO program is appropriately aligned within
the purview of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs under the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
(USD(P)). Moreover, the USD(P) can best meet the predictable and often
complex challenges associated with the necessity to coordinate with
foreign governments for the recovery of remains. Additionally, the
USD(P) works, on a daily basis, with the Joint Staff and the combatant
commands, to include the Pacific Command, on the worldwide use of
military assets. This is important because the utilization of these
assets is often central to the planning and conduct of DPMO related
operations.
Note: The U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory no longer
exists under that title. In 1993, the Laboratory was merged with
Pacific Command's Joint Task Force-Full Accounting. It is now the Joint
POW/MIA Accounting Command and remains a Pacific Command asset with a
worldwide mission.
Question. Do you believe that the Personnel and Readiness
organization should have a larger role in the oversight of the DPMO?
Answer. I believe P&R has an effective relationship with USD(P) and
that there is no requirement for a direct P&R oversight role. Indeed,
because of the considerations discussed in the previous answer,
attempting to inject such oversight in matters dealing with
international coordination issues could actually have a negative
impact. Having said the above, I am keenly aware of P&R
responsibilities to the families of all servicemembers--especially
those whose loved ones are missing or deceased. If I am confirmed, I
will ensure P&R coordination with DPMO is all that it should be.
Moreover, once an individual's remains have been identified through
work completed by DPMO, P&R should continue to work with the Military
Services to honor the family's desires as to disposition of remains and
any military funeral honors.
employment of military spouses
Question. In your view, what progress has been made, and what
actions need to be taken to provide increased employment opportunities
for military spouses?
Answer. DOD has been committed to helping military spouses start
rewarding careers and to remove barriers to career advancement. We have
made significant progress in the last 2 years.
We have begun to raise awareness among employers about the value of
hiring military spouses and we have increased our efforts at the state
level where licensing and certification requirements differ state to
state.
In the 9 months since www.military.com/spouse site was launched,
over 800,000 spouses have visited the site; over 500,000 have signed up
for the newsletter, over 400,000 have visited the chat rooms and over
1.5 million job searches have been conducted. In recent months, DOD has
also co-sponsored specialty career fairs that focus employers on
severely injured servicemembers and military spouses.
We commissioned research studies to determine which careers were
most popular and which States provided the most opportunity for
removing these barriers. We were able to determine that teaching, real
estate, nursing, and medical assistant positions were popular spouse
careers that have State-specific licensing requirements. Since then, we
have worked to use the American Board for Certification of Teacher
Excellence (ABCTE), a national passport credentialing organization
supported by No Child Left Behind, as a beneficial alternative
transportable teaching credential for military spouses. Five States
have adopted ABCTE's credential and more States with many military
families are considering it. We are identifying other career
opportunities where employer affiliations will aid spouses in staying
on track, such as in real estate; and industries that offer portable
credentials, such as computer networking.
family support
Question. In your view, do the Services have adequate programs in
place to ensure support for Active and Reserve component families,
particularly those who live great distances from military
installations?
Answer. Yes, two-thirds of military families do not live on DOD
installations. Reserve and Guard families are often long distances from
support systems. Therefore, DOD leveraged technology to reach all
military families by providing easy access to accurate and timely
information wherever they may live around the world. Every Service and
the Reserve components are now plugged into Military OneSource. This is
an innovative way of providing information and assistance to troops and
families 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by a toll-free number or
online, from any place, tailoring services specifically to individuals
and families. This service also provides counseling and emotional
support when needed by Master's degree level staff.
Each of the military services, including their Reserve components,
also has important, unit-based family support programs. These programs
provide a human face to families in need, and reinforce the unit
commander's role in supporting and caring for the families of those who
are serving.
Question. If confirmed, what additional steps would you take to
enhance family support?
Answer. The Department has done an excellent job designing flexible
family support programs that meet the needs of our servicemembers and
their families who live on military installations, near military
installations, and those who live at a distance. Spreading the word
about these innovative support programs to the members of the Total
Force and their families is high on my priority list. Next steps are to
make sure everyone knows about the services, uses them to their
advantage, and recognizes it is a wise choice to seek help to cope with
military life's challenges.
general and flag officer nominations
Question. Under DOD Instruction 1320.4, adverse and alleged adverse
information pertaining to general and flag officers must be evaluated
by senior leaders in the Services and in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense prior to nomination.
If confirmed, what role would you play in the officer promotion
system, particularly in reviewing general and flag officer nominations?
Answer. If confirmed, I would perform those duties and
responsibilities assigned by the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness. Those duties may include management of
compliance with governing statutes and policy, as well as sustainment
of consistency in the Department's approaches to major policies.
Question. What is your assessment of the ability of the Services to
timely document credible information of an adverse nature for
evaluation by promotion selection boards and military and civilian
leaders?
Answer. The Military Services are diligent in ensuring that timely
documentation is available for evaluation by promotion selection
boards, and that it is available to military and civilian leadership
who oversee that process. If confirmed, I will promulgate policy
guidance to ensure that the newly-enacted provisions of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 are accomplished. That
statute directs that all substantiated adverse information be made
available to general and flag officer promotion boards convening after
October 1, 2006.
national security personnel system
Question. The Committees on Armed Services and Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs have closely monitored the implementation of
the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) throughout its first year
of development and implementation.
If confirmed, what would your role be in the management,
implementation, and oversight of policies relating to NSPS?
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate that I will continue as the Co-
Chair of the NSPS Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) along with
George Nesterczuk, our Office of Personnel Management partner. The OIPT
is Secretary England's mechanism for providing advice and counsel to
the NSPS Program Executive Officer and for quickly resolving design,
development and deployment issues that do not require his personal
involvement. Secretary England, Dr. Chu, and I are committed to making
sure we do this right for the benefit of our people and our national
security mission.
Question. How do you evaluate the concerns of employee groups with
respect to changes in collective bargaining, content and collaboration
over Department of Defense issuances, the independence of the National
Security Labor Relations Board, and procedures associated with
performance appraisals?
Answer. The unions have raised a variety of concerns, and the
Department has done its best to respond to these concerns. Even so, the
employee representatives may disagree with how these concerns were
addressed.
The continuing collaboration process offers many opportunities for
employee representatives to participate. It is a very robust process
that provides employee representatives an opportunity for greater
involvement in workforce issues, including areas previously excluded by
law or other agency rules.
The National Security Labor Relations Board is designed to be
independent. Members are appointed by the Secretary to fixed terms of 3
years. Members will be independent, distinguished citizens known for
their integrity, impartiality and expertise in labor relations and/or
the DOD mission, and/or related national security matters. Finally,
members may be removed only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or
malfeasance in office, which is a standard similar for removing members
of the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Merit Systems
Protection Board.
Based on feedback from a number of stakeholders, including employee
representatives, the NSPS Program Executive Office is currently
undergoing a redesign effort to simplify the performance management
system.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should
take to address these concerns?
Answer. The Department has already taken extraordinary steps to
address these concerns. For example, we revised the final regulations
to permit collective bargaining on certain operational matters if the
Secretary determines that bargaining would advance the Department's
mission accomplishment or promote organizational effectiveness. The
proposed regulations did not permit such bargaining. This change was in
response to concerns raised by several Members of Congress, as well as
the unions.
In response to suggestions raised by employee representatives
during the meet and confer process, we revised the final regulations to
make clear that each national labor organization with bargaining units
affected by an implementing issuance will be provided an opportunity to
participate in the continuing collaboration process. We also modified
the regulations to make clear that the Department will consider the
views and recommendations of employee representatives before taking
final action. The Department will provide employee representatives a
written statement of the reasons for taking final action regarding an
implementing issuance.
In response to concerns by several Members of Congress and employee
representatives, we revised the final regulations to require the
Secretary to consider labor organization nominations for two of the
Board members. This is fair and assures labor organizations a voice in
the National Security Labor Relations Board selection process.
In response to concerns regarding the performance management
system, the implementing issuances will address the specific processes
and practices that will be used within the Department. The Department
will ensure that the NSPS performance management system complies with
the law. It will establish effective safeguards to ensure that the
management of the system is fair and equitable. Continuing
collaboration will provide employee representatives the opportunity to
provide input as needed.
Question. What metrics do you believe are necessary to assess the
impact of NSPS on mission readiness of the Department of Defense?
Answer. The Department's readiness is high. Our employees are
effective, dedicated contributors today. NSPS will not change that. It
will improve human resource management practices to heighten commander
and supervisor attention to their civilian employees' performance,
increase employees' and supervisors' confidence in their own and each
other's accountability for mission accomplishment, and be more
competitive in hiring the people we need in mission-critical
occupations and labor markets where we have lagged.
I believe we must monitor employees' satisfaction with working for
the Department, their jobs, and leadership. We must monitor how
important employees think their work is and how well prepared they and
their organizations are to accomplish the mission.
Measuring employee and supervisor opinions of how effectively we
deal with poor performers and disruptive employees is as important as
accounting for associated management actions. We should measure
relative changes in where supervisors, managers, and commanders invest
their human resource management time. For example, are they
increasingly engaged with employees on performance and mission
objectives, while spending less effort on administrative demands like
job descriptions, personnel action requests, and answering discovery
requests in adverse action appeals?
NSPS effects may be assessed through a combination of job-offer
acceptance rates, the speed with which we fill vacancies, and
supervisor satisfaction with candidate quality. NSPS should also
increase the Department's agility in realigning the workforce to meet
changing mission demands emanating from a more dynamic security
environment; we'll need to develop measures to see that we have done
that. I expect to look at how much use we make of new or more flexible
employment authorities for emergency hiring to meet urgent mission
demands, and for term or temporary appointments that help the
Department get through transformational periods such as BRAC.
It will take time to see the effects of NSPS--not all authorities
will be used heavily or early, and there will be a learning curve.
Additionally, many factors contribute to mission readiness. We
therefore must use a judicious mix of metrics to assess NSPS impact and
be wary of pronouncing on the meaning of the metrics too early.
management of senior executive service civilian personnel
Question. Although the Office of Personnel Management has recently
approved the Department's performance management and pay system for
senior executives, it did so only after finding that the Department's
initial performance plan was not satisfactory.
What is your understanding of the status of the DOD transition to
performance-based management of Senior Executive Service (SES)
personnel?
Answer. OPM approved the Department's Executive and Senior
Professional Performance System on April 1, 2005, and it was
implemented on June 30, 2005. Since that time, the Department has been
on a pay for performance system for its Executives and Senior
Professionals. The new Executive and Senior Professional Pay and
Performance System made fundamental changes in the way the Department
establishes performance requirements, assesses performance, and
compensates and rewards senior executives. In our just completed fiscal
year 2005 rating cycle, we were able to accurately reflect, assess, and
recognize individual and organizational performance using the fiscal
year 2005 performance standards, and we were able to make clear
distinctions in performance. The Department did very well overall in
OPM's 2005 assessment, achieving a score of 100 percent in 4 of the 6
rating areas. It was only in one area in which the Department needed
improvement.
Because our Executives and Senior Professionals will have been on a
pay for performance system a couple years in advance of the
implementation of NSPS, they understand the magnitude of the changes as
well as the level of commitment and leadership essential to drive a pay
for performance culture. The lessons learned will be invaluable as we
move the rest of the Department into a new pay for performance system.
Continued training is essential and the Department will be redoubling
its efforts to train the Executive and Senior Professionals on the new
pay and performance system. We are confident that our executives will
be able to lead the way for the Department's transition to a pay for
performance culture.
Question. Do you believe that delays in achieving an acceptable
plan will have an impact on approval of the performance pay for the
SES?
Answer. OPM already approved the Department's Executive and Senior
Professional Performance System on April 1, 2005, and DOD implemented
it on June 30, 2005. Since that time, the Department has been on a pay
for performance system for its Executives and Senior Professionals. The
new Executive and Senior Professional Pay and Performance System made
fundamental changes in the way the Department establishes performance
requirements, assess performance, and compensate and reward senior
executives. The Department already made its first pay outs under the
pay for performance program.
Question. If confirmed, how would you propose to ensure that
performance pay is made in a timely manner, not only for senior
executives but for all civilian employees within the NSPS?
Answer. Training is key to the success of moving toward a pay for
performance culture. Making our managers comfortable with the new
methodology for calculating payouts will ensure that they are completed
in a timely manner. Our training plan should be comprehensive and
incorporate a robust learning strategy that will prepare our managers
to transition to the new pay for performance system. The NSPS
implementation plan calls for training of every employee and mock
performance assessments and payouts.
management and development of the senior executive service
Question. Under the NSPS, the Department has broad latitude over
the management of its SES personnel.
What is your vision of the approach the Department should take to
improve its management of the SES under the authorities provided by the
NSPS?
Answer. Today, our senior executives require an extraordinary skill
set to meet the challenges of the global war on terrorism. These
challenges have accelerated our efforts to make our Department more
agile, responsive, and more joint in the way we do our business. I
envision an SES Corps that is prepared to lead in a joint environment;
has a diverse perspective based upon varied experiences at different
levels of DOD and, as necessary, outside the Department; is mobile and
ready to assume leadership responsibilities where needed; has
substantive knowledge of national security mission; a shared
understanding, trust, and sense of mission with military leaders; and
strong leadership and management skills.
To this end, the Department is currently examining its SES corps
and will be making recommendations to move toward a more flexible,
agile, and joint SES corps. As the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force, I am involved in these efforts, and I expect to see significant
progress within the next few months.
Question. Some SES members within the Department have voiced
concerns over the lack of professional development and career
management efforts for the SES within the Department, in contrast with
other Federal agencies. The Air Force, however, has initiated a senior
leader management model to enhance and improve management, development,
and assignment of SES and general officers.
What is your assessment of how the Air Force program is working?
Answer. The Air Force program is, to the best of my knowledge,
unique within the Federal Government, and an unqualified success. About
15 years ago, the Air Force's senior career civilian executives
initiated a comprehensive effort to increase the executive competencies
of members of the SES serving the Air Force, and a companion effort to
deliberately develop and prepare high grade civil servants for
executive leadership. Their efforts are now embedded into Air Force
culture. Aspirants to the SES know they must learn the business by
moving to different positions, different Air Force commands, and even
to different functional specialties. More junior Senior Executives know
that, should they aspire to more senior levels, they must broaden and
deepen their leadership competencies in the same way. Military leaders
now embrace members of the SES as peers. The Secretary of the Air Force
and the Chief of Staff manage both General Officer and SES assignments.
Some Air Force senior leader positions are filled interchangeably with
a General Officer or an SES--depending on the best candidate available
and the needs of the job. There is now an Air Force SES leading one of
the Air Force's major repair depots. The Air Force invests in executive
development and provides both General Officers and members of the SES
continued professional development opportunities. The concept of
competency-based management was pioneered by the Air Force SES, spread
into Air Force General Officer management concepts, thence into Joint
Officer Management concepts, and now is influencing the Department's
Human Capital Strategy.
Please understand that even though I am the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA), I claim no
credit for this ``best practice''. Career Air Force executives
conceived of and implemented this program. It was in full swing when I
arrived in August 2001. I have supported and encouraged progress,
shared the model with the Departments of the Navy, Army, and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, and championed the extension of that model
into the development of joint competencies and joint perspectives in
our senior civilian executives.
Question. In your view, should a similar program be designed and
expanded throughout the Department?
Answer. We should certainly consider expanding this model more
broadly across the Department of Defense. The Department of the Navy is
already moving quickly in this direction. As we think about extending
this model, we must also be mindful that each component of the
Department is different, faces a different set of challenges, and will
likely need to tailor application of this executive management
``model'' to its own circumstances. If confirmed, I would expect to
shepherd and encourage this process. I will, in particular, champion
the Department's efforts to do for the SES corps what Goldwater-Nichols
did for the Department's officer corps--create a powerful imperative
for knowing, thinking, and acting joint.
Question. If confirmed, would you support an initiative to require
SES members to obtain broadening experiences and assignments in the
military departments, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint
Staff, combatant commands, and elsewhere? If so, how would you plan to
achieve this?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed I would support an initiative that
prepares individuals for senior leadership positions in a ``joint''
environment. We are currently examining a proposed concept of
operations for a joint-qualified SES corps as a potential model for the
Department. We are bringing a group of our best talent together to
review the proposal and make recommendations for a broader, DOD
application.
sexual assault
Question. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Personnel conducted a hearing on policies and programs
of the Department of Defense for preventing and responding to incidents
of sexual assault in the Armed Forces at which the service vice chiefs
endorsed a ``zero tolerance'' standard. Subsequently, in response to
congressional direction, the Department developed a comprehensive set
of policies and procedures aimed at improving prevention of and
response to incidents of sexual assaults, including appropriate
resources and care for victims of sexual assault.
Do you consider the new sexual assault policies and procedures,
particularly those on confidential reporting, to be effective and, what
problems, if any, are you aware of in the manner in which this new
reporting procedure has been put into operation?
Answer. The Department is fully committed to combating sexual
assault and eliminating this societal problem from the ranks of the
military. DOD's comprehensive policy provides commanders at all levels
the direction and tools necessary to deal with this crime, and the
military Services have been vigorously implementing its provisions.
I am unaware of any problems instituting confidentiality, and
initial data have been very positive. This provision enables many
victims to receive medical care and treatment who previously would not
have come forward. Significantly, some of these victims changed from a
restricted report to an unrestricted report within weeks of receiving
medical care, thereby enabling law enforcement to conduct
investigations and increase offender accountability.
We will evaluate and refine, as necessary, our comprehensive policy
to ensure it best meets the needs of our servicemembers and becomes the
benchmark for other organizations to follow.
Question. What is your vision for the future role of the Joint Task
Force for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, and, if confirmed,
what actions would you take to ensure senior management level direction
and oversight of departmental efforts on sexual assault prevention and
response?
Answer. The Joint Task Force is transitioning into the Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), a permanent
organization within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness. It currently enjoys ready access to senior
leadership, and, if I am confirmed, it will have equal access to me.
SAPRO will remain the Department's single point of accountability
for sexual assault prevention and response policy. This office will
continue to work closely with the Military Services to evaluate and
refine sexual assault policies. It will also collaborate with other
Federal agencies and be a conduit for advocacy groups to interface with
the Department. SAPRO will spearhead the Department's efforts to
institute cultural change with the goal of eliminating this societal
problem from the military.
If confirmed, I will facilitate SAPRO efforts by ensuring the full
commitment of Health Affairs, Reserve Affairs and the Service M&RAs in
implementing and resourcing sexual assault policies throughout the
Active and Reserve components.
service academies
Question. What do you consider to be the policy and procedural
elements that must be in place at each of the service academies in
order to prevent and respond appropriately to sexual assaults and
sexual harassment and to ensure essential oversight?
Answer. The Department's sexual assault and sexual harassment
policies provide the foundation for combating sexual misconduct at the
service academies as well as the Active and Reserve components.
The three superintendents have initiated in-depth programs, and we
are making progress. While more work remains to achieve our goal of
zero sexual assaults, I believe the service academies' programs are
setting the standard for collegiate America.
Augmenting the significant efforts of the superintendents are
several echelons of oversight to include the Boards of Visitors of each
institution.
Question. What is your assessment of corrective measures taken at
the U.S. Air Force Academy to ensure religious tolerance and respect,
and of Air Force guidelines regarding religious tolerance that were
promulgated in August 2005?
Answer. The Air Force Academy is committed to developing leaders of
character and to providing cadets with an atmosphere that promotes
religious tolerance and respect. I personally tasked the Air Force
Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, to form a cross-functional team to
assess the religious climate at the Academy and the Academy's progress
in integrating principles of respect into its character development
program. I believe the Academy has implemented an effective program,
but it is one it and the senior leadership of the Air Force will
continue to monitor and improve.
The realization of the need for guidelines concerning free exercise
of religion and non-establishment of religion emerged from our
assessment of the Academy. While we had no evidence of religious
tolerance issues in the larger Air Force, we developed the guidelines
to ensure the entire Air Force understood its responsibilities in this
area. In promulgating the interim religious guidelines, the Acting
Secretary of the Air Force recognized that, in spite of how hard we
worked developing them, they would not be perfect. He solicited
comment, therefore, from a wide range of groups, from Members of
Congress, from commanders, and from airmen. The comments received have
convinced the current Secretary of the Air Force, the Honorable Michael
Wynne, of the need to revise the guidelines to make them simpler and
easier to understand, and to more carefully balance our responsibility
to promote free exercise of religion, with our responsibility to avoid
any appearance of government establishment of religion, and with our
national security mission. Secretary Wynne has, in addition, committed
to sharing with our sister Services and with senior officials in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the lessons learned from the
national dialog stimulated by the Air Force's interim guidelines. I
believe the Air Force and the DOD will derive significant benefit from
this dialog. Our understanding of and sensitivity to these
responsibilities is and will continue to be much increased. We are,
therefore, better servants of the Nation and its Constitution.
tricare fee increases
Question. Recent press reports have described an initiative within
the Department of Defense to significantly increase enrollment fees and
deductibles for retirees and their families.
What is your view of the need for and the effectiveness of
increased beneficiary payments in reducing overall Defense Health
Program costs to the Department?
Answer. The Department must continue to modernize and sustain the
health benefit program to provide a health benefits package that is
effective, efficient, and well suited to the structure of the force.
Our Department health care costs have risen from $19 billion to $37
billion in just 5 years. Good stewardship compels us to consider cost-
sharing and to evaluate the effects of restoring the balance that
existed when TRICARE was established in 1995.
Question. What other changes in infrastructure, benefits, or
benefit management, if any, do you think should be examined in order to
control the costs of health care?
Answer. The Department has made concerted efforts over the past
several years to obtain cost savings wherever possible.
We have established annual efficiency and productivity
targets for our medical treatment facilities and instituted a
value based performance system using a prospective payment
methodology--which pays these facilities for the actual work
they perform.
In the pharmacy management we seek to achieve
considerable savings from our Federal pricing structure.
We have reduced our supply costs by leveraging modern
strategies such as Prime Vendor and ``just in time'' delivery
services with our vendors.
We have streamlined our managed care support contracts
to reduce costs and will continue to do so in future contracts.
We've worked closely with our Department of Veterans
Affairs colleagues to share services and reduce duplication of
services, wherever possible.
We are making tremendous strides in our infrastructure
to maintain modern facilities and the recent BRAC efforts will
help us consolidate services in key areas such as here in
Washington and in San Antonio.
foreign language transformation roadmap
Question. A Foreign Language Transformation Roadmap announced by
the Department on March 30, 2005, directed a series of actions aimed at
transforming the Department's foreign language capabilities, to include
revision of policy and doctrine, building a capabilities based
requirements process, and enhancing foreign language capability for
both military and civilian personnel.
What is your understanding of the status of the actions identified
in the Defense Language Transformation roadmap?
Answer. The roadmap outlined 43 actions to support four overarching
goals: create foundational language and regional expertise within the
Department; create surge capacity; establish a cadre of highly
proficient language professionals; and oversee career management of
members with language skills. I understand that six major tasks are
completed and the remaining tasks are on track for completion within
the specified timelines.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to identify
foreign language requirements, and to design military and civilian
personnel policies and programs to fill those gaps?
Answer. The current roadmap is still quite new. I will maintain a
sharp focus on the Roadmap to ensure we maintain momentum, evaluate
results, and capitalize on the progress already achieved.
Question. What is your assessment of an appropriate timeframe
within which results can be realized in this critical area?
Answer. While considerable progress has been made, I believe this
will be a long-term effort. Language acquisition, particularly at
advanced levels, takes a long time. This is particularly true in the
more difficult languages such as Arabic and Chinese. To improve
language proficiency and regional expertise in our officer corps, we
need to start early in their careers and grow capability over time. I
also expect that our language needs will change with world events and
new ones will need to be addressed. Finally, a real key to success
rests with a change to our educational system that graduates students,
both at high school and college level, with language proficiency. The
National Security Language Initiative, announced by President Bush,
begins to mobilize the Nation's educational systems toward greater
emphasis on foreign languages and culture.
intelligence community growth
Question. The Intelligence Community is in the midst of a period of
rapid growth and reorganization. The number of flag and general officer
billets that must be filled and senior leader positions in the Defense
Intelligence Senior Executive Service can be expected to increase. The
Department has asked to increase the size of the Defense Intelligence
Senior Executive Service (DISES) by 150 employees by the end of fiscal
year 2007 and has been given authority to appoint its own Defense
Intelligence Senior Leaders.
If confirmed, what role would you play, in coordination with the
Services and the Combat Support Agencies, in the management of this
growth?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Intelligence), who has the responsibility for exercising
overall supervision and policy oversight of all defense intelligence
human capital (to include DISES) to ensure that the defense
intelligence components are manned, trained, equipped, and structured
to support the missions of the Department and fully satisfy the needs
of the combatant commands, the military departments, and the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence as appropriate.
Question. In your view, should Defense Intelligence Senior
Executive Service personnel and general and flag officers of the
Intelligence Community be managed as a single entity more in line with
the Air Force model?
Answer. An effective senior leader management system requires
selection and assignment of the best candidate for each position in an
organization. Thus, it is essential to consider knowledge, skills, and
abilities of all senior leaders available to an organization. Moreover,
it is imperative that we, as leaders, take measures to ensure that a
deep ``bench'' of superbly qualified candidates is available for each
potential vacancy. There are, however, many paths to that goal. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the leaders of the Intelligence
Community to ensure they have the information, tools, and support
necessary to effectively manage this cadre of executives.
armed forces retirement home
Question. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of
elderly residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) in
Gulfport, Mississippi, were evacuated and now reside at the Armed
Forces Retirement Home facility in Washington, DC.
What is your understanding of the official relationship between the
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
(PDUSD(P&R)) and the Chief Operating Officer of the AFRH?
Answer. The AFRH is an independent establishment in the executive
branch. Chapter 10 of title 24, U.S.C., requires the Secretary of
Defense to appoint the AFRH Chief Operating Officer, who serves at the
pleasure and is under the authority, direction and control of the
Secretary of Defense; appoint the Home Directors, Deputy Directors,
Associate Directors and members of the Local Boards of each Home;
evaluate the performance of the Chief Operating Officer; prescribe pay
for the Chief Operating Officer within limits of the Executive
Schedule; acquire and dispose of AFRH property and facilities; make
available DOD support necessary for the Retirement Home to carry out
its functions on a nonreimbursable basis; and transmit a report to
Congress on an annual basis on financial and other affairs of the Home.
The Secretary of Defense delegated these responsibilities to the
USD(P&R) and the PDUSD(P&R) in a memorandum dated March 20, 2003.
Question. If confirmed what steps would you anticipate taking with
respect to restoring and improving the AFRH facility in Gulfport,
ensuring the financial stability of AFRH funding, and responding to
concerns by residents about the conditions at the AFRH facilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure AFRH carries out its
responsibilities. I will establish regular contact with the AFRH Chief
Operating Officer to ensure care and services meet or exceed those
established in law. I will ensure health care accreditation is
maintained and support continued efforts to build the trust fund and
seek efficiencies that do not diminish the high quality of care the
Home's residents expect and deserve. I will require periodic resident
and staff climate assessments and be responsive to complaints and
concerns and ensure appropriate corrective actions are taken.
military quality of life
Question. In May 2004 the Department published its first
Quadrennial Quality of Life Review, which articulated a compact with
military families on the importance of key quality of life factors,
such as family support, child care, education, health care and morale,
welfare and recreation services.
How do you perceive the relationship between quality of life
improvements and your own top priorities for military recruitment and
retention?
Answer. The Department implemented very successful programs to
support OEF/OIF troops and families. I believe these programs have
contributed to DOD's impressive retention rates. We should continue to
conduct analyses and assessments of these programs, individually and in
aggregate, to ensure they are meeting the needs of our servicemembers
and are contributing positively to recruiting, retention, and
readiness.
Question. If confirmed, what further enhancements to military
quality of life would you make a priority, and how do you envision
working with the Services, combatant commanders, family advocacy
groups, and Congress to achieve them?
Answer. If confirmed, I will aggressively pursue the President's
``Managing for Results'' agenda, developing the clearest possible
understanding of the needs of our force, how our individual and
collective programmatic response meets those needs, and how those
programs contribute, individually and collectively, to recruiting,
retention, and readiness. Gaps or shortfalls will be filled rapidly
with the most cost-effective program possible. Results--measured in
satisfied, healthy families and combat ready servicemembers--will drive
our efforts.
commissary and military exchange systems
Question. Commissary and military exchange systems are critical
quality of life components for members of the Active and Reserve Forces
and their families.
What is your view of the need for modernization of business
policies and practices in the commissary and exchange systems, and what
do you view as the most promising avenues for change to achieve
modernization goals?
Answer. Commissary System: The Department's strategy remains to
sustain the value of the commissary benefit without increasing its
cost. The Defense Commissary Agency's (DeCA) re-engineering efforts are
aimed at reducing overhead by centralizing support and streamlining
store operations. Although still in the early stages of re-engineering,
DeCA has demonstrated successes.
Exchange System: All three of the exchange systems are continually
trying to modernize their policies and practices in order to remain
competitive in a challenging retail market. Force repositioning, BRAC
and the global war on terror, with its attendant increased costs to
provide the exchange benefit, will continue to challenge Exchange
profitability. As the Department has reported to you over the past 2-
plus years, we have embarked on a process to cut operational costs
within our exchange system by combining backroom functions from all
three exchanges into a common provider. We currently estimate a $2-plus
billion reduction over 15 years in total operational costs for our
three Exchange Services by streamlining process delivery combined with
elimination of redundancy. By taking an approach focused on backroom
processes only, the service member's relationship to the Exchange is
preserved while the total costs he pays to the Exchange are reduced.
Question. In the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Congress required the Secretary of Defense to
establish an executive governing body for the commissary and exchange
systems to ensure the complementary operation of the two systems.
What is your understanding of the purpose and composition of the
executive governing body?
Answer. The Department established the DOD Executive Resale Board
as the governing body to provide advice to the USD (P&R) regarding the
complementary operation of resale activities. The Board works to
resolve issues within the elements of the military resale system. The
Board is chaired by the PDUSD (P&R), and members include both the
senior military officers and civilians who oversee and manage the
commissary and exchanges systems.
Question. If confirmed, what would your role be with respect to the
governing body, and what would your expectations be for its role?
Answer. The Secretary designated the PDUSD(P&R) as the chairman of
the Executive Resale Board. I envision the Board would continue to meet
regularly to review operational areas of mutual interest to the
commissary and exchange systems. Matters reviewed by the board include
both cooperative efforts and areas of disagreement. The Board should
not duplicate the roles of the Commissary Operating Board or the
Exchange Boards or Directors. Thus far, the Board has proved to be an
effective mechanism to vet operational matters of mutual interest to
the exchanges and commissary. The Board provides a forum for seeing
that operating decisions are made in the best interests of the patron
and of the total resale community.
legislative fellowship program
Question. Each year, the Services assign mid-career officers to the
offices of Members of Congress under the Legislative Fellows Program.
Upon completion of their legislative fellowships, officers are supposed
to be assigned to follow-on positions in their services in which they
effectively use the experience and knowledge they gained during their
fellowships.
What is your assessment of the value of the Legislative Fellows
program to the Department and the utilization of officers who have
served as legislative fellows?
Answer. I support this important training and career development
program and believe it has great value to the Department and Congress.
The Department's Legislative Fellows program provides an annual
opportunity for 22 officers and 5 civilians to broaden their education,
experience, and knowledge in operations and organization of Congress.
Senior civilian leadership of the Military Departments validate the
selection; and in my capacity as Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, if confirmed, I would approve them
on behalf of the Secretary. We place these fellows with members who are
in committees with significant relevance to the Department. The
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs ensures the right officers
are detailed to the right congressional leadership, defense or
intelligence oversight committee. Such high-level oversight for this
program is entirely appropriate as we seek to develop people capable of
sustaining strong and effective dialogue with the legislative branch.
The Legislative Fellows program is now a highly-competitive
program, sought after by some of our most promising mid-career leaders.
The knowledge they gain from this program will contribute to their
personal and professional growth, as well as to the Department's
effectiveness, throughout their careers. We should consider, therefore,
whether some limited flexibility in the follow-on assignments might be
warranted. It would be unfortunate, for example, if a rising star
missed an opportunity to command because he or she was selected while a
Legislative Fellow and constrained, therefore, in the follow-on
assignment. If confirmed, I will look closely at this important area.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, in fiscal year 2005, the Army
Reserve achieved less than half of its goal in recruiting physicians,
and a quarter of its goal in recruiting dentists. For an Army that
relies so heavily on its Reserves for medical support in war, this is a
troubling and dangerous situation. Are you aware of the critical
shortages in medical personnel?
Mr. Dominguez. I am aware that we are experiencing shortages in
certain critical wartime medical skills in the Reserve components of
the Army. Shortages that are especially troubling are found in
emergency services medicine and orthopedics. The Assistant Secretary
for Health Affairs is working closely with the military Services to
address incentives and policies that may be required to help overcome
these shortfalls and avoid such shortages in the future.
2. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, what authorities or initiatives
are needed to remedy this situation?
Mr. Dominguez. The Department is examining a number of incentive
enhancements that may help overcome current trends and avoid shortages
in the future. Among them are an increase in the amount we can offer in
the health professional loan repayment program and an increase in the
Health Professions Scholarship Program student stipend. In the
Department's Omnibus program for 2007, we are seeing an increase in the
amount of special pay for health professionals in critical skills from
$10,000 annually to $25,000. Additionally, we are looking at the
Critical Skills Retention Bonus that Congress authorized for the
Reserve components in last year's National Defense Authorization Act
for ways in which that bonus, with a $100,000 career limit, can be used
to assist in meeting our health care professional requirements. As we
identify other incentives that may assist us, we will include
appropriate legislative proposals in the Department's annual
legislative program.
required joint training
3. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, DOD, as part of its Training
Transformation, is moving toward the establishment of a joint national
training capability, to enhance the ability of the different Services
to function in a joint environment. At the moment, this is being
implemented, as you mentioned in your responses to the advance policy
questions, in a ``spirit of cooperation and collaboration'' among the
Services, the various combatant commands, and the Joint Staff. Under
title 10, however, the Services retain their responsibility to train
forces. Do you foresee a need to make any changes to those
responsibilities in title 10 to support the implementation of the
Department's Training Transformation?
Mr. Dominguez. The Secretary of a military department is
responsible for and is tasked to recruit, organize, train and equip the
forces assigned to the combatant commanders (title 10, U.S.C., sections
3013(b) and 8013(b)). Training Transformation extends a joint context
to the world class training already provided by the Services. We can
accomplish everything we need to within the existing authorities of the
Secretary of Defense.
promoting jointness in the civilian workforce
4. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, in your answers to the advance
policy questions you stated: ``I will champion the Department's efforts
to do for the Senior Executive Service Corps what Goldwater-Nichols did
for the Department's officer corps--create a power imperative for
knowing, thinking, and acting joint.'' If confirmed, what changes in
the professional development, training, and assignment of civilians do
you think are necessary to achieve your vision for the DOD civilian
workforce?
Mr. Dominguez. Today, our senior executives require extraordinary
skills to meet the challenges of the Global War on Terror, a tough and
uncertain environment. I envision a senior executive cadre that has an
enterprise-wide perspective; is prepared to lead in a joint
environment; has strong leadership and management skills; is mobile and
ready to assume leadership responsibilities where needed; has
substantive knowledge of the national security mission; and has a
shared understanding, trust, and sense of mission with military
leaders.
The 21st century operating environment and knowledge requirements
are changing rapidly and constantly evolving. Thus, continuous learning
and professional development are essential imperatives to maintaining a
state of constant readiness and building a bench of senior leaders to
meet current and future DOD requirements.
To this end, the Department is currently examining ways to improve
the identification, development, assignment, and management of the
Senior Executive Service. The Department intends to rebuild a
professional development framework that is purposeful, focused, and
experiential. To develop broader senior executive leadership
competencies, our approach will consider cross-functional development,
lateral movement across fields and parts of the DOD organization,
national security education and training, mentoring, coaching, expanded
intergovernmental exchanges, executive fellowships, and other
opportunities that build a relevant portfolio of career experiences.
We intend to strengthen the current organizational structure to
provide a central focus and DOD-level responsibility for policy and
accountability of the management and development of senior executives.
We envision that the Department will own a top level cadre of executive
positions whose senior executives are deliberately identified,
developed, assigned, and managed. Finally, through our pay for
performance system, we will be able to link bonuses, pay increases, and
advancements to demonstrated proficiency in needed competencies and
skills.
dod civilian workforce
5. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) envisions the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) as a
critical tool in the Department's human capital strategy. What are your
NSPS goals for the DOD civilian workforce?
Mr. Dominguez. NSPS is essential to the Department's efforts to
create an environment in which Total Force, uniformed personnel and
civilians, thinks and operates as one cohesive unit. It is a results-
driven, mission-focused system that emphasizes employee results that
contribute to the accomplishment of the Department's national security
mission. We understand that in order for NSPS to be successful, we must
take care of our most valuable asset--our people. ``Mission First'' and
support of our national security goals and strategic objectives have
been and remain paramount, but while also respecting the individual and
protecting workers' rights guaranteed by law, including laws pertaining
to veterans in the civil service.
NSPS will put a modern, flexible personnel system in place that is
also credible, transparent, and fair to our employees. DOD will be able
to hire the right people in a more timely manner, and to pay and reward
our employees properly, adequately recognizing their contribution to
the mission. Pay increases will be based on performance rather than
longevity. The Department will become more competitive in setting
salaries and able to adjust salaries based on various factors,
including labor market conditions, performance, and change in duties.
Managers will be held accountable for making the right decisions and
for managing their employees--all of their employees.
These are significant changes and are necessary for the Department
to carry out its mission and to create a 21st century system that is
flexible and contemporary while protecting fundamental employee rights.
6. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, if confirmed, how will you
leverage NSPS to achieve your goals for the DOD civilian workforce?
Mr. Dominguez. The NSPS has tremendous potential to greatly enhance
the way DOD manages its civilian workforce. It is a performance-based
system that links employee objectives to organizational goals. It
emphasizes and rewards employees based on results that contribute to
the accomplishment of the Department's national security mission. The
NSPS human resources management system is the foundation for a leaner,
more flexible support structure and will help attract skilled,
talented, and motivated people, while also retaining and improving the
skills of the existing workforce. The new system provides a simplified
pay banding structure that includes performance-based pay. This allows
managers flexibility in assigning work and it provides greater
opportunities for career growth for the Department's civilian
workforce. As the Department moves away from the General Schedule
system, it will become more competitive in setting salaries and it will
be able to adjust salaries based on various factors, including labor
market conditions, performance, and changes in duties. The system will
retain the core values of the civil service and allow employees to be
paid and rewarded based on performance, innovation, and results. A more
flexible, mission-driven human resources system will provide a more
cohesive Total Force.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
acquisition work force
7. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, according to the Air Force
Inspector General (IG), after your meeting with Senator McCain and
General Jumper on April 13, 2005, you directed General John Corley and
Timothy Bayland to ``go convert the contract.'' Is this true?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
8. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, the Air Force IG also said that
your direction ``was never interpreted as requiring a full Part 15
contract.'' In particular, the IG notes, ``The Acquisition Work Force's
use of the word `convert' was, from the beginning, shorthand for making
the C-130J `Part 15-like.' '' No one in the Army's Acquisition Work
Force had a similar understanding regarding the conversion of the
Future Combat System (FCS) other transaction agreement (OTA) to a Part
15 acquisition. To exactly whom at the ``Acquisition Work Force'' is
the IG referring?
Mr. Dominguez. ``Acquisition Work Force'' meant the entire Air
Force AQ team, from the top leadership on down. At the time I gave the
orders to ``convert'' the contract, then Lt. Gen. John Corley was the
Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition. The ``Part
15-like'' comment in the IG report came from Timothy Beyland, who at
the time was the Special Adviser for Acquisition to the Secretary of
the Air Force. Generals William Looney and Ted Bowlds served at various
times during this period as Program Executive Officer, driving the day-
to-day conversion work.
9. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, is Major General Hoffman, the
head of the Acquisition Work Force, responsible for not following your
direction on this contract?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, as you are aware my role as the Acting
Secretary of the Air Force and the Service Acquisition Executive ended
on 28 July 2005. During the time I served as the Acting Secretary,
Lieutenant General (Major General at the time) Hoffman was the Director
of Requirements for Air Combat Command and as a result we did not have
any discussions involving the C-130J contract conversion. Lt. Gen.
Hoffman assumed duties as Military Deputy for Acquisition in August
2005--after I was replaced as Acting Secretary of the Air Force.
As documented in Air Force Inspector General (IG) Report of Inquiry
(ROI) (S6649P), which has been provided to this committee, ``The AQ
community did its best to follow the guidance Secretary Dominguez
provided.'' The report also makes clear that these Air Force
acquisition officials ``. . . understood that no plan would become
final without an indication from he Senate Armed Services Committee,
and Senator McCain in particular, that it was acceptable.'' The Air
Force IG ROI ``determined that no one knowingly acted to undermine
Senator McCain's intent with regard to the C-130J contract.''
10. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, what communications, if any, did
you have with Major General Hoffman or any other Air Force officials
about the conversion of the Part 12 contract?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, as you are aware my role as the Acting
Secretary of the Air Force and the Service Acquisition Executive ended
on 28 July 2005. During the time I served as the Acting Secretary,
Lieutenant General (Major General at the time) Hoffman had not assumed
his current position. As a result, we did not have any discussions
involving the C-130J contract conversion.
I did meet with Lt. Gen. John Corley, who at that time was the
Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, and Mr. Tim
Beyland, who was then serving as my Special Assistant for Acquisition.
I gave these two officials the order to convert the contract.
Subsequently, I may have received progress updates from either or both
of these officials at scheduled staff meetings, but these would not
have been detailed discussions. While serving as Acting Secretary of
the Air Force, I received no communication from anyone that gave me
reason to believe we were not making good progress converting the C-
130J contract.
cost overruns
11. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, in the 2006 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA), Congress instructed the Pentagon to report on
every program that costs at least 50 percent more than initial
projections. The provision was designed to tie programs to their
original cost estimates, rather than updated cost and schedule
baselines. The Pentagon has been allowed to change its baseline without
invoking the penalty. For example, you testified in April of last year
that the C-130J originally cost $33 million a copy but it now costs
over $66 million a copy. How do you plan to implement this new
amendment with regard to Nunn-McCurdy violations?
Mr. Dominguez. In my current position, I have no authority over any
DOD acquisition program and will have none if confirmed as Principal
Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness. However, the
Department's acquisition professionals advise us that implementation of
this new reporting regime over the long-term is straightforward. For
every Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP), we currently compare
the Program Manager's Current Estimate each quarter to the Acquisition
Program Baseline (APB) to determine if the program has breached the
Nunn-McCurdy unit cost thresholds. We will add a comparison against the
``Original Baseline Estimate'' to this analysis. We will be analyzing
MDAPs each quarter to determine if there is significant or critical
cost growth against both the APB and the ``Original Baseline Estimate''
using essentially the same procedures we have used in the past to
evaluate Unit Cost against the APB.
In the near-term, we are determining the status of programs against
their ``Original Baseline Estimate'' based on the fiscal year 2007
President's budget (fiscal year 2007 PB) submission. The fiscal year
2007 PB was essentially complete on January 6, 2006, when the changes
to Nunn-McCurdy were enacted. Programs exceeding the ``Original
Baseline Estimate'' by more than 50 percent will reset their ``Original
Baseline Estimate'' to the cost baseline in their current APB, and the
Secretary of Defense will provide a report to Congress on these
programs. The Secretary of the Air Force will submit a notification to
Congress on programs with cost growth between 30 and 50 percent.
casualty assistance
12. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, in the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2006, Congress tasked the Secretary of Defense with developing a
comprehensive policy and procedure for casualty assistance to be
followed by all branches of the armed services. The deadline for
setting the policy is August 1, 2007. The greatest sacrifice that a
family can make for its Nation necessarily deserves the best service
possible for the surviving family. In this time of war, there is a
great urgency for the right policy. The DOD should be working with the
Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) to find the right way to develop a
policy of ``seamless transition'' for survivors. The Gold Star Wives,
The Armed Forces Services Organizations, and Tragedy Assistance
Programs for Survivors all have first-hand experience in dealing with
the needs of survivors. Can you ensure the DOD meets the prescribed
timeline and advise once you have coordinated with the aforementioned
groups?
Mr. Dominguez. The Department's policy on casualty assistance,
Department of Defense Instruction 1300.18 ``Military Personnel Casualty
Matters, Policies, and Procedures'' is currently under revision. This
revision will, among other things, incorporate all the applicable
provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006. Since August 2005, the Departments of Defense and
Veterans' Affairs have jointly chaired a Survivors Working Group that
reviews and addresses survivor issues. The group consists of
representatives from each of the Military Services, Service Relief
Agencies, non-governmental agencies (e.g., Gold Star Wives, Tragedy
Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), National Military Family
Association, Veterans Service Organizations), and surviving family
members. Each has provided input into the revised instruction and will
be part of the formal coordination process. The revised Instruction
will be published by August 1, 2006.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
defense laboratories
13. Senator Sessions. Mr. Dominguez, the DOD laboratories play a
critical role in developing technologies that support warfighters, as
has been clearly demonstrated in their efforts to support operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. If confirmed, how do you propose to utilize the
authorities of the laboratory personnel demonstration programs to
enhance the effectiveness of the defense laboratories and ensure that
they are technically competitive with their foreign and industrial
counterparts?
Mr. Dominguez. The DOD Science and Technology Laboratories (STRLs)
personnel demonstration project authorities were modeled after the
first Navy Demonstration Project in ``China Lake'' and San Diego
started back in 1980. The Department's more than 25 year history with
the personnel demonstration projects has proven the value of a more
flexible, responsive human resources system. Certainly, design of the
new NSPS has benefited from these experiences.
These demonstration projects were initiated to facilitate
competitiveness in attracting, recruiting, retaining and rewarding a
highly skilled workforce. The personnel management authorities granted
to the Secretary for use in STRLs have been, and continue to be,
successfully used with encouraging results. When the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) evaluated the STRLs in 2002 (Summative
Evaluation 2002), it found many promising results despite the
demonstration projects' less than 5 year implementation. For example,
OPM found that the flexibility to pay higher starter salaries was
helpful and the laboratories were retaining more of their top
performers. They also noted that there was a positive effect on
motivation and willingness to work harder since the implementation of
pay for performance. Research productivity increased significantly in
one of the Army laboratories.
The use of flexible personnel management authorities has clearly
helped create an environment for technological success and led to
bolstered international and industrial competitiveness in the DOD labs.
The Department will consider the best long-term human resources
management option for the STRLs in a couple of years. Section 9902(c)
of title 5, U.S.C., provides that NSPS Human Resources System will
apply to the STRLs on or after October 1, 2008, only to the extent that
the Secretary of Defense determines that the flexibilities provided by
NSPS are greater than those under the STRL demonstration project
authority. The Department's report under section 1107 of the 2005 NDAA
includes a plan for a fair and thorough comparison of the flexibilities
between NSPS and the STRL personnel management demonstration authority.
The evaluation is planned for 2008, when NSPS reaches a sufficient
level of maturity to make a meaningful comparison. Until then, the
STRLs will be able to continue to add, refine, and evolve their
demonstration projects.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
national security personnel system
14. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Dominguez, on October 7, 2005 United
States District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that the Department
of Homeland Security's (DHS) new personnel system was unlawful because
it did not provide meaningful collective bargaining rights. The Judge
specifically faulted the system because it allowed management
unilaterally to nullify a contract term or take an issue off the
bargaining table. The NSPS, like the Department of Homeland Security
personnel system, allows management unilaterally to declare contract
terms null and void or remove issues from the scope of collective
bargaining. In preparing the final NSPS regulations, did the Department
consider this ruling by Judge Collyer? If not, why not? The lack of
advance notice clearly was not the focus of Judge Collyer's
determination that the DHS system was illegal.
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, we were certainly aware of, and informed by,
Judge Collyer's decision. However, the statutory authority for NSPS is
different than the statutory authority provided to DHS. Ultimately,
changes that were made to the final regulations were a result of the
many public comments received, as well as input from the unions during
the meet and confer process.
15. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Dominguez, have you done anything to
correct the more fundamental problem that the NSPS does not provide
enforceable collective bargaining rights because one party is really
not bound by the contract? If so, why have you not revised your
regulations to comply with the ruling?
Mr. Dominguez. Collective bargaining agreements will continue to
exist under the NSPS and will continue to be important contracts
between management and labor. Although those agreements will have to
conform to the NSPS regulations and implementing issuances, the
Department will not issue a directive simply to override an agreement.
The employee representatives have a voice in planning, development, and
implementation of implementing issuances through the continuing
collaboration process. Also, the Department's authority to override
union contracts is not unfettered. The Department's authority for the
labor relations provisions will expire in November 2009--unless the
Secretary certifies the system. This is a strong incentive to work with
employee representatives.
In reference to your questions as to whether any revisions were
made to comply with the DHS ruling by Judge Collyer, we were aware of
and informed by her decision; however, the statutory authority for NSPS
is different than the statutory authority provided to DHS. Ultimately,
any changes we made were a result of public comments we received as
well as input from the unions during the meet and confer process.
16. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Dominguez, please explain to me how a
system where two parties contract, but one party is not bound by the
contract, provides meaningful collective bargaining rights as Congress
intended?
Mr. Dominguez. Employees will continue to have a voice in resolving
workplace disputes under the NSPS. The regulation preserves collective
bargaining, but restricts the scope of bargaining on certain matters,
including implementing issuances. Implementing issuances apply only to
policy or procedures implementing NSPS, primarily in the area of human
resources management. The regulation concerning collective bargaining
attempts to strike a balance between employee interests and DOD's need
to accomplish its mission effectively and expeditiously. For example,
while the regulation eliminates all bargaining on procedures regarding
operational management rights, it does not eliminate all bargaining on
procedures. The regulation provides for collective bargaining on
certain operational matters that are based on the Secretary's
determination that bargaining is necessary to advance the Department's
mission or promote organizational effectiveness. The Department bears
full accountability for national security; therefore, the Secretary is
in the best position to determine when it is appropriate to permit
bargaining under these circumstances. The regulation continues to
provide for bargaining on procedures for personnel management rights.
The regulation also continues to provide for bargaining on impact and
appropriate arrangements for all management rights. While the scope of
bargaining is restricted compared to what occurs today, the regulation
continues to provide many opportunities for the unions to have a voice
in workplace issues. Finally, the regulation provides for consultation
on procedures regarding the operational management rights, which lie at
the very core of how DOD carries out its mission.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
utilization of laboratory personnel flexibilities
17. Senator Reed. Mr. Dominguez, section 1107 of the 2005 NDAA
required that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense of
Personnel and Readiness jointly conduct a study to determine how best
to utilize the laboratory demonstration authorities to increase the
effectiveness of the defense laboratories. This study was supposed to
be presented to Congress no later than December 1, 2005 but has not
been received by the committee yet. Have you reviewed the findings of
this study and if confirmed, how do you propose to implement these
findings?
Mr. Dominguez. The section 1107 report, jointly developed by the
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) and
the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), is in
coordination within the Department, and it is expected to be released
shortly. As a matter of background, section 9902(c) of title 5, U.S.C.,
provides that the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) will apply
to the designated DOD Science, Technology, and Reinvention Laboratories
(STRLs) on or after October 1, 2008, only to the extent that the
Secretary of Defense determines that the flexibilities provided by NSPS
are greater than those under the STRL demonstration project authority.
The Department's report under section 1107 of the 2005 NDAA includes a
plan for conducting a fair and thorough comparative evaluation of the
flexibilities between NSPS and the demonstration authority. The
evaluation is planned for 2008, when NSPS reaches a sufficient level of
maturity to make a meaningful comparison. Until then, the STRLs will be
able to continue to refine and evolve as needed.
______
[The nomination reference of Michael L. Dominguez follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
December 13, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Michael L. Dominguez of Virginia, to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, vice Charles S. Abell, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Michael L. Dominguez, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Michael L. Dominguez
Michael L. Dominguez is Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Washington, DC. A political appointee
confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Dominguez heads a four division department
that deals at the policy level with Air Force manpower and Reserve
affairs issues. His areas of responsibility include force management
and personnel, equal opportunity and diversity, Reserve affairs and Air
Force review boards.
As an Air Force dependent, Mr. Dominguez grew up on bases around
the world. After graduating in 1975 from the U.S. Military Academy at
West Point, NY, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S.
Army, reported to Vicenza, Italy, then worked varied assignments with
the 1st Battalion, 509th Infantry (Airborne) and the Southern European
Task Force. After leaving the military in 1980, Mr. Dominguez went into
private business and attended Stanford University's Graduate School of
Business. In 1983 he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense as
an analyst for Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E).
Mr. Dominguez entered the Senior Executive Service in 1991 as
PA&E's Director for Planning and Analytical Support. In this position
he oversaw production of DOD's long-range planning forecast and its $12
billion in annual information technology investments. He also directed
the PA&E modernization of computing, communications, and modeling
infrastructure. He joined the Chief of Naval Operations staff in 1994
and assisted in the Navy's development of multiyear programs and annual
budgets. Mr. Dominguez left the Federal Government in 1997 to join a
technology service organization. In 1999 he began work at the Center
for Naval Analyses where he organized and directed studies of complex
public policy and program issues. In 2001 he rejoined the staff of the
Chief of Naval Operations where he worked until his appointment.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Michael L.
Dominguez in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Michael Luis Dominguez.
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness).
3. Date of nomination:
December 12, 2005.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
September 4, 1953; Austin, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to the former Sheila Janet MacNamee.
7. Names and ages of children:
Michelle, 24; Michael, 22.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
1975 - Bachelor of Science degree, U.S. Military Academy, West
Point, NY.
1983 - Master's degree in business administration, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA.
1989 - Program for Senior Officials in National Security
(certificate), Harvard University MA.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
June 1983-September 1988, program analyst, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Secretary for Program Analysis and Evaluation,
Washington, DC.
October 1988-September 1991, executive assistant to the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Program Analysis and Evaluation, Washington,
DC.
October 1991-September 1994, Director for Planning and Analytical
Support, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Program
Analysis and Evaluation, Washington, DC.
October 1994-April 1997, Associate Director for Programming, Office
of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, DC.
April 1997-September 1999, General Manager, Tech 2000 Inc.,
Herndon, VA.
September 1999-January 2001, Research Project Director, Center for
Naval Anaylses, Alexandria, VA.
January 2001-August 2001, Assistant Director for Space, Information
Warfare, and Command and Control, Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations, Washington, DC.
August 2001-present, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Washington, DC, including serving as
Acting Secretary of the Air Force from March 2005 to August 2005.
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.
Civil Air Patrol Board of Governors, November 2001 to June 2005
including service as chairman of the Audit Committee.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
U.S. Military Academy Alumni Association, June 1975-present.
Stanford Business School Alumni Association, June 1983-present.
Troop 1570, Boy Scouts of America, Registered Adult Leader,
September 1995-September 2001.
Herndon High School Parent Teacher's Association, Member: September
1995-September 2002.
Herndon High School Sports Booster's Club, Member: September 1995-
September 2002.
College of William and Mary Track and Field Parent's Association,
Member: September 2002-present.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
1980, Army Commendation Medal.
1988 and 1994, Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Medal.
1993, Defense medal for Civilian Service.
1997, Medal for Superior Civilian Service, Department of the Navy.
1998, Meritorious Executive Presidential Rank Award.
2005, Exceptional Civilian Service Award.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Michael L. Dominguez.
This 22nd day of December, 2005.
[The nomination of Michael L. Dominguez was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on June 27, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on June 29, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to James I. Finley by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. I believe the Goldwater-Nichols Act is one of the most
significant pieces of legislation passed by Congress regarding DOD
operations and organization and I'm presently unaware of any need to
modify its provisions. However, with the passage of time and an ever
changing landscape of threats, I believe it is prudent for the DOD to
continuously review and innovatively improve our acquisition and
technology management systems, including recommending legislation to
improve organization, command and control and equipping our military
with a decisive advantage.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. I am not prepared now to recommend any modifications. If
confirmed, I will review this closely.
duties
Question. Section 133a of title 10, U.S.C., describes the role of
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology
(DUSD(AT)).
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that
Secretary Krieg will prescribe for you?
Answer. Mr. Krieg and I have not discussed any additional
responsibilities other than those defined in section 133a of title 10.
In that respect, if confirmed, my responsibilities would be the
principal advisor to Mr. Krieg and Secretary Rumsfeld for matters
relating to acquisition and the integration and protection of
technology. In addition I would assist Mr. Krieg in the performance of
his duties relating to Acquisition and Technology. The DUSD(A&T)
responsibilities, functions and authorities are further defined in DOD
Directive 5134.13 dated October 5, 2005.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have extensive background and experience in the aerospace
industry with over 30 years of multi-national business leadership and
executive management experience in programs that span air, land, sea,
and space for the DOD including joint programs. I also have background
and experience with the FAA Automatic Surface Detection Radar systems
and the NASA Space Shuttle Program. I bring systems and subsystems
management experience that includes mission analysis, design,
development, and deployment of weapon delivery, flight control,
navigation, communications, information management, (C\4\ISR),
battlespace management and chem/bio defense systems. My background and
experience also includes marketing, finance, program management,
engineering and manufacturing.
I also have a broad experience base of technology management
including international technology transfer, outsourcing, product
development, multi-plant operations management, lean manufacturing
implementation, demand flow technology programs, six sigma/black belt
systems, information technology systems, purchasing, logistics,
facilities, security, product support and total quality management. I
have participated in many acquisitions and divestitures providing
business analysis including strategic fit, organizational alignment,
marketing assessments, project evaluations and manufacturing audits.
My education includes a Masters of Business Administration (MBA)
and Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering (BSEE).
Question. Do you believe that there are any additional steps that
you need to take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you believe that any significant changes should be
made in the structure and decisionmaking procedures of the Department
of Defense with respect to acquisition matters?
Answer. I am aware that several other recent and ongoing reviews
address questions such as this. If confirmed, I intend to study the
recommendations , keep an open mind, assess historical changes, and
work within the DOD and with Congress in an open and transparent
manner. My leadership experience indicates that continuous improvement
causes effective and efficient change for structure and decisionmaking
procedures.
relationships
Question. In carrying out your duties, what would be your
relationship with:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. In working with Mr. Krieg I would support Secretary
Rumsfeld's priorities in acquisition and technology.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed I would work with Mr. Krieg to support Deputy
Secretary England and DOD priorities in matters within the purview of
acquisition and technology.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Answer. Mr. Krieg would be my boss and I would support him to the
best of my ability.
Question. The other Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. There are many actions that require coordination among the
offices of the Under Secretaries of Defense. If confirmed, I would
support Mr. Krieg in working with the other Under Secretaries of
Defense to best serve the priorities of the Department of Defense.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed I would work with Mr. Krieg to cooperate with
the Assistant Secretaries of Defense to best equip the Services and
serve Department of Defense priorities.
Question. The DOD General Counsel.
Answer. If confirmed I would work with the General Counsel's office
to ensure that our actions are within the bounds of law and
regulations.
Question. The Acquisition Executives in the Military Departments.
Answer. There are many issues of mutual concern where communication
and coordination are essential for effective and efficient management.
If confirmed, I will make communication and coordination a top priority
in daily management.
Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. If confirmed I would support Admiral Giambastiani both as
the Vice Chairman and in his role as co-chair to the Defense
Acquisition Board (DAB).
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the DUSD(AT)?
Answer. I believe the major challenges and problems include
regaining the confidence of our DOD and congressional leadership the
acquisition system and reshaping the business enterprise associated
with the acquisition and technology community.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. I am aware that several recent and ongoing reviews propose
ways to address these challenges. If confirmed, I intend to study the
recommendations, keep an open mind, assess historical changes, and work
within the DOD and with Congress in an open and transparent manner.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the management of acquisition functions in the Department of Defense?
Answer. I believe the top three issues are: (1) oversight, (2)
acquisition strategy, and (3) requirements. I believe resolving those
issues will serve to put us on the right path to achieve credibility
and efficiency in the acquisition community.
Question. What management action and timetables would you establish
to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to develop actions that will support
achievement of Mr. Krieg's goals. As for timelines, I need to become
better acquainted with all the issues before committing to a timetable.
major weapon system acquisition
Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported
that private sector acquisition programs are more successful than DOD
acquisition programs, in large part because they consistently require a
high level of maturity for new technologies before such technologies
are incorporated into product development programs. Section 801 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 requires the
Milestone Decision Authority for a major defense acquisition program to
certify to the technological maturity of key technologies before
approving an acquisition program.
In your view, would DOD's major acquisition programs be more
successful if the Department were to follow the commercial model and
mature its technologies with research and development funds before
these technologies are incorporated into product development programs?
Answer. I believe a commercial model has already been implemented
to a certain extent and is useful. It offers leverage and lessons
learned to improve major weapons systems acquisition. We need to
continuously learn from all available sectors to maintain technical and
operational superiority. DOD must be at the technological forefront.
Research and development funds should be used to incubate and mature
products to a level where risk is considered manageable.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to implement
section 801 and ensure that the key components and technologies to be
incorporated into major acquisition programs meet the Department's
technological maturity goals?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to implement section 801 to
ensure incorporation of the key components and technologies into major
acquisition programs is consistent with maturity goals. I will also
consult with the Service Acquisition Executives and others as
appropriate to ensure that the necessary actions and certifications are
in place.
Question. DOD weapon systems have generally taken significantly
longer and cost more money than promised when they are first developed.
GAO has reported that it is not unusual for estimates of time and money
to be off by 20 to 50 percent. Section 802 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 attempts to instill more
discipline into the acquisition process by tightening the Nunn-McCurdy
provisions in section 2433 of title 10, U.S.C.
What is your view of the changes made by section 802?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review section 802 with particular
emphasis on the changes made in an effort to reduce cost and schedule
overruns.
Question. What additional steps do you believe the Department can
and should take to avoid costly overruns on major defense acquisition
programs?
Answer. I believe that enforcing discipline can help minimize
requirements ``creep'' and capabilities ``growth'' such that cost and
schedule increases to major defense programs can be avoided. I also
believe that funding stabilization and maintaining baseline funding
levels is important to sustaining program performance. An early
identification of program critical technologies would enable earlier
risk mitigation to allow lead time to accelerate technology maturation,
avoid cost, and schedule risk.
impact of the budget and requirements processes
Question. A recent report by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS) concludes that ``many of the ills
attributed to the defense acquisition system are really caused by [the
requirements and resource allocation] processes. Instability in the
definition of requirements, often referred to as `requirements creep,'
creates a moving target for acquirers as they struggle to make trade-
offs among performance, cost, and schedule. Similarly, much, if not
most, of the instability in acquisition programs is caused by lack of
discipline in the resource allocation process--that is, funding more
acquisition programs than the procurement budgets can support and the
chronic tendency . . . to take procurement dollars to meet operations
and maintenance (O&M) bills.''
Do you agree with this assessment?
Answer. I agree that more discipline and integration among all the
key decision processes of the DOD would increase stability with
outcomes matching expectations.
Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to
address this problem?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe the steps we should take are to
understand the drivers and root cause of the problems in the
requirements and resource allocation processes.
Question. The Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA)
recently recommended that the Department address instability in funding
for major defense acquisition programs by creating a new ``Acquisition
Stabilization Account'' and establishing a Management Reserve in this
account by holding termination liability as a pool at the Service
level.
What is your view of these recommendations?
Answer. I have read the DAPA Executive Summary but have not seen
the Report. If confirmed, I will read the complete report with
particular emphasis on the recommended ``Acquisition Stabilization
Account.'' I believe it is important to understand the recommendation
in the context of the full report.
Question. The DAPA report also recommends that the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics adjust program
estimates for major defense acquisition programs to reflect ``high
confidence''--defined as an 80 percent chance of a program completing
development at or below the estimated cost.
What is your view of this recommendation?
Answer. I have read the DAPA Executive Summary but have not seen
the Report. If confirmed, I will read the complete report with
particular emphasis on the adjustment of program estimates for ``high
confidence'' recommendation. I believe it is important to fully
understand the recommendation in the context of the full report.
Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to
implement this recommendation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will first read the full report to
understand the recommendation. Any implementation will be done within
the DOD and with Congress in an open and transparent manner.
acquisition cycle time
Question. The Department of Defense has attempted to reduce cycle
time for major acquisition programs through the use of spiral
development and incremental acquisition strategies.
To what extent have these strategies been implemented throughout
the Department?
Answer. I do not know the extent to which cycle time reduction has
been attempted using spiral development and incremental acquisition
strategies throughout the DOD.
Question. How successful do you believe these strategies have been?
Answer. My experience reflects that there is significant value in
cycle time reduction utilizing spiral development and incremental
acquisition strategies.
Question. What additional steps do you believe the Department can
and should take to reduce cycle time?
Answer. My perspective is that there are a lot of success stories
in the Department on cycle time reduction. Taking those lessons
learned, finding a methodology to institutionalize their respective
processes and utilizing lean sigma practices are examples of steps that
may help to facilitate an environment of continuous learning resulting
in cycle time reduction.
Question. The DAPA report recommends a new approach to acquisition,
described as ``time certain development,'' under which ``useful
military capability'' would be delivered to operational forces within
approximately 6 years of the Milestone A decision, even if all
performance requirements could not be met in that timeframe.
What is your view of this recommendation?
Answer. I have read the DAPA Executive Summary but have not seen
the Report. If confirmed, I will read the complete report with
particular emphasis on the ``time certain development'' and ``useful
military capability'' recommendation. I believe it is important to
understand the recommendation in the context of the full report .
commercial item strategies
Question. Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 requires a determination by the Secretary of Defense
and notification to Congress before a major weapon system may be
treated as a commercial item. Similarly, section 823 requires a
determination by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, and notification to Congress before the
Department may use ``other transaction authority'' for a prototype
project in excess of $100 million.
Under what circumstances, if any, would it be appropriate, in your
view, to treat a major weapon system as a commercial item?
Answer. If confirmed, I will read section 803 and section 823 to
fully understand the respective statutory language. I believe there may
be certain major defense systems, such as communications satellites or
cargo aircraft, that are offered in the commercial market, either off-
the-shelf or with minor modifications, that fit the definition of
commercial items and could be treated as such.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, would it be
appropriate, in your view, to use ``other transaction authority'' for a
prototype project in excess of $100 million?
Answer. If confirmed, I will read section 823 with regard to
``other transaction authority'' to fully understand the respective
statutory language.
acquisition organization
Question. The DAPA report recommends a number of organizational
changes in the acquisition structure of the Department, including: (1)
reestablishment of systems commands headed by four-star officers in
each of the military departments; (2) elevation of the positions of the
Service Acquisition Executives and Service Under Secretaries to
Executive Level III; (3) designation of the Service Acquisition
Executives as 5-year, fixed Presidential appointees; (4) creation of a
pool of non-career senior executives and political appointees to
provide leadership stability in the acquisition process; (5)
designation of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics as a full member of the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council; and (6) disestablishment of the Acquisition
Integrated Product Teams and replacement with a small staff focused on
decisionmaking to support joint programs.
What is your view of these recommendations?
Answer. I have read the DAPA Executive Summary but have not seen
the full report. If confirmed, I will read the complete report with
particular emphasis on the organizational changes recommendations. I
believe it is important to understand the recommendation in the context
of the full report.
Question. The CSIS report recommends that ``the service chiefs
should have primary responsibility for acquisition execution.''
What is your view of this recommendation?
Answer. I believe that Goldwater-Nichols has it right in providing
for civilian authority in the military departments and acquisition
oversight reporting chain. It's my sense that this has worked well.
However, I am willing to consider the recommendations from CSIS and
other studies and if confirmed, will seek to understand them fully.
lead system integrators (lsi)
Question. In May 2003, the Department approved the transition of
the Army's Future Combat Systems program into System Development and
Demonstration. The Army has hired a lead system integrator to set
requirements, evaluate proposals, and determine which systems will be
incorporated into future weapon systems. Section 805 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 requires the Department
of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on
concerns arising out of the use of lead system integrators for the
acquisition by the Department of Defense of major weapon systems.
What are your views on the current role and responsibilities of
lead system integrators?
Answer. If confirmed, I will research the role of LSIs for the FCS
Program as well as other programs to further refine my perspectives. My
experience is that the LSI role has evolved from the system-of-systems
role that delivers capabilities for joint and combined forces vs. the
traditional prime contractor, platform centric role delivering
capabilities for a single service.
Question. How would you define the line between those acquisition
responsibilities that are inherently governmental and those that may be
performed by contractors?
Answer. I believe the line is unchanged. The rules regarding the
performance of inherently governmental functions do not vary. The
Government retains responsibility for the execution of the program,
makes all requirements, budgeting and policy decisions, and does source
selections at the prime level.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
contracting mechanisms which maintain adequate safeguards are put in
place to ensure that lead system integrator access to sensitive and
proprietary information is not compromised?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look to ensure that contracting
mechanisms are in place for LSIs as they are for Prime Contractors to
maintain adequate safeguards to protect sensitive and proprietary
information from compromise.
Question. What specific steps have--or will--the Department take to
monitor the progress of the key technologies for the Future Combat
Systems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will investigate the steps taken and
planned for monitoring the progress of key technologies for FCS.
Question. What policies are in place to ensure that lead system
integrators do not misuse sensitive and proprietary information owned
by other contractors and do not unnecessarily limit competition in a
manner that would disadvantage the government?
Answer. If confirmed, I will investigate this in detail to ensure
polices are in place for the proper use of sensitive and proprietary
information as well as for open competition.
Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe are needed
to address this issue?
Answer. If confirmed, I will thoroughly review this issue to
determine what additional steps are appropriate. In addition, I
understand the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
requires DOD to do a study on LSIs, which should provide additional
perspectives on this subject.
award and incentive fees
Question. The GAO recently reported that the Department of Defense
has failed to link award fees to acquisition outcomes. As a result, GAO
says, ``DOD has paid out an estimated $8 billion in award fees to date
on the contracts in our study population, regardless of outcomes.''
According to GAO, this practice has undermined the effectiveness of
fees as a motivational tool, marginalized their use in holding
contractors accountable for acquisition outcomes, and wasted taxpayer
funds.
What is your view of the GAO findings?
Answer. If confirmed, I would read the report and thoroughly
investigate the GAO findings.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should
take to better link the payment of award fees to acquisition outcomes?
Answer. If confirmed, I would take immediate steps to understand
the situation with corrective actions where appropriate.
Question. Do you believe that it would be helpful to hold award
fees as a pool at the Service level (rather than budgeting them to
specific programs) to ensure that contractors have to compete for award
fees rather than expecting them as a matter of entitlement?
Answer. If confirmed, I will investigate and thoroughly analyze our
business practices on this matter.
test and evaluation
Question. The Department has, on occasion, been criticized for
failing to adequately test its major weapon systems before these
systems are put into production.
What are your views about the degree of independence needed by the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) in ensuring the
success of the Department's acquisition programs?
Answer. As an independent voice, the Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation provides operational test and evaluation results to the
Secretary of Defense, other decision makers in the Department, and
Congress before programs proceed beyond Low Rate Initial Production. I
believe that the independence of the DOT&E is necessary for the
Operational Test and Evaluation of major weapon systems, and serves to
ensure that such systems are operationally effective and operationally
suitable.
Question. What initiatives in this regard would you take, if
confirmed?
Answer. If confirmed, I would encourage a more integrated approach
to T&E, including developmental testing and systems engineering.
Developmental and operational testers should be involved as early as
possible to ensure an adequate test and evaluation program is defined,
addressed, and maintained in both program budget and schedule. This
integrated approach will improve the quality of the development phase,
and shorten the demonstration phase to meet warfighter requirements.
Question. The Department has used low rate production lots to buy,
and in some cases to field, significant quantities of some systems
while continuing development to fix performance problems.
What steps do you believe the Department should take to ensure that
milestone decision authorities do not field systems before system
performance has been adequately demonstrated?
Answer. Where it makes sense, the DOD could take this incremental
approach while recognizing the need for future capability improvements.
I believe it is possible to have an incremental approach to system
development which allows for rapid fielding of mature technology to the
warfighter in fully tested increments. Additional development can
continue to pursue increased system functionality and performance.
To prevent the fielding of immature systems, we need to increase
discipline to assure systems have passed exit criteria and demonstrated
a fundamental core capability before fielding.
Question. The GAO recently reported that the DOD acquisition system
incentivizes delayed operational testing ``because that will keep `bad
news' at bay.'' According to GAO, program managers have an incentive to
suppress bad news and continually produce optimistic estimates, because
doing otherwise could result in a loss of support and funding and
further damage their programs.
What is your view of the GAO finding?
Answer. I am not familiar with this specific finding. If confirmed,
I will fully review this GAO finding to better understand the details
and basis of the report. I believe program mergers strive to deliver
systems on-time, at cost, and meeting all desired capabilities. I
believe that providing sufficient resources, involving testers early,
utilizing performance metrics, having proper checks and balances,
defining clear exit criteria via the systems engineering process prior
to entering Initial Operational Test and Evaluation will help to
develop systems that are ready for operational testing.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should
take to ensure that testing takes place early in enough in the program
cycle to identify and fix problems before it becomes prohibitively
time-consuming and expensive to do so?
Answer. I believe an emphasis on rigorous systems engineering
principles and processes will help to identify and correct problems in
a timely manner in the program cycle and provide the foundation for a
solid program. These plans and strategies should include the
identification of realistic planning, technology maturity verification,
and early test and evaluation to include Modeling and Simulation, to
allow for the discovery of problems early enough to correct them in the
program cycle.
Early involvement of developmental and operational test personnel
is essential to ensure the program is defined and identified
requirements are meaningful and ``testable.'' It also allows for
required resources and test infrastructure to be identified and
documented within realistic cost and schedule.
Question. What is your view of these recommendations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review fully the GAO's findings and
recommendations.
services contracting
Question. DOD spends over $70 billion a year on services. Concerns
raised by the GAO and the DOD Inspector General about the Department's
management of these contracts led to a requirement in section 801 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 for DOD to
establish a management structure to oversee services contracting.
Because the Department was slow to implement this provision, Congress
tightened the requirement for a management structure in section 812 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to implement section 812
and ensure that the Department has an effective management structure in
place for the acquisition of contract services?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the policies DOD implemented in
April 2002 in response to section 801 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, and our progress in
implementing section 812 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006.
Question. What specific steps, if any, do you believe the
Department should take in this regard in calendar years 2006 and 2007?
Answer. I believe the Department plans to issue updated policies,
procedures and best practices for the acquisition of contract services
by the end of 2006. With that foundation in place before the end of
this year, if confirmed, I anticipate working with our Service
Acquisition Executives to ensure that appropriate training for the
workforce and other details are in place in 2007 to complete phased
implementation of the targets in section 812.
Question. At the request of the committee, the GAO has performed
best practices work on how the private sector manages services. GAO's
conclusion is that leading companies have greater visibility and
management over their services contracts and conduct so called
``spend'' analyses to find more efficient ways to manage their service
contractors. This recommendation was incorporated into sections 801 and
802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and
has been reinforced by subsequent legislation.
What is the status of the Department's efforts to conduct a
``spend'' analysis, as recommended by GAO and required by statute?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the Department's progress in
responding to the GAO recommendations and sections 801 and 802 of the
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2002, and ensure that
appropriate ``next steps'' are taken.
Question. What specific improvements in the management of service
contracts have been made as a result of the Department's efforts to
date?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review specific improvements that DOD
has made in this area. I believe that the management of service
contracts and contracting for services is receiving extremely high
level management attention within the Department. If confirmed, I will
ensure that the Department develops a coordinated approach to managing
service contracts.
Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe the
Department should take to implement the requirement to conduct periodic
``spend'' analyses for its service contracts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the Department's progress to
date in this area and ensure that appropriate ``next steps'' are taken
to attain the goal of efficient, effective management of service
contracts.
Question. Section 805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 established specific goals for the increased use of
performance-based service contracts and competitive awards of task
orders under service contracts by the Department of Defense.
What is your view of the utility of performance-based services
contracting and the competitive award of task orders?
Answer. I am not yet in a position to express a view on this
subject. If confirmed, I will assess the utility of these techniques to
the Department.
Question. What is the status of the Department's efforts to achieve
the goals established in section 805?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the Department's progress in
achieving these goals.
Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe the
Department should take to meet the goals established in section 805?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the Department's progress in
achieving these goals, and ensure that appropriate ``next steps'' are
taken.
time and materials contracts
Question. Recent press reports indicate that some contractors may
have charged the government one rate under so-called ``time and
materials'' contracts, while paying subcontractors another,
substantially lower rate. DOD and other Federal agencies have proposed
a change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to address this
practice.
What is your view on this issue and the proposed change to the
Federal Acquisition Regulation?
Answer. It is my understanding that the clauses in certain time and
materials contracts provide for payment at the single rate or composite
rate rather than separate rates for the prime and subcontractors. I
believe it is therefore important that the contract clauses clearly
delineate the payment terms. If confirmed, I will assess the proposed
change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
contract surveillance
Question. The GAO and the DOD Inspector General have reported that
the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate resources to
monitor contractors' performance of service contracts. As a result, the
Department has no assurance that contractors have complied with the
terms of their contracts and that the Department has received the best
value when contracting for services.
What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should take to
address this problem?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to review the Department's current
guidance on quality assurance oversight and the training currently
provided to Contracting Officers' Representatives.
interagency contracts
Question. The last decade has seen a proliferation of new types of
government-wide contracts and multi-agency contracts. These contracts,
which permit officials of one agency to make purchases under contracts
entered by other agencies, have provided Federal agencies rapid access
to high-tech commercial products and related services. In too many
cases, however, it appears that neither agency takes responsibility for
making sure that procurement rules are followed and good management
sense is applied. As a result, the DOD Inspector General, the GSA
Inspector General, and the GAO have identified a long series of
problems with interagency contracts, including lack of acquisition
planning, inadequate competition, excessive use of time and materials
contracts, improper use of expired funds, inappropriate expenditures,
and failure to monitor contractor performance.
What steps has the Department taken to address the abuse of
interagency contracts and how effective do you believe these steps have
been?
Answer. I am not familiar with details of the Department's actions
in this area. If confirmed, I will assess and take appropriate action
on the problems identified by the DOD IG, the GSA IG and the GAO. I
also will assess the progress the Department has made to ensure
interagency contracts are properly used and are compliant with
statutory requirements.
Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe are needed?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess what additional steps are
needed.
acquisition workforce
Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy of the current
defense acquisition workforce?
Answer. This is an area that I am very interested to learn about.
My understanding is that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, has directed a comprehensive
review of the acquisition workforce. I believe this is a very important
initiative. If confirmed, I plan to be intimately involved and look
forward to coming back and working with you.
Question. Should the workforce be increased or decreased, and are
there specific categories of the workforce such as systems engineers
that in your view need to be increased?
Answer. I am aware that the DOD did experience a workforce drawdown
after the Cold War, that included the acquisition workforce. I have not
had an opportunity to make specific judgments regarding workforce
adjustments. However, I am aware, based on my positions in industry, of
the challenges with the scientific and technical workforce. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to best achieve the
right shaping of the acquisition workforce.
Question. Does DOD's acquisition workforce possess 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. I believe that I will find a very high caliber and
dedicated acquisition workforce. Based on recent exposure, it appears
that they have world class training and performance support resources.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, recently established his number one goal as ensuring a
``High-Performing, Agile, and Ethical Workforce.'' If confirmed, I look
forward to supporting him and working with the DOD and Congress on this
most important strategic goal.
Question. What are your views regarding assertions that the
acquisition workforce is losing its technical and management expertise
and is beginning to rely too much on support contractors, FFRDCs, and,
in some cases, lead systems integrators and prime contractors for this
expertise?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of these assertions. I
believe the technical and management expertise in our workforce is
vital to our national security. If confirmed, I will investigate this
area in detail and personally champion initiatives that address our
skill gaps and improve our competencies.
buy america
Question. ``Buy America'' issues have been the source of
considerable controversy in recent years.
What benefits does the Department obtain from international
participation in the defense industrial base and under what conditions,
if any, would you consider it necessary to impose domestic source
restrictions for a particular product?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specific details of the recent
issues related to ``Buy America.'' I consider this an important area.
If confirmed, I will investigate and formulate my perspectives. I
believe international participation promotes defense cooperation among
allies and contributes to operational interoperability, an essential
ingredient in today's coalition warfare. However, we also need to
preserve our options for domestic source considerations.
the defense industrial base
Question. What is your view of the current state of the U.S.
defense industry?
Answer. I believe the current state of the U.S. defense industry is
healthy, innovative and competitive from the perspective of traditional
business metrics. If confirmed, I would work within the DOD and
Congress to support our strategic direction with industry.
Question. Over the last decade, numerous mergers and other business
consolidations have substantially reduced the number of major defense
contractors.
Do you believe that consolidation in the defense sector has had an
adverse impact on competition for defense contracts? If so, what steps
should be taken to mitigate those effects?
Answer. I do not believe that consolidation has had an adverse
impact on competition for U.S. defense contractors as much as it has
had an adverse impact on the U.S. industry workforce.
I believe the Department has worked and should continue to work
closely with the antitrust agencies to evaluate defense-related mergers
and mitigate potential competitive impacts and to ensure a healthy,
innovative, and competitive defense industry.
Question. Do you support further consolidation of the defense
industry?
Answer. I neither encourage nor discourage further consolidation.
Each proposed transaction must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In
some cases, consolidation can result in the elimination of excess
capacity, reduce costs, strengthen capabilities, and provide better
value for DOD and the U.S. taxpayer. At the same time, the Department
should not support transactions where consolidation benefits do not
outweigh the benefits associated with maintaining effective competition
for DOD programs. Competition is healthy.
Question. What is your position on foreign investment in the U.S.
defense sector?
Answer. In general, I favor foreign investment in the U.S. defense
sector so long as the investment does not pose a threat to national
security.
leasing policy
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it
is appropriate for the Department to use leases to obtain new capital
equipment?
Answer. I believe leasing is an appropriate option to consider. The
proper analyses need to be conducted and determination made as to the
cost effectiveness of leasing compared to traditional acquisition
approaches. I believe both the taxpayer and warfighter can benefit in
certain circumstances.
Question. What criteria would you use, if confirmed, in determining
whether to support a major lease of capital equipment by the Department
of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will investigate our procedures for leasing
capital equipment to assure that the process includes proper analyses
and a solid business case.
procurement ethics
Question. The Air Force tanker lease proposal raised a number of
issues related to contractor ethics and the revolving door between
industry and the Federal Government. At an April 14, 2005, hearing of
the Subcommittee on Airland, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District
of Virginia testified that it has been difficult for him to identify
potential ethics violations by former Department officials who go to
work for defense contractors, because the Department's records in this
area are inadequate. An April 2005 report of the GAO also concluded
that monitoring of former Department employees who go to work for
defense contractors is limited.
What is your view of the need to provide greater transparency and
monitoring of former DOD employees who go to work for the defense
industry?
Answer. I am not familiar with the above findings from the
Subcommittee on Airland nor the GAO report. If confirmed, I will read
those reports and formulate my view with respect to providing greater
transparency. I support openness and transparency in our everyday life.
I believe and support high ethical standards of conduct and behavior
and will do all I can to promote these standards in DOD. I understand
this is one of the subjects DOD is considering in the ongoing
comprehensive ethics review. If confirmed, I will read the reports and
look at this issue in that context as well.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the tools and
authorities available to DOD to ensure that its contractors are
responsible and have a satisfactory record of integrity and business
ethics?
Answer. I understand that the current tools and authorities is one
of the issues under review. If confirmed, I will review this issue in
that context.
shipbuilding industrial base
Question. In view of the current low rate of ship construction, how
do we ensure a healthy, viable U.S. shipbuilding industrial base,
including shipbuilders and second- and third-order supply chains, to
meet our national security needs?
Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I
understand the importance and challenges of the Navy shipbuilding
programs. If confirmed, I would work with the Navy and Congress to
improve the health and viability of the U.S. shipbuilding industrial
base, and stabilize the shipbuilding programs as much as possible. In
addition, I believe the Department should seek less expensive
shipbuilding options. I also believe the Department should contract for
ships in a manner that provides incentive for better cost performance
and investment in labor-saving technology, and enables our shipbuilders
to be more competitive in the global shipbuilding marketplace.
shipbuilding acquisition
Question. In view of the limited competition for shipbuilding
contracts, which often reduces to sole source procurement or allocation
following the initial down-select, what incentives would you propose to
improve contract performance?
Answer. I believe full and open competition is the preferred
shipbuilding procurement strategy. I also believe it is in the best
interest of the government to achieve fixed price type contracts in a
competitive pricing environment as quickly as possible in our
shipbuilding programs.
If confirmed, I will investigate improvement in contract
performance. For shipbuilding programs where competitive environments
no longer effectively exist, the Department needs to consider
reasonable profit incentives on all contract types and appropriate
share lines on cost type contracts to improve contract performance.
For example, the performance incentives could be event-based. The
incentives and share lines need to motivate the shipbuilder to perform,
and provide some measure of protection to the government if program
costs rise too much.
Question. One of the greatest challenges the Navy faces in its
shipbuilding program is the lengthy timeline that commences with
defining the requirement for a new ship class and effectively ends with
deploying the first ship of the class--a timeline that has historically
run as long as 15 years. This lengthy timeline tends to increase cost,
introduces obsolescence issues, and causes lost opportunities while
older ship classes remain ``on the line'' awaiting arrival of their
more capable replacements.
What insights can you offer on effective methods to reduce this
timeline and accordingly reduce cost while increasing capability of the
Fleet?
Answer. I believe the Department should continue to leverage
commercial standards and gather the lessons learned and consider ways
to provide global shipbuilding with innovation and modernization.
joint unmanned combat air system (j-ucas)
Question. This committee established a goal for DOD that by 2010,
one-third of U.S. military operational deep strike aircraft would be
unmanned, and by 2015, one-third of all U.S. military ground combat
vehicles would be unmanned.
What is your assessment of the Department's commitment to the
unmanned deep strike mission? What role will you play, if confirmed, in
the oversight of this effort?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing and being an
active participant in the Department's commitment to unmanned deep
strike mission. It is my understanding that the Department is committed
to unmanned systems in a variety of roles.
Question. Over the past year, the Air Force has identified a need
for an ``interim'' or ``mid-term'' bomber to satisfy deep strike
mission requirements in the 2015 to 2018 timeframe.
What is your assessment of the Department's ability and commitment
to satisfy the deep strike mission in the 2015 to 2018 timeframe with
an unmanned aircraft system?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the programs that
would provide this capability.
science and technology
Question. What, in your view, is the role and value of science and
technology programs in meeting the Department's transformation goals
and in confronting irregular, catastrophic, traditional, and disruptive
threats?
Answer. I believe that the DOD S&T program has a long history of
developing superior technologies and capabilities to address the
current and future security threats. The Department's investment in S&T
has historically given our forces the technological superiority to
prevail over predicted threats and the agility to adapt quickly to
unanticipated threats. I believe this role is still valid in today's
strategic environment. As the pace of global technology availability
increases, with a commensurate increase in the pace of threat
evolution, the role of a well balanced S&T program is more important
than ever.
Question. If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding
funding targets and priorities for the Department's long-term research
efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Mr. Young as the DDR&E to
ensure our S&T investment is balanced. I believe S&T funding is
important to our future capabilities, and I would be concerned if
funding levels ever became seriously out of balance with the rest of
our Defense program.
technology strategy
Question. The Nation is confronted with a dispersed enemy expert at
using relatively simple, inexpensive technology to achieve destructive
and disruptive results. Creative prediction and adaptation to
continuously changing threats is a focus for this Committee. Past
investments in long-term research have resulted in the Department's
ability to rapidly pull technologies and solutions from the laboratory
to confront emerging threats.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure the
Department's continued ability to rapidly respond to unexpected
threats?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support close collaboration between
the acquisition, technology, and operational communities to identify
current needs and to anticipate future operational needs arising from a
changing national and world security environment.
Question. How would you direct efforts of the defense research
community to develop a responsive research strategy capable of quick
reaction but which is also designed to include sustained investments in
the development of a set of capabilities based on threat predictions
and identification of related technology gaps?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support Mr. Young in his role as the
DDR&E to ensure our DOD S&T Program investment is balanced to meet
near-term and long-term needs.
technology transition
Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the
last few years. Challenges remain to institutionalizing the transition
of new technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons
systems and platforms. The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget
includes increases across a spectrum of technology transition programs.
What challenges to transition do you see within the Department?
Answer. One of the principal challenges to transition is the lack
of funding flexibility and the extended timelines of our requirements
and budget processes. Successful transition requires an appropriately
mature technology, a user need, an insertion window in the program of
record and budgeted resources for implementation.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to enhance the
effectiveness of technology transition efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Mr. Krieg and Mr. Young as
the DDR&E to identify impediments or process improvements to ensure the
Department can effectively and efficiently transition technology to the
warfighter.
Question. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of the rapid
reaction and quick reaction special projects funds?
Answer. I am not familiar with these funds; however, programs that
allow flexibility to fund emergent programs to accelerate technology to
the warfighter are important tools. If confirmed, I will work with Mr.
Young as the DDR&E to enhance our rapid reaction program and other
similar programs to meet warfighter needs.
Question. Are there lessons learned through rapid reaction programs
that are applicable to the Department's broader acquisition processes?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Mr. Krieg and Mr. Young as
the DDR&E to identify lessons learned to ensure our rapid reaction
programs continue to be flexible and enhance our acquisition process.
small business issues
Question. The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program
accounts for approximately $1 billion in defense research grants
annually.
What emphasis will you place on participation by the acquisition
community in setting research priorities for the SBIR and in accepting
new solutions into existing programs of record?
Answer. I believe the SBIR program is an important source of
technology for the Department. If confirmed, I will continue to
actively involve the acquisition community in identifying its research
needs and transition opportunities for all research including SBIR.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology?
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
incentive fees
1. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, per the DOD Award Fee Guide, ``. . .
an award fee is an amount of money which is added to a contract and
which a contractor may earn in whole or in part during performance and
that is sufficient to provide motivation for excellence in such areas
as quality, timeliness, technical ingenuity, and cost-effective
management.'' A contractor starts with 0 percent of an award fee works
for the evaluated fee for each evaluation period. The contractor does
not start with 100 percent and get portions deducted along the way. A
Fee Determining Officer (FDO) ensures the amount and percentage of an
award fee earned accurately reflects the contractor's performance. The
award fee guide clearly delineates the roles and responsibilities of
the FDO and defines how an award fee plan can be developed to map out
the process of how a contractor should be evaluated. The GAO has shown
through a recent study that from their sample of 597 contracts the
median percentage of available award fees paid was 90 percent. This
study clearly demonstrates that not only is the award fee guide not
being followed but in some cases it is being blatantly disregarded. Why
are our FDOs not using their training and the published guidance when
determining award fees and what do you plan to do to rectify this
situation?
Mr. Finley. FDOs review the performance of the contractor and
determine independently the amount of award fee the contractor should
receive. The amount of award fee paid on any particular contract is
dependent upon the award fee criteria established for that contract and
the judgment of the FDO with regard to how the contractor performed
against the stated award fee criteria.
In general, I believe the FDOs are using their training and
following their Award Fee Guides. Too much subjectivity could be at the
root of the guides and requirements which can make performance
measurement less than optimum.
Guidance is planned to be provided in support of the GAO Report.
This guidance should include the need for award fee plans containing
objective measurable criteria when possible, which when combined with
the subjective judgment of the FDO should improve the correlation
between contractor performance and award fee earned.
2. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, please clarify how incentive fees
are awarded. Do we first, sign a cost-plus contract that puts most of
the risk for these major development programs on the government; then
offer the contractor the chance to earn an award fee on top of having
their costs reimbursed; then, when a program experiences problems, the
contractor can still earn millions of dollars in award fees for helping
to correct the issues which they are partially responsible for
creating?
Mr. Finley. Incentive Fee awards are generally tied directly to a
contractor's cost performance on a particular contract. Incentive fee
contracts can be based upon a single incentive (usually cost) or upon
multiple incentives (cost, schedule, and/or technical performance). The
range of incentive fee is established at contract award as part of the
basic contract. Incentive fees can be used on either cost reimbursement
contracts or fixed-price contracts.
A cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is a cost reimbursement contract
that provides for an initially negotiated target fee to be adjusted
later by a formula based on the relationship of the total allowable
cost to the total target cost. A fixed-price incentive contract is a
fixed-price contract that provides for adjusting profit and
establishing a final contract price by a formula based on the
relationship of the final negotiated total cost to total target cost. A
fixed-price incentive contract also has an established ceiling price
whereby any contract costs in excess of the ceiling price are fully
absorbed by the contractor.
``Award Fee'' provisions are used, usually, to supplement a ``base
fee'' under a cost-plus award fee contract. The base fee on a cost-plus
award fee contract cannot exceed 3 percent of the estimated cost of the
contract exclusive of the fee.
The assignment of risk is a matter of negotiation between the
Contracting Officer and the contractor. In determining the Government's
position with regard to the assumption of risk, the Contracting Officer
considers a number of factors which include, but are not limited to: 1)
the nature of the work to be performed; 2) the degree of technical
uncertainty; and 3) the certainty of contract cost and schedule
performance.
When a program experiences problems that are ultimately corrected,
or not corrected, as the case may be, the FDO must ascertain what role
the contractor played and whether, and to what level, the contractor
should be held responsible. It is the responsibility of the FDO to
properly reward, or not to reward, a contractor's performance based on
the facts and circumstances of each acquisition.
3. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, what strategies does the private
sector use as incentive for their business partners?
Mr. Finley. Strategies for business partnership incentives in the
private sector start with relationships. Typically, relationships are
built, for example, through market opportunities, program experience,
and competency gaps. From my experience, we build business cases for
partnerships, for example, that identify incentives to provide
compelling market entry opportunities, to enhance contract performance
or to bridge respective competencies such that there is a multiplier
effect of having vs. not having the business partnership.
Business incentives become a part of a business case. Examples of
business incentives are summarize as follows:
1. Higher profit
2. Reduced quality control oversight.
3. Share best practices
These incentives, for example, are realized as a result of
demonstrating consistent on-time product delivery, lower deliverable
defects and best practice implementation over periods of time. Business
incentives can be structured for different levels of performance
resulting in the motivation to maximize performance. Measurement
periods are typically utilized on a continuous basis, with the downside
for loss of incentives, if/when there is an interruption of the
performance.
Sharing and implementing best practices in the private sector
provided significant payoff due to having a horizontal impact for the
company vs. any singular program or functional area. Use of Lean Six-
Sigma practices that are fully endorsed by executive leadership can
provide a culture of continuous learning and proactive process
improvement. Although the terminology characterizing performance may
change from time to time, the fundamentals of private sector
performance (shareholder value, cash flow, earnings, and market share)
will improve.
4. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, what changes do you propose with
regard to acquisition reform?
Mr. Finley. Deputy Secretary England and Under Secretary Krieg have
conducted a comprehensive review of department business practices as
part of the recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review. As a result,
a number of actions have been initiated that should improve the
strategic and tactical acquisition management of the DOD.
I plan to be part of the leadership team for implementation of the
above actions and propose that we improve our technology maturity and
harden our requirements sooner in the acquisition process.
5. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, fixed-price contracts shift the risk
to the contractor and incentivize the contractor to increase the
reliability of the system components. How can DOD return to a more
common use of fixed-price contracts?
Mr. Finley. The preponderance of DOD contract actions in fiscal
year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 were fixed price. In fiscal year 2004,
DOD awarded 73 percent of its contract actions and 60 percent of its
dollar obligations under fixed-price contracts. In fiscal year 2005,
DOD awarded 93 percent of its contract actions and 61 percent of its
dollar obligations under fixed-price contracts.
Fixed price-type contracting is the Department's preferred method
of contracting. However, the Federal Acquisition Regulation provides
for a wide spectrum of contract types in order to provide the needed
flexibility in acquiring the variety of goods and services that the DOD
acquires.
Risk needs to be managed and drives the choice of contract
vehicles. I believe we can do more in the area of fixed-price
contracting as we bring more mature technology and requirements
stability reducing the risk to the marketplace faster.
6. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, please provide your thoughts on FAR
Part 12 versus FAR Part 15 contracts for major weapon system
procurement.
Mr. Finley. My thoughts are that FAR Part 15 is the appropriate
statute for major weapon systems procurement. It provides an
appropriate level of rigor to manage and deliver complex products and
services such as major weapon systems.
FAR Part 12 can only be considered by DOD for major weapon systems
procurement when certain conditions have been satisfied in accordance
with section 2379 of title 10, U.S.C. Section 2379 was added by section
803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
Section 2379 provides that a major weapon system may be treated as a
commercial item, or purchased under procedures established for the
procurement of a commercial item, only if the Secretary of Defense
determines that the major weapon system is a commercial item, as
defined in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act; such treatment
is necessary to meet national security objectives; and the
congressional defense committees are notified at least 30 days before
such treatment or purchase occurs. Section 2379 also provides that the
authority to make the required determination may be delegated only to
the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
______
[The nomination reference of James I. Finley follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
December 20, 2005.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
James I. Finley of Minnesota, to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, vice Michael W. Wynne.
______
[The biographical sketch of James I. Finley, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of James I. Finley
Jim has over 30 years of multi-national business leadership and
management experience. Programs span air, land, sea, and space for the
DOD (all Services and DARPA) and include the FAA Automatic Surface
Detection Radar systems and the NASA Space Shuttle Program. Systems and
subsystems experience includes mission analysis, design, development
and deployment of weapon delivery, flight control, navigation,
information management, C\4\ISR, battle space management, chem/bio
defense systems. His education includes a Masters of Business
Administration (MBA) and Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering
(BSEE).
With a background that includes marketing, finance, program
management, engineering and manufacturing, he brings a broad experience
base of technology including international technology transfer,
outsourcing, product development, multi-plant operations management,
lean manufacturing implementation, demand flow technology programs, six
sigma/black belt systems, information technology systems, purchasing,
logistics, facilities, security, product support and total quality
management.
His leadership and strategic planning abilities have led many
companies, including large and small operations, to achieve double-
digit financial growth. Jim has also participated in many acquisitions
and divestitures providing business analysis including strategic fit,
organizational alignment, marketing assessments, project evaluations
and manufacturing audits.
Jim has achieved significant operational recognition and success
through progressive, increasing management responsibilities at General
Electric, Singer, Lear Siegler, United Technologies and General
Dynamics, where he was a Corporate Officer, President of Information
Systems and Chair of the Business Development Council. In 2002, Jim
formed his own consulting company, The Finley Group, LLC, that provides
business assistance and advice for all facets of the business cycle
including start-up, growth, acquisition and divestiture.
He resides in Chanhassen, Minnesota, and enjoys golf, cycling,
fishing, reading, and volunteer's work.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by James I.
Finley 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 I. Finley.
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
3. Date of nomination:
December 20, 2005.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
August 25, 1946; Rockford, IL.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Sharon Bormann.
7. Names and ages of children:
Kathleen O'Malley, 37.
James D. Wood, 35.
Benjamin J. Finley, 34.
Daniel J. Finley, 31.
Christopher J. Finley, 26.
Alexander J. Finley, 23.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
California State University, Fresno - MBA, 1974, 1972 to 1974,
Masters of Business Administration.
Milwaukee School of Engineering - BSEE, 1968, 1964 to 1968,
Bachelor of Science, Electrical 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.
President - The Finley Group LLC - Chanhassen, MN, 2002 to Present.
President & CEO - Smartskin Inc. - Chaska, MN - 2000 to 2001.
Corporate Vice President and President - General Dynamics,
Information Systems - Bloomington, MN, 1998 to 2000.
Vice President - Computing Devices International, Bloomington, MN -
1996 to 1998.
Vice President - United Technologies, Norden Systems, Norwalk, CT -
1990 to 1996.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
The Finley Group LLC - President.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
None.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Examples of performance awards under my leadership:
Boeing Gold Certification Award,
Honeywell Preferred Supplier Award,
Northrop Grumman Blue Achievement,
Lockheed Martin Best In Class Rating,
Defense Security Service ``Outstanding'' Assessment,
George Westinghouse Award.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Many articles were authored by me which focused on company
newspapers. I have also authored an article for the World Radio
Communications (WRC) Conference as well as the International Society
for Optical Engineering (SPIE).
Examples when President at General Dynamics Information Systems and
Vice President at United Technologies Norden Systems Include:
1. General Dynamics Interlink in April 1998 featured the
launch of ``Bold Prudence.'' ``Bold Prudence'' was an across
the board cost competitive program in the company that resulted
in higher productivity improvements and substantial cost
savings.
2. United Technologies Engineering Coordination Activities
(UTECA) News featured articles from me as Chairman of UTECA
addressing future directions.
3. WRC 2000 in Istanbul, Turkey, had an article by me
addressing ``Information Management and E-Business with Little
LEO (Low Earth Orbit) Systems.''
4. SPIE Proceedings in 1998 had an article by me about ``An
Industry Perspective on Battlespace Digitization.''
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
James I. Finley.
This 6th day of January, 2006.
[The nomination of James I. Finley was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on February 16, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on February 17, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Thomas P. D'Agostino by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs?
Answer. There are a number of duties and responsibilities for the
Deputy Administrator position. These duties and responsibilities all
come together and are focused on the nuclear weapons stockpile and the
nuclear weapons complex. This principal duty will be to lead the
Defense Programs staff and the senior managers across the nuclear
weapons complex to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear
weapons stockpile, to ensure the safe and efficient operations of the
nuclear weapons complex, and ensure that capabilities required for
future national security needs are maintained.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. My background and experience is well suited for these
duties. As an officer in the U.S. Navy, I was selected by Admiral
Rickover and trained as a nuclear submarine officer. In this capacity I
managed technically complex, high-hazard operations on nuclear
submarines. This training instilled a commitment to quality,
discipline, and integrity that are so important when dealing with
nuclear operations. After over 8 years on Active-Duty in the submarine
force I continued to serve in the national security arena as a Naval
Reserve Officer and as a propulsion systems program manager for the
Seawolf (SSN21) submarine. I then moved to the Department of Energy and
worked in a wide variety of both technical and management positions, in
the areas of tritium reactor restart, as Deputy Director in the Office
of Stockpile Computing, as the Deputy Director for Nuclear Weapons
Research, Development and Simulation, and most recently, as the
Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration. In that
capacity, I reported directly to the Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs to integrate the stockpile stewardship program and budget
across four production sites, three national laboratories, and a test
site. I have earned a Masters in Business-Finance from John Hopkins
University and a Masters in National Security Studies from the Naval
War College. I have over 29 years of service as an Active-Duty Naval
Officer, a career civil servant, and as an Officer in the Naval Reserve
where I have attained the rank of captain. All of my professional
experience has been focused on service (military and civilian) in
support of our national security. I am privileged to have been able to
serve my country and am confident that this combination of service and
education qualifies me very well to perform the duties of the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs?
Answer. I would focus my action on communications. Clear and
effective communications are paramount to success in any organization,
and even more important with an organization that is large,
geographically dispersed and with high-hazard and technical operations.
I would look to increase the amount of time I spend talking to the all
levels of management, technical and support staff, in headquarters and
the field. My approach has always been to treat everyone with dignity
and respect and I never fail to learn something when I take the time to
interact directly with the people in the program.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Administrator would have me
focus on the primary duties of the Deputy Administrator as I have
described above with a focus on leading the transformation of the
nuclear weapons complex (people, places, processes, and capabilities)
to ensure that a responsive infrastructure--as described in the
administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review--is fully implemented.
Additionally I expect that the Administrator will ask me to help him
make the NNSA an organization that is known for excellence, encourages
innovation, and fosters dedication by its employees.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the following
program officials?
Other deputies in the NNSA.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the other Deputy
Administrators and the supporting Associate Administrators. In NNSA,
the Administrator has provided expectations for the management team,
but we rely on each other and constant communication to achieve the
mission. We meet at least weekly as a group in staff meetings,
Management Council, or Leadership Council meetings. I will also carry
forward a technique that I used as Assistant Deputy Administrator for
Program Integration. In that position I established a periodic set of
informal one-on-one meetings with some Associate Administrators within
the NNSA. I found that one-on-one meetings were very useful in quickly
getting to central issues that need attention and resolution.
Question. The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management. The Secretary has made it clear
that he is interested in a Department that works together and not as a
group of disparate organizations. If confirmed, I will focus my work
with in the area of nuclear materials disposition and consolidation.
Question. Other Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Energy
(DOE).
Answer. Within the context of the NNSA Act I believe it is
important to have a proactive working relationship with DOE Assistant
Secretaries. If confirmed, other DOE Assistant Secretaries I would
expect to work with most are in the areas of Management and
Administration; Environment, Safety and Health; and Nuclear Energy. I
already have an established working relationship with all of these
individuals as a result of my current position as Assistant Deputy
Administrator for Program Integration. My approach has been to maintain
the principles of honesty and integrity in all matters. As a result of
this approach, I have earned a high level of trust and support from
others within the Department. It is this level of trust that I feel
will assist me if I am confirmed as Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs?
Answer. There are a number of challenges that will need to be
addressed in the upcoming years. In effect they all roll together into
the most significant challenge of transforming the nuclear weapons
stockpile and infrastructure while continuing to support near-term
deliverables to the Department of Defense (DOD). Within this challenge
is the need to establish the viability of the Reliable Replacement
Warhead concept as a means of providing a sustainable nuclear
deterrent, driving integration within the nuclear weapons complex,
implementing an appropriate level of interdependence across our
contractors to maximize efficiency of operations, and continuing on the
path of developing a responsive infrastructure. This involves also
keeping a focus on meeting near-term DOD requirements such as the B61
and W76 Life Extension Program schedules. The Responsive Infrastructure
initiative and work authorized for the Reliable Replacement Warhead are
in their early stages but hold promise to set the nuclear weapons
program on the right course to confidently maintain the Nation's
nuclear deterrent well into the future.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will focus on working closely with the
Department of Defense to ensure that changes considered for the
stockpile consider the effects on the nuclear complex infrastructure
that supports the stockpile. Where possible we would move away from
hard to manufacture items, exotic materials and manufacturing
processes, to a stockpile that is easier to manufacture, uses materials
that are safer for the environment and our workers, and considers full
life-cycle costs in the design, manufacture, maintenance, and
disassembly. Focus will be maintained on near-term DOD requirements by
providing clear contractor expectations in program plans and in
performance evaluation plans. This can be best accomplished by looking
at the nuclear weapons program as an integrated whole vice activities
being performed across eight different sites. My Navy and program
management experience has taught me to approach work in a systematic
way. This involves identifying the problem, writing down and agreeing
to plans with clear milestones, assigning qualified people, and
tracking performance.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs?
Answer. A problem that I am concerned with deals with the risks
inherent in the position of being the Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs. The work in the nuclear weapons complex involves dealing with
nuclear weapons, hazardous materials, and complex operations on a daily
basis. Dealing with nuclear weapons operations is serious business that
involves accepting and managing risk. The Deputy Administrator, similar
to the Commanding Officer of a Navy ship, is ultimately responsible for
the actions of the program and how those actions affect worker and
public health, safety, and security, including managing risk.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit my personal involvement and
that of Defense Programs management to aggressively work with the
national laboratories, production sites, and other interested parties
such as Congress and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to
deal with the issue of managing risk in the nuclear weapons complex. I
expect to see a plan in this year to focus attention across the entire
nuclear weapons complex that will enable Defense Programs to authorize
and continue the work necessary to meet our mission requirements on
time, in a safe and secure manner. Additionally, I will work hard to
communicate the message that line management must take responsibility
for safety and mission performance and not pass this responsibility to
the variety of boards, panels, teams, and assessment groups that are
charged with assessing performance and safety.
Question. The previous Deputy Administrator, in his confirmation
hearing on October 11, 2001, testified that a major challenge
confronting the NNSA was ``a general view that NNSA presently has too
many overlapping functions and assigned personnel at headquarters and
field levels, leading to reduced efficiency in the labs and plants. . .
. The program planning and management tasks are critically tied to
knowing what to do, when to do it, and to making clear assignments for
the work. That planning function will be centered at headquarters, with
execution in the field. There appears to be a major challenge in
clarifying roles and responsibilities for both the planning function
and the execution function, with far too much overlap in
responsibilities (either assigned or assumed) at the present.''
In your view, what progress has been made in addressing this
challenge and what progress, if any, remains to be made?
Answer. Significant progress has been made since Dr. Everet Beckner
made these remarks. In the past 4 years Defense Programs has
established and implemented a new program architecture, an improved
planning and programming process, and a revised budget structure for
the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Previously, this program was
organized around 32 program elements, each independently managed.
Program plans that existed for these program elements were inconsistent
and did not include milestones that could be tracked over time.
Consequently there was little linkage between resources and program
output, and it was difficult to measure performance. This was a
systematic problem that could only be fixed through significant
changes. Planning and program management principles were applied that
developed a planning structure, defined a program milestone structure,
and identified a change control processes. The end result is program
and implementation plans that are consistent, as well as a set of level
1 and level 2 milestones that describe the program over a 5-year
period. One of the key attributes of changing the programmatic
structure was to more closely align the budget to the work being
performed in the program.
However, despite these improvements much more can be done. More
time and attention should be given towards identifying expectations for
the contractor and clearly articulating these expectations into clear,
coherent, and challenging contractor performance evaluation plans. I
will focus on the theme of ``being a demanding customer'' in my
direction and discussion with Defense Programs managers. The selection
of a new management and operating contractor at Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) gives us an immediate opportunity to work on being a
demanding customer in the operations of the laboratory and the
completion of program deliverables.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues, which must be addressed by the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs?
Answer. My highest priority revolves around the people in the
nuclear weapons program. It does not matter whether these are Federal,
contractor, headquarters or field personnel, the program is successful
because we have dedicated and qualified people addressing the needs of
our Nation's security. It is important to take care of these people and
make sure that decisions that are made are balanced with the impact on
the workforce. If confirmed, broad priorities I plan to establish
include transforming the nuclear weapons stockpile and the nuclear
weapons complex while supporting near-term deliverables to the
Department of Defense (DOD). The DOD observes our ability to deliver on
commitments through the lens of the production complex. We must focus
on continually improving our delivery on commitments to the DOD.
Question. In your view, should cost containment and cost control be
a high priority for the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs?
Answer. Yes, cost containment and control is a high priority for
Defense Programs. As the Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program
Integration I have been working on this very complex issue for NNSA.
For example, I have been concerned with the different methods that are
being used by our contractors on managing the costs in the Operations
of Facilities program. These different methods make it very difficult
for the Federal program manager to be able to compare costs and develop
meaningful trends and analysis. To address this, I had directed the
review of the Operations of Facilities program to drive cost
efficiencies and consistency across the nuclear weapons sites. As a
result of that review, Defense Programs will be implementing activity
based costing principles for selected key mission critical facilities
and standardized accounting using a common work breakdown structure.
relationships
Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of
the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs with the following
officials:
The Administrator of the NNSA.
The Secretary of Energy.
The Deputy Secretary of Energy.
The Under Secretary of Energy for Energy and Environment.
The Under Secretary of Energy for Science.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical,
and Biological Matters.
The Commander, U.S. Strategic Command.
The Deputy Under Secretary of Energy for Counter-Terrorism.
The Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
Answer. My understanding of the relationship of the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs with other officials is as follows:
1. NNSA Administrator: The Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs reports directly to the NNSA Administrator. The Administrator
entrusts the Deputy Administrator with the responsibility of managing
the nuclear weapons program.
2. Secretary of Energy: The Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs may also report to the Secretary of Energy, through the NNSA
Administrator. The Administrator will likely trust the Deputy
Administrator to deal directly with the Secretary on issues in his area
of responsibility, with knowledge of the Administrator.
3. Deputy Secretary of Energy: The Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs may also report to the Deputy Secretary of Energy, through the
NNSA Administrator. The Administrator will likely trust the Deputy
Administrator to deal directly with the Deputy Secretary on issues in
his area of responsibility, with knowledge of the Administrator.
4. The Under Secretary of Energy for Energy and the Environment:
The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs would deal with the Under
Secretary of Energy and the Environment through the NNSA Administrator.
As with the Deputy Secretary and Secretary, the Administrator will
likely trust the Deputy Administrator to deal with the Under Secretary
for Energy and Environment with knowledge of the Administrator. I do
not expect the Deputy Administrator would have much direct dealing with
the Under Secretary, but would deal with a number of the Under
Secretary's direct reports (Environment, Safety and Health and Nuclear
Energy, for example).
5. The Under Secretary of Energy for Science: When the position of
Under Secretary of Energy for Science is formalized and filled, I
expect that Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs will deal with
the Under Secretary on a variety of issues. With the Department's
emphasis on science, NNSA will seek to leverage work in the area in the
areas of supercomputing, high energy density physics and materials
sciences. As with the Deputy Secretary and Secretary, the Administrator
will likely trust the Deputy Administrator to deal with the Under
Secretary for Science with knowledge of the Administrator.
6. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology:
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and
Technology is also the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC),
which is the focal point for Department of Energy (DOE) and Department
of Defense relations. While the NNSA Administrator is DOE's NWC member
and would most likely deal directly with the Under Secretary of
Defense, the Deputy Administrator generally attends NWC meetings and is
heavily involved in NWC matters.
7. The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical
and Biological Matters: The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs
deals with the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs on a regular basis. The
Assistant to the Secretary is the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons
Council (NWC) Standing and Safety Committee, the flag officer or Senior
Executive Service ``working level'' group in the Nuclear Weapons
Council system. In this capacity, even though the formal communications
path to the Assistant to the Secretary position is through the
Principal Deputy Administrator for Military Application in Defense
Programs, I expect the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs will
spend a significant amount of time working with the Assistant to the
Secretary, particularly during this period of stockpile transformation.
8. The Commander, U.S. Strategic Command: The NNSA Administrator
generally deals directly with the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command;
however, the Deputy Administrator has significant interaction as well.
One of the Commander's most important duties related to NNSA is
providing the annual assessment of the safety, reliability and
performance of the nuclear weapons stockpile, based on input from
advisors and the national laboratories. As the Commander is responsible
for deploying the nuclear weapons stockpile, Defense Programs and
Strategic Command have a close relationship at many levels. I expect
the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs will spend a significant
amount of time working with the Commander, particularly during this
period of stockpile transformation.
9. The Deputy Under Secretary of Energy for Counterterrorism: The
Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs works closely with the Deputy
Under Secretary, especially since the counterterrorism assets--people
and equipment and expertise--are supported by Defense Programs.
10. The Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation:
The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs works closely on both
programmatic and management issues with the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. A common example of cooperation
involves arms control and nonproliferation considerations, where
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation may coordinate the NNSA's policy
position but Defense Programs is heavily involved due to potential
facility or nuclear material implications.
management issues
Question. The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs is
responsible for activities occurring at NNSA laboratories and
production sites across the country.
What are your views on the roles and responsibilities of field
managers relative to those of Defense Programs Headquarters managers?
Answer. Headquarters managers, to include the Deputy Administrator,
Assistant Deputy Administrators, and Program Managers work with the
management and operating contractor managers and site office staff to
plan the programs and set expectations (via Program Plans,
Implementation Plans, and contractor performance evaluation plans).
This is both necessary and appropriate since this brings a
``corporate'' perspective to prioritization, and the necessary
balancing among programs and sites. Program Managers at Headquarters
are typically designated by the field contracting officers as
Contracting Officers Representatives. These representatives provide
direction to the contractor for the performance of programmatic work
through the authority of the contracting officers through the Work
Authorization Process. If confirmed, I will use the Site Office
Managers to help me understand what is happening in the field since
they are the closest to the work being performed and should have a
better understanding of the local site conditions.
Question. What is your view of Defense Programs' organizational
structure?
Answer. Is there a well-delineated and consistent chain of command
and reporting structure from the field staff to headquarters staff and
from the contractors to Federal officials? The Defense Programs
organizational structure works yet I believe that it can be improved.
One area for improvement is in the area of management of the Readiness
in Technical Base and Facilities program. These responsibilities are
now managed in two different Defense Programs organizations. To help
meet the goal of having a more responsive and efficient nuclear weapons
complex, these two offices should be consolidated. This combined office
will be the driving force for transforming the three weapons
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site and the four production plants into
more agile and cost effective entities in terms of their physical plant
and operations. This office will provide integrated program guidance,
resources and execution oversight to the site offices and management
and operating contractors. This office will develop a more common work
breakdown structure for all of the eight contractors, reduce
unnecessary and costly variations in tasking, and enable the common
monitoring of program and financial performance among the eight sites.
There is a well-delineated and consistent chain of command and
reporting structure in place but the implementation of this chain of
command needs more attention and discipline. Interaction with the site
offices is critical to the organizational structure of Defense
Programs. Discipline in using the chain of command is paramount in
achieving an organization that is efficient and effective. I will
emphasize that communication across the program is important. However,
direction to the contractor can only be exercised using the chain of
command. During my tenure at DOE and NNSA I have worked within the
chain of command as well as serving as one of its leaders. Thus, I have
developed a great understanding and appreciation for this
responsibility if confirmed.
Question. In your opinion, do the Federal managers in the field at
NNSA facilities have enough autonomy and flexibility to work with the
contractors at those sites to get work accomplished in a safe and
efficient manner?
Answer. Yes, Federal managers in the field at NNSA facilities do
have the authority accomplish work in a safe and efficient manner and
to stop unsafe operations. These managers can also help identify and
resolve issues affecting program work and competing priorities within
the site. However, it does require a close working relationship with
Headquarters Program Managers. The interdependent nature of our
programs, between sites and among the technical programs, drives the
need for communication between site office and Headquarters managers.
Question. If you are confirmed, what improvements, if any, would
you undertake to strengthen the project management skills of your
Federal workforce?
Answer. Defense Programs is working to implement a strong program
and project management culture. This resulted in the development and
implementation of a Defense Programs Management Manual to guide
expectations and actions of Program Managers. The goal is to create a
program management organizational culture that values program and
project management as a discipline based on qualification, technical
competence, and consistent operating policies and procedures. Each
program element in the Defense Programs portfolio has a designated
Program Manager. These program managers are now recognized across the
nuclear weapons complex as the single Federal individual responsible
for that particular program area. Defense Programs is completing the
definition of Program Manager qualification requirements. This
qualification activity is aimed at both existing program managers and
staff. All Defense Programs line item projects have qualified Federal
Project Directors. If confirmed, I would continue the changes underway.
Question. Does the Office of Defense Programs require its project
managers to be credentialed through an accredited project management
training program? If not, do you believe such a credentialing
requirement should be established?
Answer. I support the existing rigorous credentialing program.
Federal Project Directors (project managers) for capital acquisition
projects do require credentialing under the DOE Project Manager Career
Development Program. This program identifies levels of qualification
based on successful completion of a variety of project management
related courses and acquisition of experience managing different sizes
of projects.
stockpile stewardship
Question. Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program
with the aim of creating the suite of computational capabilities and
experimental tools which--when coupled with the necessary human
capital--would allow for the continued certification of the nuclear
weapons stockpile as safe, secure, and reliable without the need for
full scale, underground nuclear weapons testing. The United States has
observed a nuclear weapons testing moratorium since 1992.
As the stockpile continues to age, what do you view as the greatest
challenges with respect to assuring the safety, reliability and
security of the stockpile?
Answer. One challenge will be keeping the right set of skilled
workers at the laboratories, production sites, and in the Federal
workforce. Keeping the workforce engaged and exercised will be
essential in developing a sustaining nuclear deterrent without
underground testing. Another challenge is gathering enough of the right
data to maintain confidence in our assessments of the safety,
reliability, and security of the stockpile. While I am personally
satisfied with the rigor of the surveillance program, continued
vigilance is required especially as the average age of warheads in the
stockpile grows. The Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program may
address both of these areas of concern. If, with the agreement of
Congress, we proceed beyond the current feasibility study, we intend to
more easily assure the safety, reliability, and security of the
stockpile without the need for underground nuclear testing.
Question. Most of the experimental and computational facilities and
tools originally identified in 1994 as required for the science-based
Stockpile Stewardship program are, or will soon be, in place and fully
operational.
In the decade spanning the years 2010 to 2020, what additional
tools or facilities will be needed to continue to support the Stockpile
Stewardship program and the goal of assuring a safe, secure, and
reliable stockpile without a resumption of underground nuclear weapons
testing?
Answer. Additional advances in the areas of computation,
simulation, materials science, and radiography will be needed to
support the Stockpile Stewardship Program. In the upcoming decade the
focus will be to fully utilize the tools that we have been developing
during this decade. An example would be getting the National Ignition
Facility operational and ready to conduct Stockpile Stewardship
experiments. Experiments on the National Ignition Facility will allow
us to probe the extreme conditions of temperature and density found in
exploding nuclear weapons. It is also important in the upcoming decade
to pursue a robust experimental program on the Dual Axis Radiographic
Hydrodynamic Test facility to observe the geometries of imploding
materials. Additionally, I expect that as material models become more
refined and as code applications become more complex, that modeling and
simulation will continue to be a dominant tool as we continue forward
with Stockpile Stewardship. Also, NNSA plans to increase the Los Alamos
National Laboratory pit manufacturing capacity to at least 30-40 pits
per year by the end of fiscal year 2012.
Question. Have there been any instances in which these new tools
have successfully resolved a technical issue or uncertainty that in the
past would have required testing to resolve?
Answer. Yes, there have been some inherently three-dimensional
issues in the primary that we could not have resolved without the new
computational tools that could have required a test for resolution.
reliable replacement warhead
Question. The NNSA is working on a feasibility study for a reliable
replacement warhead program (RRW), which, if successful could alter or
replace the need for life extension programs in the future.
In your view, what benefits could the RRW bring to the Stockpile
Stewardship program?
Answer. RRW could bring significant benefit to the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. The basic principle of the RRW program is to take
advantage of relaxing legacy stockpile design constraints that were
based on maximizing the yield of the warhead to the weight of the
warhead. This should lead us to be able to design replacement
components that are easier to produce, are safer, more secure and
environmentally friendly. These replacement components will also be
designed to increase the design margins of the components that will
both increase the system reliability and reduce the likelihood that the
U.S. will need to conduct a nuclear test.
Question. In your view, would changes be needed to the NNSA complex
to implement the RRW program?
Answer. It is too early to tell what types of changes will need to
be made, if any, to the NNSA complex to implement the RRW program
because we are in the midst of the RRW study competition. However,
design parameter priorities for the RRW emphasizes reduced hazardous
material, ease of manufacture, enhanced safety, increased security, and
life-cycle costs among others. Specific changes to the complex may, if
necessary, become more apparent later this year following completion of
the RRW study.
progress towards a responsive nuclear infrastructure
Question. The Nuclear Posture Review issued in the year 2001 called
for the establishment of a ``responsive'' nuclear weapons
infrastructure.
In your view, how should progress towards the establishment of the
responsive infrastructure be measured?
Answer. Defense Programs has been jointly developing responsive
infrastructure mission objectives (e.g., being able to identify,
understand, and fix a stockpile problem within a specified period of
time) with the DOD. Our progress towards establishment of a responsive
nuclear weapons complex infrastructure should be measured on how well
we are achieving these objectives as judged by DOD. We are also
evaluating the inclusion of leading indicators of complex
responsiveness in contracts for our labs and plants. Similar to leading
economic indicators as forward-looking predictors of future economic
activity, these responsive indicators, or responsiveness metrics, would
provide a view on whether we are becoming more or less responsive.
As the Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration, I
have been working on leading Defense Programs' current effort to
developing a responsive infrastructure. I will continue to lead this
important effort, if confirmed, as the Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs.
Question. Is sufficiently timely progress being made towards the
goal of a responsive infrastructure?
Answer. The concept of responsive infrastructure as part of the New
Triad was first announced in December 2001 with the release of the
Nuclear Posture Review. Initially, progress was slow as we worked with
the DOD and others to agree on what a responsive infrastructure really
is. The pace of progress picked up as the details of a much smaller
future stockpile and the concept of a Reliable Replacement Warhead was
developed. The 2012 stockpile plan provided details of a smaller
stockpile to Congress in June 2004. In the early spring of 2005, we
established a Responsive Infrastructure Steering Committee and a
position within Defense Programs to drive actions needed to achieve
responsive infrastructure goals. Actions have been accelerating since
that time. I made moving towards a more responsive nuclear weapons
complex infrastructure one of my key personal goals.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to either maintain or
accelerate this progress?
Answer. I am committed to accelerating the transformation of the
nuclear weapons complex into a more responsive infrastructure.
Infrastructure is defined as the people, business practices, technical
processes, science and technology base, equipment, and facilities
required to complete our mission. There are a number of things that we
can do now (e.g., (1) improve risk management and technical business
practices and (2) eliminate redundant capabilities) at an affordable
cost, before any newer, more modern facility would need to be brought
online.
Question. The Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force of
the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) recently issued a report
titled, ``Recommendations for the Nuclear Weapons Complex of the
Future.''
What is your general view of the report and its recommendations?
The SEAB Task Force report was well done by a group of professionals
who are sincerely interested in improving the nuclear weapons complex.
I thank them for their work and acknowledge their contribution in
helping frame the debate on the future of the complex. They did not,
nor could not, fully address all details for a complicated system, such
as the nuclear weapons complex. The Task Force acknowledges this up
front in their report. For example, their recommendation on timing for
a consolidated nuclear production center (CNPC) does not recognize the
challenge of meeting near-term requirements of the current stockpile
and transforming the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure at the same
time. It may be decades before all existing legacy weapons, and the
constraints they impose (e.g., conventional high explosives), are fully
removed from the stockpile and dismantled.
Question. Are efforts underway within Defense Programs to analyze,
respond to, or implement the recommendations of the task force?
Answer. In my current capacity, I am taking recommendations of the
SEAB Task Force, as well as other recent reviews (e.g., Defense Science
Board, Foster Panel, etc.) very seriously. Over the past 6 months, the
NNSA has been analyzing these recommendations. In addition, I have held
two strategic retreats (November and January) of senior nuclear weapons
complex leadership and a concentrated 3-week session (the ``January
Process'') with about 50 key middle management personnel throughout the
weapons complex, to establish our preferred long-term planning scenario
for the future. I have personally met with Secretary on our plan and
will meet again with him to determine how we will implement our vision
of the future. I anticipate that our selected path forward will be
reflected in discussions with Congress later this spring.
Question. If you are confirmed, what actions would you take, if
any, to respond to the task force recommendations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will keep on the current path. We will
communicate our preferred long-term, infrastructure-planning scenario
to stakeholders soon and begin implementation. Some actions may be
consistent with the Task Force recommendations and some may be
different. I intend to take some actions within the next 18 months to
demonstrate that I am serious about transforming the complex into a
more responsive and cost-effective infrastructure.
addressing legacy and surplus facilities
Question. The NNSA continues to maintain programmatic
responsibility for many legacy nuclear weapons facilities that are
surplus to current mission needs or have exceeded their design lives to
such an extent that it is not economic to raise them to current
standards for continued occupancy and use. Many of these facilities are
mothballed in a safe shutdown mode while awaiting the funds for
dismantlement. In some cases, NNSA is using scarce infrastructure
recapitalization funds for the purpose of dismantling these facilities
instead of transferring this work to the Office of Environmental
Management, which is the office within the DOE responsible for cleaning
up the environmental legacy of the nuclear weapons program.
If confirmed, would you propose any changes or improvements to the
process by which these legacy facilities are currently being addressed?
Answer. I support the work within the Office of Environmental
Management to ensure that the dismantlement and disposal of excess
legacy facilities are adequately addressed. The question of legacy
facility disposition is an issue of concern that cannot be solved by
any one organization within the Department but will require a DOE
corporate approach to address since this concern exists across a number
of both NNSA and DOE organizations.
Question. In your view, should the dismantlement and disposal of
these excess legacy facilities be budgeted for and executed by the
Office of Environmental Management, rather than Defense Programs?
Answer. At this point in time it is not clear to me that assigning
all Defense Programs dismantlement and disposal to the Office of
Environmental Management is the right thing to do. Since these excess
legacy facilities exist across many Departmental elements, a corporate
DOE approach that looks at the complete picture of the Department's
legacy sites is more appropriate.
maintenance of the stockpile
Question. How confident are you of the ability of the nuclear
weapons complex as currently constituted to identify and fix potential
problems in all weapons expected to be included in the enduring nuclear
weapons stockpile?
Answer. I am very confident of the ability of the nuclear weapons
complex to identify and fix potential problems in the enduring nuclear
weapons stockpile. This is fundamental to our core mission--nothing
else matters if we cannot adequately support the enduring stockpile.
Question. What do you believe to be the biggest challenges in
maintaining the nuclear weapons expected to be in the enduring
stockpile?
Answer. One of the biggest challenges in maintaining the nuclear
weapons expected to be in the enduring stockpile will be maintaining
and exercising the highly skilled workforce across the nuclear weapons
complex to ensure that appropriate skills and capabilities are
developed and improved. Additionally, maintaining an appropriate level
of focus and management attention on the variety of surveillance
activities for the enduring stockpile will be very important.
Question. In your view, how would the reliable replacement warhead
program, if successful, change the approach to stockpile stewardship?
Answer. I do not expect success in the Reliable Replacement Warhead
program to fundamentally change the approach to Stockpile Stewardship.
A successful Reliable Replacement Warhead program is a validation of
the success of Stockpile Stewardship. The program should result in
replacement of components and will reduce further the likelihood that
we would ever need to carry out another underground nuclear test. This
program should drive performance margins higher and reduce
uncertainties in design. In order to be able to ascertain progress in
increasing design margins and reducing uncertainties, stewardship of
the stockpile will continue to play an important role in being able to
measure and evaluate these parameters.
Question. With respect to the nuclear weapons production complex as
currently constituted, are you confident in the continued ability to
manufacture or otherwise acquire limited life components for the
enduring stockpile?
Answer. Yes. Defense Programs has an excellent record in producing
and delivering limited life components.
warhead pit manufacturing
Question. A significant challenge facing the nuclear weapons
complex is reconstituting the ability to manufacture and certify
nuclear weapons pits, and then ramping this capability up to an
appropriate production rate, which will permit the timely
replenishment, or replacement of pits in the stockpile.
What is your view of the current level of progress in
reconstituting pit production capability?
Answer. Reconstituting pit production at Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) has been quite successful as evidenced by the recent
manufacture of ``Qual 14,'' the last qualification pit. The next pits
being manufactured in fiscal year 2006 will be of war reserve quality.
Six war reserve pits will be manufactured in fiscal year 2006 and 10
pits are planned for fiscal year 2007. The NNSA considers an
appropriate pit production capacity to be essential to its long-term
evolution to a more responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure. Congress
declined to fund planning for a Modern Pit Facility in fiscal year 2006
citing concerns that pit aging experiments and a thorough analysis of
the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure report are not yet complete.
As a result, NNSA did not seek funding for the Modern Pit Facility in
fiscal year 2007. As these concerns will be addressed in the coming
months, NNSA will work with Congress to identify an approach to a long-
term pit production capacity. In the meantime, NNSA plans to increase
the LANL pit manufacturing capacity to at least 30-40 pits per year by
the end of fiscal year 2012. I will be working closely with LANL to
ensure that we have a good understanding of the real capability and
capacity of the TA-55 facilities.
Question. What are the most significant near-term and long-term
challenges?
Answer. The most significant near-term challenge is the final
certification of a newly manufactured W88 pit by the end of fiscal year
2007. The most significant long-term challenge will be to develop a
plutonium manufacturing capability that is appropriately sized for the
future stockpile, reflects our best understanding of weapons specific
pit aging, and is integrated with our needs to support current
Department of Defense requirements.
Question. In your view, is this effort on track to meet program
requirements?
Answer. Defense Programs is on track to meet the near-term program
requirements of final certification of a newly manufactured W88 pit by
the end of 2007 and to manufacture planned pits in 2006 and 2007. Pit
production is a key element of a responsive nuclear weapons
infrastructure. Within the next year I expect to have weapons specific
pit lifetime estimates, a better understanding of the long-term
requirements for the Stockpile, and a better understanding of the
outcomes from the Reliable Replacement Warhead study. These elements
will help inform a decision to address the appropriate plutonium
capability for the nuclear weapons complex. I will continue to work
with the Department of Defense to define the size and composition of
the stockpile. If confirmed as Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs, getting this right will be a high priority for me.
test readiness posture
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004 requires DOE to achieve and maintain thereafter a test readiness
posture of not more than 18 months. In other words, DOE would be able
to resume underground nuclear testing within 18 months of a
presidential decision to conduct a test. DOE is to achieve this
readiness no later than October 1, 2006.
Has sufficient funding been appropriated by Congress to allow DOE
to meet this requirement? If so, how confident are you that this
statutory requirement will be met by the end of the current fiscal
year?
Answer. Sufficient funding has not been appropriated by Congress to
allow DOE to meet the requirement to achieve and maintain an 18 month
test readiness posture.
Question. In your view, is this posture appropriate to support the
stockpile?
Answer. The NNSA has made considerable progress in improving its
test readiness posture to 24 months by a number of actions including
production of a set of field-test neutron generators, training nuclear
test diagnosticians, and completing some of the safety basis
authorization work. Given that proceeding to 18 months would likely
result in just more progress in the safety authorization basis work,
the 24 month test readiness posture is appropriate to support the
stockpile, especially considering more pressing needs within the
Stockpile Stewardship Program.
defense nuclear facilities safety board
Question. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) has a
statutorily-directed independent oversight role over nuclear safety
issues arising within NNSA nuclear weapons facilities.
What is your view of the current relationship between NNSA and the
DNFSB?
Answer. The current relationship between the DNSFB and the NNSA is
good. In my current position as Assistant Deputy Administrator for
Program Integration, I brief the Board on a regular basis to discuss
items of mutual concern and interest. This forum provides an
opportunity to discuss areas of agreement and disagreement in a manner
to keep communication lines open.
Question. Does the current relationship allow for effective
execution by the DNFSB of its oversight role?
Answer. Yes, this relationship allows the DNSFB to execute its
oversight role.
Question. If confirmed, what actions, if any, would you take to
improve communication and transparency between the DNFSB and the NNSA
facilities under the purview of Defense Programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to brief the Board on a
regular basis on areas of mutual concern and interest. This forum has
worked well.
life extension programs
Question. If confirmed, you will be responsible for managing the
life extension programs for existing nuclear warheads.
What is your general assessment of the effectiveness of the life
extension programs?
Answer. I believe the Life Extension Programs are highly effective
for extending the life of warheads in the nuclear weapons stockpile.
The W87 (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile warhead) program was
recently completed, and efforts are well underway on the B61-7/11
(strategic bombs), W76 (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile warhead)
and W80 (cruise missile warhead).
Question. How well, in your view, does the nuclear weapons
complex--encompassing the laboratories and the production sites--
function as an integrated complex and, externally, with the Department
of Defense in executing the life extension programs?
Answer. The success of highly integrated activities such as the
Life Extension Programs testifies that the nuclear weapons complex is
working relatively well together and with the Department of Defense.
Every one of the nuclear weapons complex sites is involved with the
Life Extension Programs in some way, and they have served as specific
focal points with tangible milestones and deliverables. Activities such
as Defense Programs Quarterly Program Reviews bring the entire complex
together on a regular basis, to bring high-level NNSA, laboratory,
plant, and test site attention to issues that are continually addressed
at the working level. Regular meetings such as the Nuclear Weapons
Council serve a similar purpose with the Department of Defense. This
level of integration has been effective in large part because of active
involvement of the Federal Program Managers to bring the laboratory and
plant contractor organizations together.
Question. Do you believe the efficiency with which NNSA manages the
execution of the life extension programs be improved, and if so, how?
Answer. Yes, I always believe we can find efficiencies in any
process. For an effort as comprehensive and far-reaching as the LEPs,
communication and execution of a common vision are often difficult.
When dealing with multiple contractors on a single area of emphasis,
the LEPs for example, a concerted effort has to be made to ensure that
contractors do not optimize their performance and sub-optimize the
overall effort. To address this problem, Defense Programs should
implement a common multi-site incentive that will bind all contractors
involved in an activity to a common performance measure. This will help
ensure that contractors work together for the success of the overall
objective.
design basis threat
Question. Secretary Bodman testified before the Senate Armed
Services Committee in February 2005 that DOE and NNSA sites will not
achieve compliance with the current design basis threat until the year
2008.
Given the seriousness of the need to secure nuclear materials, both
abroad and at home, do you believe that this is a sufficiently rapid
response to the threats currently outlined by the Intelligence
Community, and against which DOE and NNSA must defend at its nuclear
sites?
Answer. I believe that DOE and NNSA are working diligently to
address security threats appropriately, considering program execution
needs and fiscal constraints. As the Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs, if confirmed, I would work very closely with the Associate
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security to ensure that NNSA's
sites are safe and secure.
Question. If confirmed, would you seek ways to accelerate the
hardening and compliance of facilities under your purview against the
current design basis threat?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to seek ways to accelerate
the hardening and compliance of facilities under my purview against the
current design basis threat. I work closely with the Associate
Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security on a wide range of issues,
including facility design and compliance. The design of the Highly
Enriched Uranium Materials Facility at the Y-12 National Security
Complex is a good example of a recent facility with modern security
features. Any future facilities and strengthening of existing
facilities will consider the current and any future design basis
threats.
Question. If confirmed, would you pledge to work expeditiously to
identify any special nuclear material which is excess to mission need,
and to develop a plan to consolidate and secure this material against
current threats?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will work to identify any special
nuclear material that is excess to mission need, and to consolidate and
more heavily secure this material against current threats. Defense
Programs has a number of related successes (e.g., removal of security
category I/II special nuclear material from TA-18 at Los Alamos
National Laboratory) and we are an active participant in the DOE's
Nuclear Materials Disposition and Consolidation Coordination Committee,
which is looking at a comprehensive path forward for the entire
Department.
nnsa act
Question. The NNSA has now been in existence for over five years,
since it was established by Congress in the NNSA Act of 2000.
In your view, is the relationship between the NNSA and the
Department of Energy functioning in an effective and efficient manner?
Answer. The relationship between the Department and the NNSA
functions is effective. However, there can always be more improvement
in driving efficiency in how we work together. Attention and
improvement in this area can be reflected in existing Department of
Energy Orders.
Question. If confirmed, would you propose any statutory changes to
the NNSA Act?
Answer. No, I would not propose any statutory changes to the NNSA
Act.
Question. Do you believe any organizational changes are needed to
implement the NNSA Act?
Answer. No, I do not believe any organizational changes are needed.
However, work should continue on clarifying relationships between NNSA
and Department of Energy offices.
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. If confirmed, I agree to appear before the Senate Armed
Services Committee and other appropriate committees of Congress.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I agree to appear before the Senate Armed
Services Committee, or designated members of the committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to my responsibilities as the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs.
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. If confirmed I agree to ensure that testimony, briefings,
and other communications of information are provided to the Senate
Armed Service Committee and its staff and other appropriate committees
in a timely manner.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
cost controls for doe
1. Senator Sessions. Mr. D'Agostino, in the questions you received
earlier from the committee, you were asked whether--in your view--cost
containment and cost control should be a high priority for someone who
leads the DOE nuclear weapons program. This question was submitted to
you at my request because I believe that we need to do much better--and
can do much better--when it comes to running government programs more
cost effectively. While it is appropriate to feel the imperative to
maintain our nuclear deterrent, we simply must get more for the
investment we are making. What are your perspectives on the issue of
cost control and, if confirmed, what actions would you take to drive
down program costs?
Mr. D'Agostino. Cost control and getting the absolute most value
for the taxpayers' dollars are extremely important for Defense Programs
and for me personally. We are in the midst of a number of aggressive
cost-control measures and are always looking for ways to improve. As
noted in my answers to the Advance Policy Questions, we are doing a
comprehensive review of the Operations of Facilities program due to
inconsistent practices across the nuclear weapons complex. We are
looking to standardize systems that work across the complex for
accounting.
On a broader scale, as Ambassador Brooks noted during his March 7,
2006, hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee Strategic
Forces Subcommittee, today's nuclear weapons complex is not the same
one that helped win the Cold War. The U.S. nuclear weapons complex has
seen dramatic reductions, not only in size but also in terms of
funding. In 1990, our nuclear weapons complex employed nearly 60,000
people. Today we employ about half that number and the footprint of our
facilities has shrunk from 70 million square feet to less than 40
million. This includes closing down four facilities, including, for
example, the Rocky Flats plant in Colorado, and the Pinellas plant in
Florida. We are close to finalizing a preferred infrastructure planning
scenario for the future nuclear weapons complex and will share our
plans soon with Congress and other stakeholders.
______
[The nomination reference of Thomas P. D'Agostino follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
January 27, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Thomas P. D'Agostino of Maryland, to be Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, vice Everet
Beckner, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Thomas P. D'Agostino, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Thomas Paul D'Agostino
Thomas Paul D'Agostino is the Assistant Deputy Administrator for
Program Integration and leads the Office of Defense Programs at the
Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
Mr. D'Agostino directs the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), which
is responsible for maintaining the safety, security, and reliability of
the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The NNSA's nuclear weapons
complex includes three national research laboratories, the Nevada Test
Site, and four production plants.
Defense Programs oversees the SSP, which employs over 30,000 people
around the country. This approximately $5.2 billion program encompasses
operations associated with manufacturing, maintaining, refurbishing,
and dismantling the nuclear weapons stockpile. Defense Programs also
provides oversight and direction of the research, development, and
engineering support to maintain the safety and reliability of the
nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of underground testing, and
assures the capability for maintaining the readiness to test and
develop new warheads, if required.
In other previous assignments, Mr. D'Agostino served as the Deputy
Director for the Nuclear Weapons Research, Development, and Simulation
Program where he directed the formulation of the programs and budget
for the research and development program that supports the SSP. From
1989 to 1996, Mr. D'Agostino worked in numerous assignments within the
Federal Government in the startup of the Department's tritium
production reactors and at the Naval Sea Systems Command as a program
manager for the SEA WOLF submarine propulsion system.
Mr. D'Agostino is currently a Captain in the U.S. Naval Reserves
where he has served with the Navy Inspector General and with the Deputy
Chief of Naval Operations for Submarine Warfare in developing concepts
for new attack submarine propulsion systems. He also served with the
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy, and Operations (N3/
5) in the Navy Command Center in the Pentagon. In this capacity, he was
the French Desk Officer for the Chief of Naval Operations responsible
for all Politico-Military interactions with the French Navy and served
as the Duty Captain at the Navy Command Center.
He spent over 8 years on Active-Duty in the Navy as a submarine
officer to include assignments onboard the U.S.S. Skipjack (SSN 585)
and with the Board of Inspection and Survey where he was the Main
Propulsion and Nuclear Reactor Inspector. In this position, he
performed nuclear reactor and propulsion engineering inspections for
over 65 submarines and nuclear-powered ships in the Atlantic and
Pacific Fleets.
Mr. D'Agostino's awards include the Navy Commendation Medal with
Gold Stars, Navy Achievement Medal, Navy Expeditionary Medal,
Meritorious Unit Commendation, National Defense Service Medal,
Presidential Rank Meritorious Executive Award, and numerous other
awards. Mr. D'Agostino is married to Beth Ann Alemany of Manchester,
CT, and has two children. Mr. D'Agostino is a member of the Senior
Executive Service.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Thomas P.
D'Agostino in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Thomas Paul D'Agostino.
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National Nuclear
Security Administration, Department of Energy.
3. Date of nomination:
January 27, 2006.
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 17, 1959; Washington, DC.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Beth Ann Alemany.
7. Names and ages of children:
Anne Elizabeth D'Agostino, 19; Thomas Scott D'Agostino, 16.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
U.S. Naval War College, August 1996-June 1997, MA, National
Security Studies.
Johns Hopkins University, September 1992-May 1995, MS, Business
Finance.
U.S. Naval Academy, July 1976-May 1980, BS, Physical Science.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
October 1990-present, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Defense
Programs, Washington, DC.
Jobs:
- Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs
- Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration
- Deputy Director for Nuclear Weapons Research, Development and
Simulation
- Deputy Director, Office of Stockpile Computing
- Engineer, Office of Economic Competitiveness
- Engineer, Savannah River Restart Office
January 1988-present, U.S. Naval Reserves (current rank of
Captain), Washington, DC.
Served with:
- Navy Inspector General
- Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Submarine Warfare
- Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy, and
Operations
May 1998-October 2005, Uniformed Services Benefit Association (life
insurance company), Kansas City, Kansas
Member, Board of Directors and Board of Advisors
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.
U.S. Naval War College Foundation.
U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Navy Commendation Medal with Gold Stars
Navy Achievement Medal
Navy Expeditionary Medal
Meritorious Unit Commendation (Navy)
National Defense Service Medal
Presidential Rank Meritorious Executive Award
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
My speaking style is such that I typically use talking points and
do not use a completely written speech. As such, one example provided
was transcribed from a presentation that I gave at the Kansas City
Plant Leadership Forum in August 2005. The second example is from a
ground-breaking ceremony for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Building Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory in
January 2006.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Thomas P. D'Agostino.
This 8th day of February, 2006.
[The nomination of Thomas P. D'Agostino was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on February 16, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on February 17, 2006.]
NOMINATIONS OF CHARLES E. McQUEARY TO BE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TEST
AND EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ANITA K. BLAIR TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS; BENEDICT
S. COHEN TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; FRANK R.
JIMENEZ TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; DAVID H.
LAUFMAN TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; SUE C. PAYTON
TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION; WILLIAM H.
TOBEY TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION,
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; AND ROBERT L. WILKIE TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Thune,
Levin, Reed, and Bill Nelson.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Elaine A. McCusker,
professional staff member; David M. Morriss, counsel; Stanley
R. O'Connor, Jr., 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, minority
counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member;
Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel; Peter K. Levine, minority
counsel; and Arun A. Seraphin, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Jessica L. Kingston and Jill L.
Simodejka.
Committee members' assistants present: John A. Bonsell,
assistant to Senator Inhofe; Arch Galloway II, assistant to
Senator Sessions; Stuart C. Mallory, assistant to Senator
Thune; Mieke Y. Eoyang, assistant to Senator Kennedy; and
Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order.
We're going to deviate a little bit. Senator Lott, you have
an engagement to introduce the Chief Justice of the United
States at a very important function at which my grandson is
attending as one of the summer interns in my office. Would you
please proceed?
Senator Lott. Thank you very much, Senator Warner and
Senator Levin.
I will be introducing the Chief Justice to our interns, so
it's a very important assignment.
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. It's a pleasure to appear before this
distinguished committee. I had the great honor of serving on
this committee for 6\1/2\ years and enjoyed it very much. I
appreciate all the good work that this committee does for our
country, and, for the most part, in a very bipartisan way. So,
thank you for your service.
It's also a great honor for me to be here this morning to
support the nomination for Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs, Robert Wilkie. This is an outstanding man,
highly qualified for the position to which he's been nominated.
He's the son of an Army artillery commander. He spent his youth
at Fort Sill and Fort Bragg, good qualifications, in
themselves. He graduated with honors from Wake Forest
University, received his juris doctor degree from Loyola, of
the South, in New Orleans, where he received honors in Latin
American law, international law, and legislation. He also was
awarded a master of laws in international and comparative law
from Georgetown University.
He began his professional career working on the Hill for
Senator Jesse Helms. He subsequently worked for Congressman
David Funderburk of North Carolina. Then, in 1997, he joined my
staff as counsel and advisor on international security affairs
in the Senate majority leader's office. He did an outstanding
job there. He also has always been involved, as I know, on a
personal basis, in his community, in his church, and with his
family. He has a very lovely wife who is here with us today--I
know she'll probably be introduced later by Robert--and two
wonderful children.
During that time in the leader's office, we had a lot of
very critical issues we dealt with, and he served the Senate, I
believe, quite well. He subsequently went to be Special
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and
Senior Director of the National Security Council. He worked
with Dr. Rice and Dr. Hadley--worked on such issues as the
Moscow Treaty, North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion,
the Millennium Challenge Account, and Iraq reconstruction.
He is an officer in the United States Navy Reserve. He's an
honor graduate of the Reserve Intelligence Officers Basic
Course. He was the Junior Intelligence Officer Reservist of the
Year in 2004. He is a graduate of the Joint Forces Staff
College, written a lot of articles, and I learned, to my
amazement, when we were in Europe one time, he's quite a
European history buff. He knows the history of the countries,
the players, and the great battles that were fought. He became
our tour guide as we went through a very important part of
Europe.
But here's what I really wanted to appear for. He does have
a great genealogy, roots in Louisiana and in my State. His
great-grandmother, as a matter of fact, was the first female
member of the State's legislature, and one of the founders of
Delta State University. It's a great military family. It's a
great family of leadership that has served their country for
years and years. He has deep roots in my State. I hope that
will be considered an asset, not a burden for him, because
we're very proud of him.
Here's the main reason I am here, and that is, I think this
is a really important position at the Pentagon. We need to make
sure we have a person in this position that understands
Congress, that's worked for Congress, understands Senators,
understands Congressmen, understands the legislative process--
that's a unique kind of training that's needed to really
understand that--that can be the liaison and the go-between
from the Department of Defense (DOD), from the Secretary, if
you will, and to Congress. I think it's a critical role, and
one that I know that Robert Wilkie has the qualifications for.
I think he has the demeanor for it. I think he'll be a great
credit to the Pentagon and to the institutions that he'd
serve--the House of Representatives and the Senate. I
wholeheartedly endorse his nomination to be Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Legislative Affairs, and I thank you for your
expeditious handling of his nomination.
Chairman Warner. Senator Lott, there's no Member of the
Senate today that knows the Senate better than you do and the
process.
Senator Lott. Well, thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. For this fine man to have trained under
your tutelage, that makes him well qualified. I think we can
dismiss this case and go on with the others right away.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lott. Thank you very much, Senator Warner and
Senator Levin. I appreciate you both very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
We now are joined by our colleague from the House of
Representatives. Why don't we proceed with you, and then finish
up with Senator Allen.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER COX, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Cox. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin,
and to all of the Members of the Senate who are here.
It is a privilege to be able to introduce Ben Cohen to this
committee as you consider his nomination to be General Counsel
of the Army. I have known Ben for 20 years, since we were both
lawyers in the White House Counsel's Office. It was clear to me
then, and has been clear to me every year since, that Ben is
not only a superb lawyer, with exacting standards of
professionalism and excellence, but, more importantly, he is a
man of uncommonly high integrity and independence of judgment,
and he has a profound respect for the rule of law.
I am certain that you know his extraordinary background:
Yale undergraduate, magna cum laude; University of Chicago Law
School, and editor of the Law Review; clerk for the Honorable
Laurence Silberman on the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit; private practice with the
distinguished law firms of Davis Polk and Swidler & Berlin; and
senior positions in the Federal Government over a period of 2
decades.
I mentioned his service in the White House. He also served
as a senior member of the leadership staff in the House of
Representatives as executive director of the House Policy
Committee, and staff director of the Homeland Security
Committee. He was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the
Department of Justice, and, most relevant today, Deputy General
Counsel at the DOD.
He is extraordinarily well-qualified for the duties upon
which he will enter, if you confirm him to this position. I
know of no one who is more versatile as a lawyer and as a
manager, certainly no one with whom I have worked who is more
erudite or a more inspirational leader of other professionals.
His management skills are truly impressive. Simply put, his
staff, the men and women who have worked for him, really enjoy
working for Ben Cohen. He challenges them and helps them to
succeed, and he has a marvelous sense of humor, which I hope he
brings back to the DOD.
He has a wonderful family sitting behind me, and I want to
let Ben introduce them, but Ben and Julie and the rest of his
family have been good friends of mine for a very long time. I
want everyone here to know how much respect I have for the
Cohen family, and how honored I have been to work with Ben
Cohen for these many years.
I am very pleased that the President has put his name
before this committee, and I hope and expect that you will see
fit to confirm him.
Chairman Warner. Congressman Cox, we are grateful that you
took the time to cross the aisle, so to speak, and come over
here and join the other body. It's very important that you add
your views with regard to this distinguished American. I had
the opportunity to talk at length with him, and he has a very
impressive record. We, as citizens, are fortunate that people
like Mr. Cohen, and every one of these nominees this morning,
have stepped up for another chapter of public service.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Levin. How are they treating you over at the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) these days?
Mr. Cox. Very well. I'm very pleased with my new position
and the opportunities we have there.
Senator Levin. You have a major responsibility, and we are
delighted you are there. You have done some very independent,
courageous things already, and I know the House misses you. My
brother misses you. Thanks for coming by.
Mr. Cox. I will look forward to that opportunity, as well.
Chairman Warner. It's always a big step, though, when you
step across to come to the other body, even though you're not
there now. Thank you very much.
Senator Allen?
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, Senator Thune.
Thank you for allowing me to appear before this committee to
introduce Anita Blair, who is the nominee for Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
I have known and benefited from the advice of, and admired,
Anita Blair for many years. When I was Governor, I had the
opportunity to appoint her to serve at the Virginia Military
Institute's (VMI) Board of Visitors in 1995. This was an
historic period for VMI, in that the Supreme Court had ruled in
the decision of the United States versus Virginia that it would
have to be coed. Anita Blair, on the Board of Visitors, helped
design and implement the plans for admitting women to VMI. In
addition to working very closely with cadets, faculty, and
staff, she was the chair of the Board's Assimilation Review
Task Force that provided continuing high-level oversight of all
the issues relating to the successful admission of women to
VMI.
Anita also was a very important member in fashioning and
creating, planning, and developing what is called the Virginia
Women's Institute of Leadership (VWIL) at Mary Baldwin College,
and served as VMI's liaison to that program at Mary Baldwin.
VWIL has just celebrated its 10th year of operations, and
currently has about 125 cadets at Mary Baldwin. Every year,
about 40 percent of the graduates, who are all women, take
military commissions, and many others pursue national security-
related civilian careers. These are legacies of Anita Blair's
outstanding leadership.
She served for 6 years on the VMI Board, and resigned to
accept the position, in August 2001, to be Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Military Personnel Policy. In that
role, she has been responsible for policy and oversight related
to all manpower and personnel matters affecting the Navy and
the Marine Corps and their families.
In February 2005, she assumed additional responsibilities
as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Total Force
Transformation, leading efforts to improve and modernize the
management of the Department of the Navy's total force of
Active-Duty, Reserve, civilian, and other contractor personnel.
Like you, Mr. Chairman, and me, Ms. Blair is a graduate of
the University of Virginia's School of Law, where she met her
husband, Doug Welty, who is here. They even practiced law
together. He continues to practice law in Arlington. Her
practice was in areas of antitrust, franchise and trade, and
regulation law. She's been working with the Department of the
Navy since just before September 11, and she has energetically
deployed her considerable experience in the private sector, her
public advocacy capabilities and public service to support our
sailors, marines, and their families.
I know, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that she
will have the same sort of expertise, dedication, diligence,
and expert leadership in this new position, and I look forward,
and hope for, her prompt consideration by this committee, and
confirmation on the Senate floor. I thank you all for allowing
me to speak my accolades for one truly outstanding American,
Anita Blair.
Chairman Warner. Senator Allen, I share your observations
about the qualifications and accomplishments of this
distinguished nominee. It's very important that you, too, found
time to step over, this morning, and join this committee for
this very important moment in their public service careers.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Thune, I understand that you wish
to join in the introductions.
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have the honor to
introduce to you----
Chairman Warner. Excuse me, I'm just going to interrupt.
Please, Mr. Cox, Mr. Allen, feel free to leave now, because
you have to move on with other matters. [Laughter.]
You're free to go.
Senator Allen. I have to get to the----
Chairman Warner. Your nominees are on their own now.
Yes, Senator?
Senator Thune. I'm not released yet, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Warner. Nope. [Laughter.]
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor to introduce
to you and my fellow committee members the President's nominee
for the position of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition, Sue Payton.
Sue Payton is a distinguished public servant. She's
eminently qualified to fill the position for which she's been
nominated. She brings private-sector experience to her duties
in the DOD that's really invaluable, being able to listen to
customer needs, integrate solutions, and deliver capability in
a timely manner. Sue Payton has extensive experience in leading
government and industry partnerships focused on maturing and
applying technology, operations concepts, tactics, techniques,
and procedures to solve national security problems worldwide.
For the last 5 years, as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Advanced Systems and Concepts, Sue Payton has demonstrated
openness and candor in her efforts to get the best technology
demonstrated and transitioned to the warfighter. Prior to
taking her current position, in September, Secretary Payton was
the Vice President of Applied Technology of ImageLinks,
Incorporated, and the Director of the National Center for
Applied Technology, responsible for the assessment, prototype
development, and insertion of commercial technology for DOD
agencies and worldwide field users.
Between 1994 and 1996, Secretary Payton was responsible to
the Vice President of Business Development, Lockheed Martin,
for leveraging the latest information systems technology to
meet the program needs of DOD and Intelligence Community
customers.
Between 1989 and 1994, Secretary Payton was the senior site
systems integration manager for Martin Marietta, responsible
for resolving complex acquisition and technical issues
associated with systems analysis and trade studies of competing
space and ground architectures, operations concepts,
requirements definition, software test and transition to
operations.
Secretary Payton is a member of the Defense Science and
Technology Advisory Group, Eastern Illinois University Alumni
Association, and 2004 Alumni Award winner, a Gateway member of
the Purdue University President's Council, and former board
member of Women in Aerospace.
Secretary Payton received a Bachelor of Science Degree from
Eastern Illinois University, and a Master of Science in systems
acquisition management/systems technology from the University
of Southern California. She is a 1998 graduate of the Emory
University executive business program.
Mr. Chairman, Secretary Payton is clearly among the best
and the brightest of this generation of public and private
servants. I thank the committee for considering her nomination,
and I look forward to a speedy confirmation process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Thune. I had
the opportunity to visit with this distinguished nominee, and
I'm sure that she appreciates, as I do, your commendation on
her part.
We now are joined by our distinguished colleague from
Florida, Senator Martinez.
STATEMENT OF HON. MEL MARTINEZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
Senator Martinez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Levin. It's a pleasure to be with you here this
morning. Thank you very much for recognizing me.
I have the distinct honor and pleasure to be here today to
introduce to the committee a good friend and a colleague, a
Floridian and fellow Cuban-American. These are many things that
unite us, Frank Jimenez, who has been nominated by the
President to be the next General Counsel for the United States
Navy.
Frank Jimenez graduated with honors in 1987 from the
University of Miami as a biology major. He received his law
degree in 1991 from Yale Law School, and also received an MBA
in 2005 from the Wharton School, at the University of
Pennsylvania.
Prior to entering public service, Frank practiced law in
Miami with the law firm of Steel, Hector & Davis. For 6 years,
he specialized in commercial litigation and criminal defense,
including Federal class-action antitrust and product liability
litigation, and representation of clients under Federal grand
jury and government agency investigation.
Previously, Mr. Jimenez served a 1-year clerkship in the
chamber of Judge Rymer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, in Pasadena, California.
Mr. Jimenez was admitted to the bars of Florida and the
District of Columbia. Additionally, Frank served for nearly 4
years in the executive office of Florida Governor Jeb Bush,
beginning with his gubernatorial transition in 1998. For those
2 years, Mr. Jimenez served as Deputy Chief of Staff, with
oversight duties at various times for the Department of
Transportation, business and professional regulation,
environmental protection, community affairs, elder affairs and
health, as well as the agency for workforce innovation in the
Division of Emergency Management. Frank also served as my chief
of staff at the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) during my tenure as HUD Secretary. As my
chief of staff, he helped manage more than 9,000 employees and
an annual budget surpassing $35 billion. Frank also helped
supervise HUD's many homeownership and affordable housing
programs for low-income Americans, as well as programs
supporting the homeless, elderly, people with disabilities, and
people living with AIDS.
As legal counsel for the DOD, Frank currently manages key
litigation matters covering the entire Department, and
coordinates with the White House Counsel's Office, the
Department of Justice, and other agencies on pressing legal
issues.
Mr. Jimenez was most recently the Principal Deputy General
Counsel for the Department of the Navy, where he managed over
600 attorneys worldwide and oversaw the Naval Criminal
Investigative Service.
I want to thank Frank for his outstanding public service,
for his friendship to me, and many accomplishments that I know
he has had in the past and will continue to have in the future.
I know that Frank will make an excellent person to serve in
this very important capacity, Mr. Chairman, at a particularly
difficult time in our Nation's history, when we face such
challenges from the global war on terror.
Frank is accompanied here today by his mother and brother,
and both are wonderful people and good friends. He comes from a
terrific family, well-respected folks in the South Florida
community. His brother also has served this Nation as a U.S.
attorney for the southern district of Florida for a number of
years, now in private practice, as well.
So, I'm just delighted to have the opportunity to present
to you one of our outstanding Floridians, someone that I know
will make the Nation proud in his new opportunity for service
to the committee.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
I've had the privilege of not only meeting extensively with
the nominee yesterday, but knowing of his record, and he's
well-deserving of the commendations that you've provided this
morning.
Senator Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you for your participation.
Senator Martinez. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. It is now time for the committee to speak
to the nominees. I will submit my opening statement into the
record, introducing our other nominees. I also submit the
statement of my colleague, Senator Dole.
[The prepared statements of Senator Warner and Senator Dole
follow:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
I am pleased to have before the committee this morning eight
distinguished individuals who have been nominated for the following
positions of importance and responsibility within the Department of
Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy:
Anita Blair to be the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs;
Benedict Cohen to be the General Counsel of the Department of
the Army;
Frank Jimenez to be General Counsel of the Department of the
Navy;
David Laufman to be Inspector General of the Department of
Defense;
Charles McQueary to be Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation for the Department of Defense;
Sue Payton to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition;
William Tobey to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation in the National Nuclear Security
Administration; and
Robert L. Wilkie to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs.
We are joined today by several colleagues who will introduce
nominees to the committee.
Senator Lott will introduce Mr. Wilkie;
Senator Allen will introduce Ms. Blair;
Senator Martinez will introduce Mr. Jimenez; and
Senator Thune will introduce Ms. Payton.
Additionally, former Congressman Christopher Cox of California, who
served from 1989 through 2005 in the House of Representatives and
currently serves as the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, joins us today and will introduce Mr. Cohen.
Welcome to you all, and thank you for being with us today.
We welcome all family members and guests, and thank you for the
important support you provide to our nominees. They cannot succeed in
these demanding positions without your help, as I'm sure they all
recognize.
David Laufman has been nominated to be the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense. Mr. Laufman has served since March 2003 as
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia where he
has specialized in prosecution of terrorism and other national security
cases. Mr. Laufman also served in the Department of Justice in the
Office of Professional Responsibility and as Chief of Staff to Deputy
Attorney General Larry Thompson from May 2001 through March 2003. Mr.
Laufman has extensive experience in the legislative and executive
branches of government, in ethics investigations, and in national
security affairs.
William Tobey currently serves as the Director of
Counterproliferation Strategy on the National Security Council staff
where his responsibilities include U.S. policy on missile defense and
nonproliferation issues regarding Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Mr.
Tobey has been a member of the U.S. Delegation to the Six-Party Talks
during the last three rounds of negotiations, and has served as
Director of Defense Policy and Arms Control on the National Security
Council staff from 1986 to 1993.
Dr. Charles E. McQueary has been nominated to be the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation of the Department of Defense. Dr.
McQueary served as the Under Secretary of Science and Technology of the
Department of Homeland Security from 2003 through March 2006, leading
the Department's research and development efforts. Prior to his
homeland security service, Dr. McQueary was President of General
Dynamics Advanced Technology Systems and also as a Director for AT&T
Bell Laboratories. Dr. McQueary, congratulations on your nomination,
and thank you for your continued willingness to serve in this key DOD
position.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Elizabeth Dole
I would like to express my full support for the nomination of the
Honorable Charles E. McQueary, of North Carolina, to be Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation for the Department of Defense. As the
former Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Science and Technology at
the Department of Homeland Security, Dr. McQueary has the experience
and qualifications necessary to fulfill this crucial role.
In 2003, he was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed
by the Senate to be Under Secretary for Science and Technology at the
Department of Homeland Security. Prior to this, Dr. McQueary served as
President of Lucent Technologies' and General Dynamics Advanced
Technology Systems, and has held the position of Vice President of the
Federal Systems Advanced Technology Division at AT&T. While at Bell
Laboratories, he served as Director of the Undersea Systems Development
Lab, headed the U.K.-based Field Operations Department, and ran the
Marshall Islands-based Missile Operations Department for the Safeguard
Antiballistic Missile Test Program. He earned his bachelor's degree,
master's degree, and Ph.D. in engineering mechanics from the University
of Texas, Austin, where he was a distinguished engineering graduate.
I have been great friends with Dr. McQueary and his wife, Cheryl,
for many years, and I am confident that he will fulfill this role with
the utmost integrity. Charles McQueary is a most worthy nominee, and I
look forward to joining the full Senate in quickly confirming his
nomination.
I would also like to express my full support for Robert L. Wilkie,
of North Carolina, in his nomination to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Legislative Affairs. Mr. Wilkie has a remarkable amount of
experience in both legislative and military affairs that makes him an
excellent nominee for this position.
Robert Wilkie is the son of an Army Artillery Commander and grew up
at Fort Sill and Fort Bragg. After graduating with honors from Wake
Forest University and earning his Juris Doctor from Loyola University
of the South, he was awarded a Masters of Law from Georgetown
University. He is an honor graduate of the Reserve Intelligence
Officer's Basic Course, a graduate of the College of Naval Command and
Staff, as well as the Joint Forces Staff College. In 2002, he received
his Masters in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War
College.
In addition to this extraordinary education, Mr. Wilkie has
extensive legislative experience, having served as counsel and policy
advisor to Senator Jesse Helms, as legislative director for Congressman
David Funderburk, and as counsel and advisor on International Security
Affairs to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. From 2003-2005, Mr.
Wilkie was special assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs and a senior director of the National Security Council, serving
as a senior policy advisor to the President's Assistant for National
Security Affairs. He developed strategic planning for the
implementation of the Moscow Treaty, NATO Expansion, the Millennium
Challenge Account, and Iraqi reconstruction. Mr. Wilkie currently
serves as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs
and is the acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs.
Mr. Wilkie's military training only adds to his already impressive
resume. He is an intelligence officer in the United States Navy
Reserve, and was named the Office of Naval Intelligence Junior
Intelligence Officer (Reserve) of the year in 2004. He previously
served with Atlantic Intelligence Command, Joint Forces Intelligence
Command, and Naval Special Warfare Group Two. As a current division
officer in the Maritime Threat Targeting Department at the Office of
Naval Intelligence, Mr. Wilkie has the qualifications that make him an
outstanding candidate for this position. I look forward to the
confirmation of Robert Wilkie as Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs.
Chairman Warner. Do you have a comment or two, Senator?
Senator Levin. I have no comment, other than to welcome
them and their families, who are so important to their success.
I thank the nominees for their commitment to public service, as
well as their family's commitment to public service.
Chairman Warner. The committee has asked all of our
nominees, as we do with each nominee coming before the
committee, to answer a series of advance policy questions. The
nominees have responded to those questions. Without objection,
those responses will be made a part of today's record.
I also have certain standard questions that the chairman of
this committee, for as long as I've been on the committee--
Senator Levin and I have been here for 28 years on this
committee--and we ask these questions of each nominee. If you
all, as a group, would indicate your responses. If anyone
wishes to be singled out for recognition, please raise your
hand, and I'll be glad to recognize you to clarify the question
or clarify your response.
First, have each of you adhered to the applicable laws and
regulations governing conflicts of interest? [A chorus of
affirmative responses.]
Let the record show that all responded affirmatively.
Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which
would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation
process? [No response.]
No nominee has indicated to the contrary.
Will you ensure that your staff--if confirmed and placed in
office, those staff under your supervision comply with the
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record in hearings? [A chorus of affirmative
responses.]
Again, all have agreed in the affirmative.
Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to congressional requests? [A chorus of affirmative
responses.]
All have indicated affirmatively.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify, upon
request, before this committee? [A chorus of affirmative
responses.]
All have indicated in the affirmative.
Do 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? [A chorus of affirmative
responses.]
All, likewise, approved it.
Now, we will go to each nominee for such opening statements
as they would like to make. When I recognize you, I would
appreciate very much if you would introduce the members of the
family that have come with you today.
May I say that I look back some 37 years ago, when I sat at
a table and introduced my family at the time I was nominated to
join the Navy Secretariat. I recall that my children could not
reach the floor with their legs. Today, they're in their 40s.
Time passes, but my children, to this day, remember joining me
for this very important moment in your public service careers.
So, according to the roster that's before me for purposes
of recognition, we'll start with Ms. Blair.
STATEMENT OF ANITA K. BLAIR, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
Ms. Blair. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Levin, members of the committee, it is the honor of a lifetime
to appear before you today as the nominee for Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. It
is also an honor, and I'm very grateful to Senator Allen, for
his very kind and gracious introduction this morning. I'm also
grateful to the President, to the Secretary of Defense, and to
the Secretary of the Air Force for their support and confidence
in recommending me for this position. Knowing how many
difficult and important matters you and they deal with every
day, I am truly humbled by your consideration.
If you will permit me, I would like to introduce my
husband, Doug Welty, whom Senator Allen also recognized. We
did, indeed, meet at the University of Virginia Law School, and
did, indeed, practice law together. It's customary, Mr.
Chairman, to state that your spouse is the true source of all
your success, but I'm very delighted this morning to have some
other people who are responsible for my success. A few members
of my staff were able to come, and I would like to also thank
them for taking time out of what I know is a busy day.
Remembering my parents, too, who are not with us anymore,
but, back in World War II, they were a young Army Air Corps
family.
It's been a great privilege to serve in the Department of
the Navy since shortly before September 11. I've personally
witnessed the efforts and sacrifices made by our sailors,
marines, families, and civilian workers, and I would like to
thank this committee for all you have done to assist them in
the great struggles they endure. If confirmed, I pledge that
their example will be my standard in devoting my all to serving
the people of the Air Force.
I have felt privileged to be part of the great enterprise
of transforming the naval services so that they can achieve
their highest and best purpose for America in the 21st century.
The members of the Air Force Service family--Active, Reserve,
Guard, families, and civilians--have impressed me with their
dedication to integrity, service, and excellence. If confirmed,
I will be honored to work alongside and for these fine people.
I look forward to answering your questions, and I hope to
continue in frequent dialogue and discussion with this
committee as issues and challenges arise.
Thank you, again, for your consideration.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Would you kindly introduce such
family members as you have?
Ms. Blair. Oh.
Chairman Warner. There he is. What year did you graduate
from University of Virginia Law School?
Mr. Welty. 1982, Senator.
Chairman Warner. 1982. Well, I preceded you, 1953.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Blair. Senator, I'd like to remind you that he did
serve in the Navy during the halcyon years encompassing your
tenure as Secretary, as well.
Chairman Warner. Oh. Nomination confirmed. [Laughter.]
Ms. Blair. Thanks.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much for that opportunity.
Now we'll have Mr. Cohen.
STATEMENT OF BENEDICT S. COHEN, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and members of the committee,
it's an honor to appear before you today as the President's
nominee for General Counsel of the Army.
I'd like to start, if I could, by introducing my family.
Chairman Warner. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Cohen. My wife, Julie, my son, Paul----
Chairman Warner. Would you kindly stand? We all wish to see
these folks.
Mr. Cohen. My wife, Julie; my son, Paul, age 9; my
daughter, Mary, age 7; and my father-in-law, Bob Gutman,
veteran of the Somerset Light Infantry and a former Senate
staffer. Unfortunately, my father, Harold Cohen, who's a
veteran of the Army Air Corps, couldn't be here today.
Chairman Warner. We talked about your father yesterday and
what an interesting career he had in the Army Air Corps. It's
remarkable.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. So, you've very privileged to have had
that heritage, and you bring his experience and wisdom to the
task before you.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much, sir.
I'd like to thank the President for nominating me for this
position, and the Secretary for his confidence and support. I'd
like to thank Chairman Cox for his generous remarks, and for
the opportunity to work for him for all those many years. I'd
also like to thank this committee for all that you all have
done over the years for our men and women of our Armed Forces.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee
on the many challenges that are confronting the Army. The Army
continues its historic transformation to address the issues of
the 21st century while fighting a long war against terrorism in
multiple theaters. The legal dimensions of these challenges are
as complex as any that have ever confronted Army lawyers. If
confirmed, I want to assure the committee that I will devote
every effort to address these challenges with humility and
determination, and with the knowledge that the Army's military
and civilian attorneys are the finest in the world. It would be
the greatest honor of my career to have the opportunity to
serve with these magnificent professionals.
Finally, I'd like to thank my wife and children for their
support as I pursue a return to DOD, having already completed
some 20 years of Federal service. I'm more grateful to them
than I could ever say for their love and support of my career
in public service.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Cohen.
We'll have Mr. Jimenez.
STATEMENT OF FRANK R. JIMENEZ, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Mr. Jimenez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin.
As Senator Martinez mentioned, with me today are my mother,
Daisy Jimenez, and my brother, Marcos Jimenez. My father, Frank
Jimenez, cannot be with us today. He's home in Miami.
It is a distinct honor to appear before you for possible
confirmation as the 21st General Counsel of the Department of
the Navy. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, the members
of the committee, and staff, for your many courtesies to me and
for your service to this Nation.
I would not be here today but for the trust placed in me by
President Bush and Secretaries Rumsfeld, England, and Winter. I
have pledged to them--as I now pledge to you--that I will do
everything in my power, if confirmed, to justify both their
trust and yours.
Since the Continental Congress, our Armed Forces have stood
in the breach to make possible the liberties we enjoy today.
Their sacrifice is no less indispensable in today's fight
against tyranny than it was in securing our independence from
it over 200 years ago. This great sacrifice gives rise to a
reciprocal moral obligation. But mine is not only a commitment
to our Nation's finest; above all, it is a pledge to a country
that has given so generously to my family.
My parents left the oppression of Castro's Cuba in 1961 so
that my older brother, then just a year old, could breathe the
air of freedom. With no college education they came carrying
all their possessions in hand. Less than a generation later,
one son has been confirmed by the Senate as a U.S. attorney,
and the other appears before you now. My grateful family is a
living embodiment of America's promise.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I pledge to work closely with
you and this committee to support and promote the outstanding
men and women of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. That's a very moving statement you made,
in acknowledging what this country has provided for you and
your family, and the opportunity it gives others. Those remarks
come on a morning in which the world sees a new and extensive
chapter of violence, and it's important that we be ever mindful
of the blessings that our country have while we watch the
suffering of others.
Mr. Jimenez. I agree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
We'll now have Mr. Laufman.
STATEMENT OF DAVID H. LAUFMAN, TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Laufman. Thank you, Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, and
distinguished members of this committee. I'm honored to appear
before you today as the President's nominee to be Inspector
General (IG) of DOD. I thank President Bush and Secretary
Rumsfeld for their confidence in me and their commitment to
effective oversight of DOD. I also thank members of the
committee and their staff for the courtesies you have extended
to me and for the outstanding work that you do on behalf of the
men and women of the Armed Forces and the taxpayers of our
Nation.
With me today are my wife, Judy, also a public servant at
the Department of the Treasury, and my sons, Adam and Michael.
Also with me today is my brother, Gary. I'd like to thank them
for their love and support. Their love and support have been
essential to my ability to pursue a career in public service,
and I'm indebted to them for the sacrifices they have made over
the years. With me, also, Mr. Chairman, is my mother, Nora
Laufman, of Houston, Texas, my hometown. No one approaches life
each day with greater vitality or curiosity, and she continues
to inspire me as she nears her eighth decade.
Chairman Warner. If I might add a personal note, my mother
lived to be 94, and while I was here in the Senate I would get
calls in the course of the day to tell me exactly what I was
doing right and occasionally what I was doing wrong.
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Mother, for joining us. That's very important.
Please continue.
Mr. Laufman. Thank you, Senator.
Finally, Senator, I'd like to recognize my late father,
Herbert Laufman. Over 60 years ago today, my father flew more
than 60 combat missions over Nazi-occupied Europe, including
missions on the morning of D-Day, as the bombadier navigator of
a Martin Marauder B-26. For his excellence and valor, he was
awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal, and
numerous oakleaf clusters. How proud I am to be his son, and
how proud he would be regarding today's events.
Today, our country faces global challenges to its security
that my father's generation could not have anticipated. At the
forefront of meeting those challenges is DOD. The IG plays an
essential role in maximizing the effectiveness of the
Department. The IG is responsible for the oversight of the
Department's programs and operations, and for preventing and
detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. If confirmed, I pledge to
you that the IG's office will demonstrate a commitment to
excellence befitting the importance of its responsibilities. We
will conduct rigorous audits to ensure that Department programs
and operations are carried out efficiently and in full
compliance with the law. Where investigations are appropriate,
the IG's office will aggressively pursue the facts, wherever
they take us, and report our findings and recommendations
without fear or favor.
We will pursue our mission with uncompromising independence
while working together constructively with the leadership of
this Department and the members of this committee. We will take
all appropriate measures to ensure that any individuals who
violate the law or abuse their positions of trust are held
fully accountable for their actions.
These are extraordinary times, and we have enormous
challenges before us. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with all of you to meet those challenges.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much for that opening
statement, and particularly the reference to your father. I
think he was part of what Tom Brokaw said, I think, very ably,
``The Greatest Generation.''
Mr. Laufman. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Now, we'll have Ms. Payton.
STATEMENT OF SUE C. PAYTON, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION
Ms. Payton. Thank you, Chairman Warner, Ranking Member
Levin, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to be
here today. Senator Thune, I'd like to thank you very much for
that very kind introduction.
I'd also like to thank the members of my family who have
joined me here today, my husband, Gary, of 34 years, a Space
Shuttle crew astronaut and an Air Force pilot for 23 years. Our
daughter, Courtney Callen, has joined us, from Navarre,
Florida, after 1 week under her belt as a new information
technology (IT) specialist with Eglin Air Force Base, starting
her first week in government service. I'm very proud also of my
son-in-law, Thomas Callen II, a captain in the Air Force, C-5
pilot, and instructor-in-training at Whiting Naval Air Station.
My twin brother, Tom Campbell, has joined me, as well, from
Wheeling, Illinois, a retired third-grade teacher and member of
the Illinois Army National Guard. When you accumulate all the
service to our country, we have over 40 years, just in the
group here, not to mention my father, who served in World War
II, and a brother who has also served in the Air Force.
It is the greatest honor of my professional career to
appear before you as President Bush's nominee to serve as the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. I am
grateful to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Under Secretary of
Defense Krieg, and Air Force Secretary Wynne for their support
and confidence in recommending me for this position.
I'd like to also sincerely thank the members of this
committee for the crucial leadership and support provided me
and my team in Advanced Systems and Concepts since September
2001 as we accelerated the fielding of much-needed joint and
coalition military capabilities to fight terrorists worldwide.
My career has spanned both private and public sectors,
including 17 years of acquisition experience in the Defense
industry and almost 5 years as the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts. This has given me a
very valuable and unique range of experiences. But whether in
the public sector or the private sector, my guiding principles
regarding acquisition have always been the same: you must
mandate the highest integrity in all aspects of the process;
you must drive acquisition, based on customer need, to achieve
mission success; you must provide the programmatic structure
that allows success by linking accountability, responsibility,
and authority; and you must prioritize your investment based on
progress toward goals.
Our customers, the warfighters, taxpayers, the families
whose loved ones go into harm's way, expect our acquisition
community to deliver the capabilities needed to defend America
and protect our national security not only today, but into the
future. Delivery of these capabilities must be done with
transparency, due diligence, and taxpayer value as the highest
priority. To ensure the American people stay informed, we must
make sure that all their Members of Congress, including this
committee, are well informed of our efforts.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, again, for the opportunity to
appear before you today. I look forward to your questions. If
confirmed, I look forward to continued close working
relationships with Congress while leading the outstanding men
and women of Air Force acquisition.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much and, indeed, all of us
are deeply touched by the contributions of your families for
generations in the support of freedom in this country. Thank
you.
Mr. Tobey.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. TOBEY, TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Tobey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to introduce my
family, because, as Senator Levin observed, their support makes
my public service possible; therefore, I'm grateful for that.
With me today are my wife, Elizabeth Tobey, our daughters,
Emma and Beatrix, and my wife's parents, the Reverend LeRoy
Ness, who served for 25 years on active duty and retired as an
Army Chaplain, and his wife, Evelyn Ness, who has been a strong
supporter of the National Military Family Association.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and members of the committee,
I'm honored to be considered as the President's nominee for
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation in
the National Nuclear Security Administration. I am grateful to
the President, Secretary Bodman, and Ambassador Brooks for the
confidence they have placed in me. I would also like to thank
the members of this committee for your strong support for U.S.
nonproliferation efforts.
I am thrilled by the prospect, if confirmed, of leading
programs that are among the most critical to U.S. national
security, and humbled by the importance of the task. I have
always been drawn to issues at the heart of U.S. national
security, and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons
and material is foremost among them. I believe that my service
on the National Security Council staff in the Reagan, Bush-41,
and current administrations dealing with international
negotiations, defense programs, and nonproliferation, as well
as my private-sector management experience, have prepared me to
meet the challenges of the position.
Over the past several months, I have come to know better
the people working in the Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation and found them to be smart, dedicated, and
selfless. They work tirelessly to stop proliferation of nuclear
material and bring to the task unmatched experience and
expertise. Many spend weeks a year away from their families.
They work in far-flung places around the world, some where
conditions are demanding, from Russia's Siberia to Libya's
desert. They work to secure the materials, expertise, and
technology that might be used by terrorists against the United
States and our allies. In short, they prevent threats before
they reach our shores. They are among those on the front line
of our global nonproliferation efforts. They implement the
programs that Congress authorizes and that, if confirmed, I
will work hard to ensure remain successful.
If confirmed, I intend to focus on meeting the goals of the
Bratislava initiative on time, ensuring that effective
management of nonproliferation programs continues, enabling us
to secure or dispose of as much material as possible, as soon
as possible, and ensuring that our strategy keeps pace with the
evolving proliferation threats, and that our programs reflect
the most effective strategy we can devise.
I look forward to working with members of the committee and
its staff, the National Security Council, and other departments
and agencies to ensure that we have a well-coordinated plan of
action. I commit that, if confirmed, I will continue to work
day and night to ensure that U.S. nonproliferation programs are
effective and responsive to the urgent threats that we face.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Tobey. Again, as I reviewed
with you yesterday, your distinguished career, you're eminently
qualified for this position, and we thank you for bringing your
family to join us here this morning. I take note that your
wife, once upon a time, was a member of my staff and
contributed greatly at that time, as she continues to support
you as you take on these challenges. We thank you, Chaplain,
for your long service to our country.
Mr. Tobey. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Now, Mr. Wilkie.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. WILKIE, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Wilkie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the committee. I do want to thank you for your
courtesy and kind consideration in the weeks leading up to this
hearing.
I would like to introduce, first, my wife, Julie. We've
known each other since we were high school students back in
Fayetteville, North Carolina--and she is also a former member
of the Senate family--and my dearest friend and mother to our
two little children, Adam and Megan. Also with me is my
brother, Douglas, and my brother-in-law, Steven Harman.
I also wish to thank Senator Lott for his courtesy and his
friendship. I was privileged to be part of Senator Lott's
family--the Senate family for 6 years, and if anyone questions
whether people in Washington have an impact on the day-to-day
lives of Americans, then all that person has to do is go down
to the Mississippi Gulf Coast and see what Senator Lott means
to the people recovering from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina.
Mr. Chairman, if you would permit me, I would also like to
acknowledge someone who is not here, that is Senator Jesse
Helms. I first saw Senator Helms in person back in 1976, when
he was escorting a former Governor of California around
southeastern North Carolina prior to the presidential primary
that year. Ronald Reagan won that primary, due, in large part,
to Senator Helms. Twelve years later, I was privileged to join
his staff in this very Dirksen Senate Office building and learn
many of the lessons that had been passed down to him from his
mentors, Sam Irvin and Richard Russell. He is one of the great
gentlemen of this body.
So, from those remarks, Mr. Chairman, it's pretty clear
that I am a product of this Senate, having spent 14 of my 18
years in professional life here. I'm versed in its traditions
and its histories and the unique responsibilities that this
committee has for the oversight of DOD.
There is also a second strain flowing in my life, and that
is the Armed Forces of the United States. My very first
childhood memories are of watching the artillery half-section
roll across the old post parade ground at Fort Sill. My great-
grandfather was a battery commander in the 82nd Infantry
Division. My grandfather ran convoys in the North Atlantic. I
grew up watching the 82nd Airborne as a teenager.
My own military service has been modest compared to those
of my ancestors, but the constant has been the privilege of
serving with the men and women who stand vigil for freedom.
That is why this nomination has particular meaning for me. If
confirmed, it is another way to serve with and for those who do
so much for our Nation.
Again, I thank you very much for your courtesy and look
forward to your questions, sir.
Chairman Warner. We thank you, Mr. Wilkie, for first your
mention of Senator Helms. We knew him well, and I particularly
recall many moments of working with him in this institution. He
was a teacher. I may not have always agreed with him, but he
was a remarkable teacher with a grasp of the rules of the
Senate. He had a love for the Senate. We wish him well in these
days.
Thank you for your family who have joined us here this
morning, and your reference to your ancestors. Like you, my
career in the military is very modest compared to that of my
father and his forefathers, but aren't we fortunate to have, in
our respective careers and challenges in life, that background
to live with?
Now, Dr. McQueary, somehow the papers got mixed up here
this morning, and there were so many people that jumped in and
out of that seat in the course of the morning that I failed to
give you the due recognition that you deserve at the head of
the line. But now you can take all the time you wish.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. McQUEARY, TO BE DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Dr. McQueary. You're very kind, sir. Thank you very much.
If I may, I would like to introduce first my wife and
partner of 34 years, Cheryl. She has been my mainstay for that
time period, and has been, really, a major influence in my
career in helping me at every step along the way. She, too, is
engaged in public service, working at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, currently. So, thank you very much for the
opportunity to be able to recognize her.
Chairman Warner. Well, we thank you for joining us.
Dr. McQueary. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, other
distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor and a
privilege for me to appear before you today as the President's
nominee to be the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
(OT&E) in DOD. I thank the President, Secretary Rumsfeld, and
Deputy Secretary England for their confidence and support in
nominating me for this position. If confirmed, I look forward
to serving my country again, after having served 3 years as the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology in the Department of
Homeland Security. In fact, Senator McCain was the chair of the
committee that I appeared before, when I was considered for
that position previously. Sir, it's good to see you again.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee
and other Members of Congress to ensure that the weapons and
the equipment we deliver to the men and women in the armed
services are adequately tested, operationally effective,
suitable for use, and survivable in the operational conditions
they encounter. The role of the director and the OT&E team is
to be the strongest of advocates for the men and women in our
Services through Congress and the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, and, again, for your
family joining us.
Dr. McQueary. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. I'm going to allow Senator Levin to
initiate the questions, but, before doing so, I'd like to call
on my colleagues, if they have any opening comments or other
observations.
Senator McCain?
Senator McCain. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Senator Reed? Senator Nelson?
Senator Bill Nelson. I look forward to the questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. McQueary, the position that you are being considered
for was created by Congress to be an independent voice on the
effectiveness of military systems, and an unbiased judge of the
results of testing of systems. What are your views about the
independence of your position and your obligation to speak
freely to Congress, especially in the face of pressures to
stifle bad news about acquisition systems, when there is such
news?
Dr. McQueary. I believe that's a very essential ingredient
of the position that was created by Congress in 1983. In fact,
for it to be effective, I think the reporting relationship
we've established is appropriate: advisor to the Secretary of
Defense and direct reporting to Congress. I am prepared to do
that in the most effective way that I possibly can, based upon
my skills.
Senator Levin. Dr. McQueary, the U.S. began deploying a
Ground-Based Midcourse Ballistic Defense System back in 2004.
It has not yet had a successful intercept test, and it has had
no operational testing. So, we have begun to deploy an
extraordinarily complex multibillion-dollar system without
being sure that it is going to work. Will you ensure, if
confirmed, adequate testing of the Ground-Based Midcourse
Defense System, including operational testing, in order to make
a determination as to whether the system is operationally-
effective and suitable for combat? Will you convey that
determination to Congress?
Dr. McQueary. I certainly will assume the role of oversight
responsibility. As I understand it--and I have only been
reading material for about 2 weeks--as I understand it, the
Missile Defense System was set up separately from the normal
design and development programs; and, therefore, the director
of the Missile Defense organization has full responsibility for
the operational test, up to and to the point of where equipment
is delivered to the end-user. The role that the Director of
OT&E has, as I understand it, is to provide oversight and
provide reports to Congress, and I certainly will do everything
that is called out statutorily for me to do.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Ms. Blair, back, I guess, 6 or 7 years ago, you served as
chairman of the Congressional Commission on Military Training
and Gender-Related Issues. The majority of the commissioners
voted to recommend that each Service should be allowed to
conduct basic training in accordance with its current policies.
You opposed that recommendation, apparently, citing evidence
that gender-separate training produces superior results. The
Air Force, as well as the Army and the Navy, have continued to
use gender-integrated training for military specialties. In
response to a pre-hearing policy question on this subject, you
stated only that ``the Services should not stand still, but
continually re-examine assumptions and seek out better ways to
accomplish their training mission.''
If confirmed, is it your intent to reopen the long-resolved
issue of gender-integrated training in the Air Force?
Ms. Blair. Thank you for that question, Senator.
If confirmed, I have no intention to do anything but allow
the Services to improve training, as they see fit, to meet
their mission. Currently, in the Department of the Navy, the
Navy conducts gender-integrated training. The Marine Corps
conducts gender-separate training. They report that it is
successful, they're satisfied, and it's meeting the mission. My
sole interest is in meeting the mission. So, I will be guided
by the opinions of the experts who are running the training
programs as to what ways they may want to pursue to attempt to
improve their training.
Senator Levin. Now, you're also, I believe, not only a
member of two organizations that have taken a strong position
against gender-integrated training, but you also have
indicated, I believe, in your response to our questionnaire,
that, if confirmed, you're going to remain a member of those
organizations, the Independent Women's Forum and the Eagle
Forum. Are you aware of the positions of those two
organizations?
Let me, for instance, read you an issue paper of the Eagle
Forum. It's titled ``The Feminists Continue Their War Against
Men.'' It includes a section titled, ``Equality or Feminization
of our Military,'' and says the following, ``President Bill
Clinton made clear his disdain for our military, but the
Clintonista Feminazis were more focused. They were determined
to give us a gender-neutral military, or, as one of their
spokespersons put it, an ungendered military.''
Do you agree with the statements made on the Web sites of
those two organizations?
Ms. Blair. Senator, I am not sure what all the statements
of those organizations are. I would hasten to mention that--
neither one is a membership organization, in the sense that
anybody who may--one pays dues or is apt to be eliminated if
one doesn't agree with everything that they say. I think, as
public policy organizations, they have something to add to the
mix. In my current position, I seek to be guided by the
requirements of the law, the established policy. I would not be
here today, I would not have accepted the job of Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, if I had any unwillingness to
set aside any personal opinions or preferences that I might
have in favor of executing the law. Part of executing my job
well, I believe, is soliciting opinions and views from a wide
range of sources.
Senator Levin. What about the statement I read? What's your
reaction to that?
Ms. Blair. I'm trying to recall it, Senator. I'm sorry----
Senator Levin. ``President Bill Clinton made clear his
disdain for our military, but the Clintonista Feminazis were
more focused. They were determined to give us a gender-neutral
military, or, as one of their spokespersons put it, an
ungendered military.''
Ms. Blair. Yes, it's a pretty rhetorical statement, I
think. I don't know which individuals they may be referring to
or anything. I think it's a rhetorical and exaggerated
statement.
Senator Levin. How about this other statement, made in that
same paper of the Eagle Forum, ``Adopting coed basic training
for all the Services except the Marines lowered the standards
to the physical capabilities of women. The result is a
breakdown of military discipline and a dramatic coarsening of
women, and of men's treatment of women. This has caused a
critical diversion of time and energy away from the essential
task of teaching men to be soldiers and to dealing with the
obvious problems caused by the powerful factor of sex in a
wartime environment.''
Ms. Blair. Senator, I suspect that those comments may have
been made when the gender-integrated training was somewhat
novel and people were still working through a lot of problems.
I believe that today the conduct of gender-integrated basic
training is much improved from the time that they may be
referring to.
Senator Levin. Basically, then, you don't have a reaction
that you disagree or agree with these statements?
Ms. Blair. It's hard to agree or disagree, because I find
them, kind of, argumentative and rhetorical. If there were
facts--it would be easier to say I agree or disagree with a
fact, but I believe that they were making an argument using
rhetoric, and I take it for what it is.
Senator Levin. So do I.
Ms. Blair. Yes. I do, sir. I emphasize----
Senator Levin. Offensive.
Ms. Blair.--well----
Senator Levin. I take it for what it is, too. Offensive.
But I'll leave it there. You're the one who is here, not me. I
don't want to cut you off, though, if you wanted to add
anything to that.
Ms. Blair. Sir, that the way I do my job is by putting
aside any kind of personal opinions or preferences, and,
instead, looking at what the law is, what the policy is, and
executing it to the best of my ability.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen and Mr. Jimenez, last week we had a hearing on
military commissions with the judge advocates general of each
of the Services, some active and some retired here as
witnesses. Each of them testified that we should not authorize,
through legislation, the military commission process and
procedures that the administration had previously adopted, and
that the Supreme Court struck down. Do you agree with the judge
advocates general on that specific point?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Senator.
I reviewed the testimony that the judge advocates general
offered last week, and it seemed to me to be consistent with
the approach that the President has outlined of wanting to work
with Congress to reach a middle ground that would command
congressional support and enable us to legislate, to authorize,
a judicially supportable system of military justice for these
terrorists.
Senator Levin. On that one point, when I asked each of the
six of them, very specifically, ``do you believe we should
simply ratify the procedures that were put in place by the
military commissions, which the administration had set up and
which were struck down by the Supreme Court?'' Each one
answered that question, ``we should not ratify those
procedures.''
Chairman Warner. Your question, does that suggest that we
exclude any reference to the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ)? It would just be that one segment?
Senator Levin. I'm just asking whether they agree with
their testimony on that specific point, that we should not
simply ratify the military commissions as set up by the
administration, and which were considered by the Supreme Court.
Each one said we should not simply ratify the commissions and
their procedures as existed prior to the Supreme Court opinion.
I'm wondering whether you agree with the position that each
of the six took.
Mr. Cohen. Senator, this is not an area of law with which I
am familiar. I've read the Hamdan decision. I read the
testimony offered to the Judiciary Committee and the Armed
Services Committees last week. But it's a complicated area, and
one in which I confess I haven't formed a final, or in any way,
definitive view.
Senator Levin. Okay.
Mr. Jimenez?
Mr. Jimenez. Senator Levin, I agree with that testimony.
The Supreme Court has spoken. They've made it clear that they
want Congress now to speak. There is a strong role for Congress
in this process. I think that Congress should bring its
independent voice to this question. I do think that there is a
middle ground to be reached here of providing fair process to
those detained, while taking into account the exigencies of
warfare and the circumstances under which these individuals
have been captured and detained.
Senator Levin. Okay.
For each of you, do you agree that cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment of detainees in U.S. custody
is prohibited in all places and at all times?
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Yes, Senator, I believe that that's the
requirement of the Detainee Treatment Act.
Senator Levin. All places, all times, no matter who the
government employee or agent is?
Mr. Cohen. Senator, I can't claim to be an expert on the
Detainee Treatment Act, but I believe that's a summary of its
terms.
Senator Levin. Mr. Jimenez.
Mr. Jimenez. Unequivocally, yes.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I know there are others waiting to ask
questions. I will pick up from there when I have another round.
Chairman Warner. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to congratulate the nominees and express my
appreciation for their willingness to serve our country. I
believe they're all highly qualified.
Ms. Payton, right now we have several Air Force programs
that are over cost and behind schedule. Are you aware of those
programs?
Ms. Payton. Senator McCain, yes, I am aware of the
programs.
Senator McCain. Do you think that we're going to be able to
afford this continued cost escalation and reduction in numbers
which is caused by the cost overruns and delays?
Ms. Payton. No, sir, I do not believe that we will be able
to afford this.
Senator McCain. Are you familiar with the C-130J program?
This committee uncovered that it was being conducted under a
provision of the law which applied to small startup companies
so that they wouldn't have to be burdened with paperwork and
other obstacles that major corporations have to undergo. Are
you familiar with that aspect of the C-130J program?
Ms. Payton. No, sir, I am not intimately familiar. The only
thing I have done is read, in the paper, instances of this.
Senator McCain. Well, let me tell you what happened. In
testimony before this committee, the Air Force testified that
they would change that contract, because it was never intended
to apply. Several months later, my staff, examining the
contract, found out that, indeed, it hadn't been changed. In
fact, hardly at all.
I guess my point is, Ms. Payton, I think that the
acquisition throughout DOD, but particularly in the Air Force,
is in great disarray. Nine of the 11 major weapons systems last
year were behind schedule and over cost, and received incentive
bonuses. Most of my constituents don't quite understand that.
There's a great question now arising about the affordability of
both the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter, because of cost
escalations associated with it.
Are you concerned about those overruns?
Ms. Payton. Senator McCain, I'm extremely concerned about
those overruns, and I do not believe that award fees should be
granted for anything except above-average performance.
Senator McCain. What do you think we ought to do, Ms.
Payton?
Ms. Payton. The first thing I would like to do is fully
understand the facts and details. I would like to adopt many of
the practices that the panel, led by General Kadish, described
so that we have a uniformity of effort, where the requirements
community, the budget community, and the acquisition community
collaborate and not in sequence, so that requirements are well
defined and are not allowed to creep, budgets can be formulated
realistically, and the acquisition workforce can influence the
process in a collaborative effort.
I believe there were mistakes made early in these
acquisitions, and I believe now we need to take a look at not
only how to learn lessons from this, but also what the future
should hold.
Senator McCain. Well, good luck.
Ms. Payton. Thank you, sir.
Senator McCain. Mr. Jimenez, do you believe that the
process for disposition of the cases of the Guantanamo
detainees should be addressed through the framework of the UCMJ
or through commissions?
Mr. Jimenez. Senator McCain, I think that there is a role
for the commission process within the framework of the UCMJ.
Just like I don't believe, after the Hamdan decision, that
Congress should simply ratify the existing commission
procedures. I also don't think that the existing UCMJ, in
total, is workable under these circumstances. I do think there
is a middle ground where we can----
Senator McCain. How can you find a middle ground--I'm
talking about a framework. You either use the UCMJ as a
framework, or you use the commissions as a framework. So, I'm
asking you which should be the starting point.
Mr. Jimenez. Senator McCain, if we start with the UCMJ,
there are----
Senator McCain. I wasn't asking you ``if,'' I was asking
you whether we should start with the UCMJ as a framework or the
existing commissions process as a framework.
Mr. Jimenez. I think it would be reasonable to start with
the UCMJ and modify all of those rules and provisions that are
impracticable. I think there are a good many that are
impracticable, but that would be a reasonable approach.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cohen, the same question for you.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Senator.
This is an area of law in which I have not previously
practiced. I have reviewed the Hamdan decision and the
testimony offered last week, and I was actually particularly
impressed by the testimony offered by General Black, the Judge
Advocate General of the Army. But I haven't formed a definitive
view on the question, whether one should start with the UCMJ
and----
Senator McCain. I'm not sure you have to be an expert to--
if you read the decision as to form an opinion on which should
be the framework, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Well, sir, the decision was clear that Congress
needed to act to----
Senator McCain. I guess I have to ask you to respond to the
question. Do you believe that the UCMJ should be the beginning
point for setting up a process for the adjudication of the
detainees, or the existing commission process being the
beginning point?
Mr. Cohen. Senator, without, as I say, having a definitive
view on the subject, I----
Senator McCain. You do not have a definitive view on one of
the most important issues that is now facing DOD?
Mr. Cohen. Sir, I'm hopeful that, if I'm confirmed, working
with this committee----
Senator McCain. Mr. Cohen, before you're confirmed, I would
like an answer.
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. General----
Chairman Warner. Were you--excuse me--were you about to
give an answer there? In the tenor of your voice you were going
to respond.
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. I was.
Chairman Warner. Why don't you make your full statement,
then, and respond to this question.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that General Black, in his testimony, outlined that
he felt that there would be a need to make adaptations to the
UCMJ that might be fairly significant, and, in addition, that
it would be appropriate to take some of the features of the
commissions that were already extant, but that, again, very
significant changes to the existing structure would be
necessary, as well.
Chairman Warner. I think they used the term ``a mix.''
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Testimony reflects that.
Mr. Cohen. That seemed to me to be an extremely reasonable
approach.
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, most of the witnesses didn't
say ``a mix.'' Most of the witnesses--and I think the record
will be very clear--said that the UCMJ should be the basic
framework.
Chairman Warner. I recall that----
Senator McCain. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think
that this is an important issue, because the role that Mr.
Cohen is going to play is important as we move forward with
trying to establish framework. I think it's legitimate to know
whether he feels that the UCMJ should be--no matter what any
witness said, I think it's important to know whether he feels
the UCMJ, as the Supreme Court has basically said that we
should do, or as some in the administration--there's a split
within the administration now--whether the commissions should
be the beginning point. I think it's a very legitimate
question, and one that I'd like to know the answer before I
vote on this nominee's nomination.
Mr. Cohen. Senator, if I could, I think the point that Mr.
Jimenez made, the approach that he outlined, seems very
reasonable to me, and I don't disagree with him, sir. I agree
with him.
Senator McCain. I thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
Senator McCain. I thank all the witnesses.
Chairman Warner. Senator McCain, I share your views. I've
worked with you on this. But I seem to have a recollection--
I'll go back and check the record--that when the question is,
``do you think there should be a mix,'' we went down--I thought
each one of the heads acknowledged that to be a logical way.
I'll have that record checked, because it's important.
Senator McCain. That's not my recollection, Mr. Chairman.
We'll have it checked.
Chairman Warner. That's fine.
Senator Levin. My recollection, for what it is worth, is
that four of them said we ought to begin with the UCMJ as the
starting point. Two said--they didn't directly answer what the
starting point is--but they just said that it should end up
being a mix. So, I think my recollection is the same as Senator
McCain's. We should check the record.
Chairman Warner. We'll check that record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Clarification of responses from July 13, 2006, hearing on military
commissions in light of the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v.
Rumsfeld.
Major General Jack L. Rives, USAF, The Judge Advocate General of
the Air Force and Major General Thomas J. Romig, JAGC USA (Ret.),
Former Judge Advocate General of the Army both felt the Uniformed Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ) was a good starting point for setting up a
process for the adjudication of detainees, but also should include a
mix of other sources as well.
Major General Scott C. Black, JAGC USA, The Judge Advocate General
of the Army; RADM James E. McPherson, JAGC USN, Judge Advocate General
of the Navy; Brigadier General Kevin M. Sandkulher, USMC, Staff Judge
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and RADM John D.
Hutson, JAGC USN (Ret.), Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy all
stated they believe a mix of various procedures would be the best
course of action to set up the process for the adjudication of
detainees and did not specify a specific starting place.
Thank you very much.
Any further questions, Senator?
Senator McCain. No. I thank the witnesses.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
I'll turn to my colleagues on the left here. I see, Senator
Reed, you're next up.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the
nominees.
Mr. Laufman, the last several years, DOD has been embroiled
in allegations with respect to the treatment of detainees. You
are going to assume a position, if you're confirmed, at the
apex of--and, as you point out, at the independent agency that
tries to keep the Department honest. I think your opening
statement was very emphatic about the need to maintain the
independence, the need to ask tough questions, the need to
speak truth, and the need to go after the case, wherever it
leads you.
So, with that as a prelude, with respect to the issue of
detainees, and particularly ``ghost detainees,'' General Kern,
who conducted an investigation before the committee in
September 2004 said, ``We have asked two organizations to do
further investigations, DOD IG and the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) IG, and both have agreed that they will take on
that task of investigating this ghost detainee policy.''
Now, over the last several years, I have made inquiries to
DOD, and, for a while, the presumption was that there was
actually an investigation by the DOD IG, but it turns out that
it never really materialized. Secretary Rumsfeld finally stated
that the investigation was being turned over to the CIA.
However, a DOD spokesman also stated that DOD could not attest
to the work done by the CIA during their investigation. I read
this to mean that DOD doesn't know the effectiveness of the
investigation and its recommendations, and, therefore, cannot
use the results to take appropriate action. In fact, I would
suspect that if the CIA was looking at it, their focus was the
CIA.
So, there is a question outstanding of whether anyone has
seriously looked at the responsibility for senior-level members
of DOD with respect to this issue. As the proposed nominee for
the IG of DOD, the question simply is, what are you going do
about it?
Mr. Laufman. Thank you for the question, Senator.
Let me begin by saying that the statutory jurisdiction of
the IG is broad enough to encompass the type of issue that you
are inquiring about. I'm not familiar with the Kern matter, or
the interaction between DOD and CIA on that issue. It's
probably fair to say that the jurisdiction of DOD's IG
jurisdiction would extend to that aspect of the matter that
concerns DOD resources or personnel. If confirmed, I'd be happy
to look into the status of the matter and make a judgment as
expeditiously as possible about whether the IG should examine
that issue with the appropriate resources.
Senator Reed. You will make that determination independent
of guidance by anyone else, and you'll do that in your capacity
as the IG?
Mr. Laufman. I would expect to make all judgments
independently, pursuant to my statutory mandate, Senator.
Senator Reed. I think you're aware, also, that these
allegations run to the conduct not just of CIA operatives, but
of military personnel and members of DOD--civilian members.
You're aware of that?
Mr. Laufman. I'm aware generally, yes, sir.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Mr. Laufman, again, in 2004, Attorney General Ashcroft
announced the indictment of a CIA contractor for abuse in
Afghanistan. He also indicated that there were other
allegations of abuse, and that these were going to be processed
through the Department of Justice. It's my understanding that
at least 17 of these cases were forwarded to your previous
office, as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of
Virginia. Other than the case against the CIA contractor, could
you indicate what the status of these cases are? Have they been
fully investigated? Has there been a determination to charge
anyone?
Mr. Laufman. Well, you just gave me a battlefield promotion
to U.S. attorney.
Senator Reed. Oh.
Mr. Laufman. I'm an assistant U.S. attorney.
Senator Reed. Well, you're in a nomination committee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Laufman. I understand.
I am aware, Senator, that there are matters pending within
the U.S. attorney's office for the eastern district of
Virginia. I am not involved in those matters. It's my
understanding that they are being examined with diligence and
the commitment of significant resources. I'm not in a position
to comment on the status of those matters, except to say that I
believe the people to whom they are assigned are very able,
experienced prosecutors, and that they will make their best
judgments as to what recommendations to make.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Let me, again, share the concern illustrated by the
questions of Senator McCain and Senator Levin with the need to
clarify after Hamdan, the status of the application of military
law to these procedures for detainees. I think, Mr. Jimenez and
Mr. Cohen, your responses were appropriate, in terms of using,
as the starting point, the UCMJ, and making appropriate
modifications, and letting Congress do that, as it must, after
Hamdan. So, I thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Nelson, why don't you proceed?
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Warner. You bet.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank all of you, ladies and
gentlemen, for offering yourself for public service.
I would add my comments, as well, for the two nominees to
general counsel, of using the UCMJ as the starting framework
for the procedures. I think the line of questioning of Senator
McCain is quite obvious, and someone who, without a doubt, has
the credentials to ask those questions. America is different,
and America is a place where we are known by our standards and
our values. That often goes back to the Good Book in the
statement that is issued upon which all the law and--is built
upon, which is, ``Treat others as you want to be treated.''
That has found its way into the Geneva Convention, and it's
found its way into the procedures of the UCMJ. So, I would echo
the comments of Senator McCain and Senator Reed.
I want to take a different tack, and I thank you all for
offering yourself for public service. Each of you had a
distinguished career before arriving at this table. Now we have
the obligation, as well as the privilege, of the checks and
balances of our Government, of overseeing the executive branch
and inquiring, of you, things that are concerning to us
regarding the positions that you're about to enter.
So, with regard to Dr. McQueary and Ms. Payton, I wanted to
let you all know that recently I met with General Carlson, who
is the head of the Air Force Materiel Command. He wanted to
alert me as to a proposed Air Force effort to cut the test and
evaluation budget by $581 million. He was given--I think it was
$1.5 billion that he had to cut in his bailiwick. He came up
with part of that, roughly a third of it, he was going to
deactivate the 46th Test Wing and close a number of
sophisticated testing facilities that happened to end up in my
State. Now, it's not only the reason that it's my State of
Florida that I'm asking these questions, but I'm looking at the
efficiency and the ultimate cost of this proposed cut.
Obviously, we understand the importance of testing and
evaluation facilities, and that's especially important to the
modernization of the Air Force and the safety of our military
personnel.
So, one example is that the Air Force, in this proposal
that was shared with me by General Carlson, was that you shut
down the McKinley Climatic Test Lab. It happens to be the
world's largest environmental test chamber in which aircraft
and vehicles and tents and a bunch of systems are subjected to
extreme temperatures, to sandstorms, to rainstorms, and many
other conditions. Those systems range from the B-2 to the F-22
to the Joint Strike Fighter to the Terminal High Altitude
Defense missile, and they've all passed through, or will pass
through, for testing there to consider how they stand up.
Now, you shut that thing down, and I'm wondering if the Air
Force is getting around to the idea, ``Well, if you want to
test for cold, send it to Greenland, or if you want to test for
hot, send it to the desert.'' The climatic lab is about
controlled test conditions, it's about cost savings, and it's
about reduction of risks associated with overseas testing. By
the way, as I have looked into this, I've found out that the
lab is booked with reservations through 2011. Now, that sounds
rather cost effective to me. It doesn't sound like closing it
makes much sense.
What I'm concerned about--and I shared some of this with
General Carlson, but he's got a rigid requirement that he has
to find $1.5 billion. Obviously, my question is, is that the
best place, in a big, big Air Force, to find these savings? I'm
concerned about the drastic reduction of Air Force test and
evaluation. Is it going to be shortsighted, and is it going to
end up delaying important Air Force acquisition programs? Is it
going to end up increasing costs to taxpayers?
So, I want to ask the two of you, are you aware of these
Air Force proposals to cut?
Doctor?
Dr. McQueary. Sir, I am not aware of the specific case that
you're talking about. I have never been to McKinley and the
Climatic Test Range. I have been a participant in using Eglin
before, so I'm familiar with what goes on there, to a degree.
I'm not familiar with it, but I'll be happy to agree to look
into the issue, early on, because, certainly in this position
that I'm being considered for, ``OT&E'' are the key words in
the descriptive title, and that must be an important
consideration in determining whether systems are ready to be
fielded or not.
Senator Bill Nelson. Ms. Payton.
Ms. Payton. Senator Nelson, thank you very much for
enlightening me on this. I have not heard of this. I started my
career, back in the early 1980s, in test and evaluation of
spacecraft systems. You launch them, and you cannot retrieve
them, for the most part. So, test and evaluation is an
extremely important part of the life cycle of the acquisition
of major weapons systems. If confirmed, I will make this one of
my high-priority items to understand the cost trades and the
business case analysis that's behind this.
Thank you.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you both for your responses.
Clearly, you're aware of it now. I would like for you to look
into these proposals, and I'd like for you to provide this
committee with your personal professional analysis,
conclusions, and recommendations on the potential impacts on
the Air Force and DOD testing evaluation and our broader
modernization. Specifically, I'd like you to assess the cost
and risk to our developmental testing industrial base.
By the way, I would like you both to join me in visiting
the facilities at Eglin, and to meet some of the highly
qualified experts that are involved in these testing
activities.
Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to get out ahead of this enough so
that we're not looking back at this as a done deal that may not
be in the interest of DOD, as a whole.
I would also recommend to you that you visit the other
facilities proposed for closure, in Tennessee, New Mexico, and
California.
I want to ask you one more question. If we step back with
the Air Force trying to develop and deploy advanced systems
like the F-35, the small-diameter bomb, certain space systems,
are you concerned that the Air Force is greatly reducing its
overall investments in test and evaluation?
Doctor.
Dr. McQueary. Sir, I spent all of my business professional
career before joining the Government doing operational tests,
design-development operational testing. So, there is no
question that the operational testing near the end of
completion of a program is absolutely essential to assure that
a system will work properly and be used in an effective way by
those service men and women who will be chartered with risking
their lives at times, and using it.
Ms. Payton. I certainly do agree with what Dr. McQueary
just said. Relative to the small-diameter bomb, that particular
munition could be the most transformational capability that we
will have in our arsenal. The amount of collateral damage and
innocent lives that can be spared by that small-diameter bomb
can be immense, and the cleanup after war will also be
mitigated. So, I am especially interested in the small-diameter
bomb and the focused lethality that it can bring to our
warfighter. I will do everything to make sure it's tested
properly.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I would note, for the
record, in Ms. Payton's written answers to questions that had
been supplied to the committee in advance of this hearing, in
response to the question, ``What are your views on the
importance of accurately projecting future test facility
instrumentation requirements and budgeting for these needs?''
that Ms. Payton's answer is, ``In my experience, test
facilities are a very important contributor to the ability to
field capable, proven weapons systems for our warfighters. We
need to do a good job of protecting the test capabilities our
future systems will require to ensure that they are in place to
support thorough testing as part of the acquisitions process.
We cannot permit test infrastructure shortfalls to delay
acquisition programs.''
So, given that, I'm looking forward to visiting the
facilities with both of you on this very important decision.
It's not the first time that things have been done for
budgetary reasons. I just want to make sure we're not cutting
off our nose to spite our face because somebody's been given an
arbitrary number of dollars to whack out of their particular
budget.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
I shall ask each of you a question at this point in time.
First, Mr. Laufman, again, I profited greatly from the
meeting that we had, and am greatly encouraged about the
attitude that you have with regard to the mission to which the
President has selected you to perform. I certainly wish you
luck.
Mr. Laufman. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. It's an important department. Having
served in that department myself for many years, I recognize
the complexity and how the IG's office can play a pivotal role
for the Secretary and his subordinates, as well as all who are
dedicating their careers to making that department work more
efficiently. So, thank you and your family for taking this on.
Mr. Laufman. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. My question is more or less on oversight,
and that is, this committee is concerned about the delays in
completing many of the investigations--that is, by your
predecessor--and the effective management controls within your
office. You indicated, I think quite wisely, in your advance
questions, that your audit resources may be insufficient to
meet your statutory obligations and that the IG ``may lack
sufficient resources to conduct necessary in-theater audit and
investigative activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.''
Now, this committee wants to help you, and we hope that you
will not hesitate a minute in coming to the committee for such
assistance as this committee may be able to give you in
alleviating what you perceive are serious infrastructure
deficiencies; thereby, enabling you and your staff not to
perform the missions required. Do you wish to amplify on the
answers that you put in the record? If not, they will just
stand as they are. They're very clear.
Mr. Laufman. Only to say, Senator, that I can think of no
area where we should seek to concentrate our efforts more than
on making sure that we are providing all the necessary
resources to the Armed Forces that are currently deployed and
are at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Chairman Warner. Got it.
Mr. Laufman. If we reach a determination early on that we,
as an IG's office, if I'm confirmed, lack the necessary auditor
investigative resources, it will be my priority to bring that
to the committee's attention, to the leadership of DOD, and to
correct that imbalance as soon as possible so that we can
fulfill our statutory obligations.
Chairman Warner. Good. All right. We'd like to have you
note within 3 months or so, send a memorandum over to the
committee, would you please, on your current status after
you've had that period of time to make further assessments?
Mr. Laufman. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. At that time, I will have stepped down as
chairman, under our 6-year rule, but the fine gentleman on my
right here, Senator McCain, is hopefully going to be the next
chairman. I know this is an area in which he shares my concern,
that you must be adequately staffed to do your job. I presume,
Senator Levin, you join us on that.
Senator Levin. I would, either as ranking member, with
Senator McCain, or as chairman of the committee. So--
[Laughter.]
In any event, this----
Chairman Warner. Well, that's nice.
Senator Levin. Our current chairman is as good as they get.
They don't come any better.
Chairman Warner. I said 90 days. That won't happen in 90
days.
Senator Levin. You said Senator McCain would hopefully
become chairman.
Chairman Warner. Oh, yes, chairman to carry through with
such reforms as he might recommend.
Senator Levin. I only heard the word ``hopefully.''
Chairman Warner. You have the record----
Senator Levin. I didn't hear the rest of it.
Chairman Warner. You've stated your case. [Laughter.]
We've been together for 28 years, and it's been a
remarkable partnership for the two of us to work together on
this committee. We both started at the end seat on this long
dais. It took us 28 years to get up here, and we've been----
Senator Levin. I actually fell off that twice, it was so
far out there. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. All right. Now, Mr. Tobey, in your answers
to the questions the committee sent to you in the hearing this
morning--I go through these answers; I think they're very
important--you stated that you would seek to ensure the defense
nuclear nonproliferation programs are guided strategically to
address new challenges and opportunities to prevent
proliferation, including new approaches and work within new
countries. It was a very good response, by the way. Are there
countries of proliferation concern where you'd like to initiate
or expand on cooperative nonproliferation activities?
Mr. Tobey. Thank you, Senator.
We have expanded our nonproliferation effort beyond former
Soviet states. We've worked in Libya and Iraq. I think those
efforts need to be ongoing. I know that there have been
discussions with, for example, China to try and improve nuclear
security there. I'm hopeful that the demonstration project that
they've undertaken there can actually be applied more widely
within the Chinese system. I'd also note that President Bush
and President Putin agreed to a global initiative to combat
nuclear terrorism over the weekend.
Chairman Warner. Yes, that was a very encouraging
announcement by both countries.
Mr. Tobey. I think it really does pave the way to some
important progress, because it will allow us to broaden some of
the efforts that have occurred, or taken place, in former
Soviet states. In terms of securing nuclear material, to other
states, and we would hope to encourage other states to adopt
best practices. These may not necessarily involve exactly the
same programs that have been undertaken in former Soviet
states, but I think we can build on the experience that we've
had with former Soviet states to improve security of
proliferation-sensitive materials worldwide.
Chairman Warner. I thank you. Going on to other areas
regarding Russia, do you think there's some unaddressed
proliferation threats that should be the focus of further of
U.S./Russian cooperation? I had some modest experience in that
area, myself, when I was Secretary of the Navy and negotiated
the Incidents at Sea agreement, and I got to know the senior
officials of the Soviet Union, and I have followed carefully,
in my career here in the Senate, the evolution from the Soviet
Union to today. Russia is a proud and strong nation in this
world. But the vastness of the activities of the former Soviet
Union in an area utilizing fissile material for all types and
forms of weapons, I just want to make certain that we know, and
the Russians know, the full extent of those programs and what
could remain out there that could possibly find its way into
further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, with or
without--well, presumably, let's say, just without the
knowledge of the current Russian Government.
Mr. Tobey. I think that's an excellent question Senator. I
think it's one that's worth continuing to ask. My impression is
that the broad categories of proliferation-sensitive material
are covered by U.S. programs. Now, your question also, if I
understood correctly, included the component about whether or
not we've completed our efforts, and we have not, yet.
Chairman Warner. At least they've been identified. I'm more
concerned, are there other unidentified areas? Not that Russia
is trying to conceal it, but--again, I was in a position, in
those days, to get some real insight into the magnitude and
diversity of their utilization of fissile material for the
purpose of weaponry. I think, certainly, the Nunn-Lugar
program--and I was on this committee when that program was
initiated by those two fine individuals--has gone a long way.
But it's like everything else, you turn over a new leaf, and
you find something that you just didn't know existed. Given
your extraordinary background, I'm certain that you'll keep a
watchful eye on that.
Mr. Tobey. I'll do my best, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Good.
Mr. Wilkie, we're fortunate, as a Congress, to have you
once again step up and take on public service. You draw on a
remarkable background of experience and personal associations
with former and current Members of the Senate. I think Senator
Levin and I would acknowledge we've been here a long time, but
that opening statement by Senator Lott was certainly
extraordinary in its commendation of you as an individual.
Mr. Wilkie. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. I share and respect Senator Lott's views.
Again, having served in that position--not in that
position, but in the Pentagon, myself, I remember the
Secretary, on a weekly basis, used to come around and ask his
service secretaries, ``Have you answered all of the
congressional mail?'' We used to have a report that we had to
file, my recollection, on a weekly basis of what the
outstanding congressional mail and acknowledgment, or lack
thereof, by the Department. Now, I just hope that you can
work--I think anything can be improved, and your predecessor, I
believe, worked very hard at it, but the challenge is still
there. These are most extraordinary times in world history. We
only need to go out and turn on the television now to see what
the problems are. Your Department--and I say ``your''--DOD is
right in the mainstream of these worldwide problems.
So, just if you'll nod your head, or do you have some
specifics you want to share with the committee----
Mr. Wilkie. Yes, sir, you mentioned my previous
associations. I was always told by Senator Helms that there was
a reason that the framers put the congressional article as the
first article of the Constitution, and that was beaten into my
head from a very early time in the beginning of my service
here.
Chairman Warner. That's quite interesting.
Mr. Wilkie. I think it's absolutely vital, in a time of
war, that there be a strong partnership between DOD and
Congress, and that has nothing to do with partisanship. That
means making sure that questions are answered and that leads to
soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen having everything that
they need to carry on the fight.
You mentioned something that seems very simple, and that is
getting correspondence answered. Well, we have put in place,
once again, that weekly report to the Secretary. I've done that
in my current position as the Principal Deputy. I am very
fortunate, in that regard, to have very outstanding people
within the office who also appreciate what Dan Stanley
appreciated, that the Department--and the Secretary would
agree--has not been fast enough in responding to congressional
inquiries so that the program that was in place during your
service with President Nixon and Secretary Laird is back. Mr.
Rumsfeld receives that report every week.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. I wish you luck.
For Dr. McQueary, the committee has been reviewing the role
of OT&E in supporting rapid fielding and evolving acquisition
strategies. In your response to advance questions of the
committee, you note that the OT&E challenge is becoming more
involved in below-threshold operational testing for equipment
such as helmets, armor, and ammunition.
I cannot stress to you the importance of staying on top of
that one, because many members, fortunately, receive queries
from their constituents on the question of the current
inventory, and perhaps lack of an adequate inventory, of those
very fundamental things that any warrior needs when he or she
goes into the field of combat and make sure that you've tested
this equipment. Do you have any new ideas of how you're going
to approach that?
Dr. McQueary. Sir, I don't have any new ideas. I have had a
short briefing on the helmet issue, so I have some
understanding of what the issue is, but I don't have a proposed
solution today.
I do believe that an important adjunct to the position, the
OT&E position, may be to get more heavily engaged in programs,
particularly those that could affect the lives of our men and
women who are in the Services, even though those programs may
be below the financial threshold that would be set. I would put
that as an item that, if I am confirmed in the position, I'd
put it high on my priority list to seek approval from the
Secretary and Congress that that be included as a part of our
responsibilities.
Chairman Warner. Let me make sure of that. In other words
of that, you want a formal role in testing force production
equipment? That is a formal role.
Dr. McQueary. I think it would be appropriate, yes, sir, at
least for us to have an oversight role to provide inputs to the
Secretary and to Congress as to whether adequate testing has
been done on such equipment.
Chairman Warner. Well, it's not too late for this committee
to look into it in the context of a conference report. Perhaps
I'll ask my staff to confer with you further, and let's see
what we might elect to do in the course of the conference.
Dr. McQueary. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Ms. Payton, the committee is concerned
about the adequacy of senior-level management technical and
functional executives in the civilian workforce, particularly
in the areas of acquisition. As you well know from your own
personal experience, there are many opportunities on the
outside of the Pentagon in which the remuneration and other
benefits are very enticing. Do you think you have enough in the
senior executives to keep pace with the Department's
responsibilities in this acquisition?
Ms. Payton. Thank you very much for that question, Senator
Warner. I know that Secretary Wynne has great concern that the
acquisition workforce needs to be strengthened and it needs to
grow. I have those concerns, as well, and I also, in my opening
statement, remarked that if someone is accountable and
responsible, then they must have the authority to stop
requirements creep, to identify technologies that are not
mature and should not be part of the design. From my building
of teams over the years, I believe what's very important for
our acquisition workforce is to make sure that they have the
structure that will allow them to flourish and that will allow
them to be proud of the job they're doing and be recognized.
So, I very much look forward, if confirmed, to tackling these
issues with the acquisition workforce and to grow a stronger
acquisition workforce.
Chairman Warner. Well, we wish you luck.
Ms. Payton. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. We wish you luck. Because this is an area
in which Senator McCain has devoted a great deal of his time.
My guess is that he will continue that devotion.
Ms. Payton. I very much look forward to that. Luck is a
great thing, but support from Congress and within the
Department will also be very important in this.
Chairman Warner. Now to our two counsels here, Mr. Jimenez
and Mr. Cohen. First, as you reflect on today's hearing and the
questions put and the answers that you provided, the record
will remain open until the close of business today if either of
you wish to supplement your responses. That's true of any of
the witnesses, but particularly these two. I simply tried to
bring some clarification, and I will check the record on that
one point, and provide it to you, as to what those witnesses--
certainly what the record reflects.
So, my question to you is, not unlike the question to the
others, do we have enough young people--or people coming up
through the system in the attorney field to do the work that's
going to be required in your respective jobs, if confirmed?
Now, you can answer that for the record or wait until you get
in to your job. But if you have any current assessment, we'd
like to know, on the committee.
Mr. Jimenez. Mr. Chairman, the Office of Navy General
Counsel has over 600 attorneys in over 100 locations worldwide.
I do believe that that is a sufficient end strength, so to
speak, for the office. I wouldn't recommend any cuts,
necessarily, but I think we do have sufficient staffing at this
time.
Chairman Warner. Good.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding, and
certainly my experience when I was at DOD General Counsel's
Office, that the Army General Counsel and Office of the Judge
Advocates General have sufficient resources, but, as you
mentioned earlier, everything is capable of improvement, and we
certainly need to continue monitoring whether we have the
resources required to deliver legal services to the Army
community.
Chairman Warner. Good. Thank you very much. We want this
committee to give you such support as you need.
Finally, Ms. Blair, in responses you provided to the
committee's policy questions, you indicated that you have
worked with Navy medicine to address challenges in medical
recruiting and retention. It would appear that this problem was
not adequately foreseen and responded to. Give us your
assessment of Navy and Reserve recruiting and retention in
doctors, dentists, and nurses and what steps you might take to
cure any deficiencies.
Ms. Blair. Mr. Chairman, in the Department of the Navy,
Navy Medicine, like the other two Services, has been challenged
by the need for enough highly qualified medical personnel to be
able to meet the demands of the force, and particularly for
Navy medicine, because we have forward operating demands, as
well as the need to provide medical care for families and all
the folks back home. There have been shortages in various
communities. Nurses and dentists strike me as two areas where
we have particular shortages. Most of the efforts to attract
and retain medical personnel have focused on bonuses, whether
they be recruitment bonuses or retention bonuses. Other areas
in which we have offered economic incentives are to provide
assistance with payment of loans, to provide medical
scholarships, and so forth.
I can assure you that these problems have the attention not
only of the medical community, but also of the leadership in
the Department of the Navy, generally. Our Marine Corps is also
involved in this, because they have a big interest here, too.
So, we are proceeding with those----
Chairman Warner. Why don't you address the Air Force, too.
That'll be your specific responsibility?
Ms. Blair. Well, sir, I am obviously a lot less familiar
with the Air Force, but I'm sure that some of the same issues
are probably present over there. I would like to defer any
detailed analysis of the Air Force until I might have a chance
to look into it in detail.
Chairman Warner. Well, I think that's wise.
All right. I thank you. Since we've all talked about our
families, I'm so proud of the fact that my father was a young
Army captain surgeon who fought in World War I in the trenches
and was wounded and cared for thousands of others who,
likewise, bore the wounds of that frightful conflict.
Ms. Blair. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I have always been, as a member of the
committee here, very strong in making sure that the medical
resources of the military department are adequate. I thank you
for your stepping up to your public service.
That concludes the questions I might propound. We'll keep
the record open. I may desire to put a question or two out
before the close of business today, because we've had a very
comprehensive hearing, we've had a lot of witnesses.
Senator Levin, if you have further matters----
Senator Levin. I do. Thank you.
I'd like to just pick up where I left off with the two
lawyers that are up for general counsel positions.
I'd like to ask each of you, what do you believe the policy
is, and should be, if there's any difference, about military
members appearing at partisan events in uniform? There is an
issue that was raised, because a couple of marines appeared in
uniform at a Republican event in Colorado. This led to a number
of newspaper articles. Without getting into facts or details,
just tell us in terms of what the policy is and should be.
Mr. Jimenez. Thank you, Senator Levin. Yes, without
commenting on that incident, since I don't know the details,
there is a DOD policy that covers this issue. I agree with that
policy. It generally prohibits the wearing of uniforms at
partisan events or events in which the appearance of
partisanship might be apparent.
Senator Levin. Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Senator, that's also my understanding of DOD
policy, and it seems entirely appropriate.
Senator Levin. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Laufman, after September 11, the Department of Justice
detained a significant number of foreigners (approximately 900)
inside the United States. Now, these detainees had nothing to
do with the al Qaeda or Taliban detainees which were held at
Guantanamo. These were foreign citizens in the United States
who were detained on the basis of suspected immigration
violations. I want to emphasize that point. None was ever found
to have had any connection with September 11.
Senior Justice Department officials assured Congress that
these detainees were being held in accordance with applicable
law. Michael Chertoff, who was then the Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division, testified, in December 2001,
that, ``Nobody is held incommunicado. We don't hold people in
secret, cut off from lawyers, cut off from the public, cut off
from their families and friends. They have the right to
communicate with the outside world. We don't stop them from
doing that.''
However, the Department of Justice IG subsequently found
that access to counsel was denied to many detainees, sometimes
for prolonged periods. Communications blackouts lasting from
several days to several weeks were imposed on some detainees.
Even when there was no blackout, many detainees were only
allowed one phone call to a lawyer per week.
The IG of the Department of Justice, in reviewing this
matter, found that you, personally, as the chief of staff to
the Deputy Attorney General, played a role in this practice. In
particular, the Department of Justice IG reported that you
called the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and she
stated that you told her that she should not be in a hurry, in
her words, to provide those detainees with access to
communications, including calls to their lawyers and families.
In other words, while senior Department of Justice officials
publicly assured Congress and the American people that the
right to counsel and the right to call your family and so forth
would be protected, according to that IG report, you actively
sought to undermine that stated position.
Was the Department of Justice IG's report fair and accurate
in stating that you made those statements to the Bureau of
Prisons?
Mr. Laufman. I think the IG's report was accurate, but I
think the IG's report also made it clear, both through its
characterization of the statements I made to their
investigators and its reporting of the statements that the
then-BOP Director, Kathy Hawk Sawyer, made, that what we asked
her to do was to evaluate what the legal limit was of her
discretion under the regulations that govern BOP, and to
exercise what unused latitude she might have, particularly in
the days and weeks immediately after September 11, when we were
seeking to stabilize the security situation and were concerned
about another wave of attacks--to circumscribe, to the extent
permissible under law, outside communications by terrorist
detainees who might, for example, be communicating with
confederates outside. We did not get into specific individuals
or cases, but, at all times, we asked Ms. Sawyer--and I don't
think she told the IG to the contrary--that we were only asking
her to exercise that lawful discretion that she had under BOP
regulations. At no time did she express any discomfort to us,
either from a policy or a legal matter, about examining the use
of additional discretion.
Senator Levin. It wasn't a matter of just examining
discretion. According to the IG of the Department of Justice,
you told her not to be in a hurry.
Mr. Laufman. I think we asked her to use that unused----
Senator Levin. Were those your words, though?
Mr. Laufman. I believe they were. It's many years ago, but
I think the spirit of what I and my colleagues asked Ms. Hawks
Sawyer to do, as we were seeking to utilize all Department of
Justice resources in those perilous days after September 11,
was to use what legal discretion we had under the rule of law--
in this case it was BOP regulations--to maximize the security
of the people of this country, consistent with the rule of law.
Senator Levin. Yes. These are alleged immigration
violators, is that correct? Nine hundred, approximately?
Mr. Laufman. We were not having conversations, as I recall
it, with the BOP Director about immigration cases. We were
focused on terrorist detainees, individuals who had been
convicted of terrorism or terrorist-related crimes.
Senator Levin. That's the people you were talking to BOP
about?
Mr. Laufman. Our focus, at that time, was on individuals
who were being held in BOP detention for terrorism-related
offenses.
Senator Levin. How many people were there like that?
Mr. Laufman. I don't know, sir.
Senator Levin. So, when you talked to her, you weren't
referring to the approximately 900 people who were being held
for immigration violations, unconnected to any allegations or
prior convictions of terrorists or terrorist-related offenses.
Mr. Laufman. I don't recall making that distinction. It is
true, though, Senator, that, in some cases, individuals who
were believed to be engaged in terrorist activity were
initially detained on immigration offenses, if there was a
legal basis to do so, until further investigation could be
completed on the terrorism issue.
Senator Levin. But were these the only people you were
referring to when you talked to her?
Mr. Laufman. Our focus was on people who might be posing a
security threat to the United States, yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Has it been the practice of the DOD IG to
consult with the Secretary of Defense about authorizing
investigations within the scope of section 8(b)(1) during the
course of those investigations after they have been initiated
with the Secretary's approval?
Mr. Laufman. Your question is, has it been the practice of
the IG?
Senator Levin. Yes.
Mr. Laufman. I can't speak to what the prior incumbent did.
I could only speak to what my understanding is as to what the
statute would provide, or what good, sound practice would be if
I'm confirmed.
Senator Levin. Is it your understanding, then, that, after
such an investigation has been initiated by the IG, that the IG
then continues to consult with DOD?
Mr. Laufman. You're asking about consultation----
Senator Levin. Just on section 8(b)(1) investigations.
Mr. Laufman. National security related investigations.
Senator Levin. Right.
Mr. Laufman. I think, in that category, Senator, since
Congress explicitly, in the statute, gave the Secretary more
direct control, it probably would be more appropriate for there
to be a greater amount of consultation on those sensitive
matters. But I would go on to say that that consultation should
not go so far as to infringe on the letter or spirit of the
independence that the IG should continue to exercise. But, in
those sensitive areas that Congress delineated, I do think it's
appropriate for there to be some greater interaction between
the IG and the Secretary. What that is will have to be examined
with prudence and care on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Levin. You believe that interaction between the IG
and DOD and those cases continues after the DOD has authorized
the section 8(b)(1) investigation to begin?
Mr. Laufman. If the IG, according to my reading of the
statute, has initiated an investigation into any of those
intelligence- or sensitive-related matters, there may be times
where it is appropriate for the IG to consult some member of
the Secretary's office, or other senior official, as
appropriate, to report on some circumstance that merits their
attention. I don't think it ought to be necessarily a running
dialogue, but it could be that those areas that implicate
operational considerations or other matters that may be
appropriate to bring to the Secretary's attention. It ought not
necessarily affect the actual ultimate findings or
recommendations of the IG, but it does seem to me, given the
way the statute is written, that some greater consultation is
probably appropriate in those areas.
Senator Levin. Do you believe that the IG has a statutory
obligation to consult with the Secretary of Defense regarding
the findings and recommendations of those investigations prior
to issuing a report?
Mr. Laufman. With respect to the national security related
investigations?
Senator Levin. Yes.
Mr. Laufman. I think it is probably a fair reading of the
statute to construe an obligation on the part of the IG to
consult with respect to findings on those matters. Again,
because of the carve-out that Congress created for those
matters, it would seem to be inconsistent not to ask the IG to
provide that measure of communication to senior officials.
Senator Levin. Prior to issuing the report.
Mr. Laufman. Prior to issuing the report. But I would add,
too, that that does not mean that the IG should trim the sails
of any findings or recommendations. It may, in that respect, be
more of an advisory consultation, as opposed to an invitation
to alter findings and recommendations.
Senator Levin. It may not be an invitation to alter it, but
it sure as heck is the opening to have DOD recommend changes in
the report. I'm curious, though, about your statement that
there's an obligation to consult.
Mr. Laufman. Senator, it's my reading of the statute. It's
clear that Congress took a different approach.
Senator Levin. No, I understand that. It is a different
approach on these. But, in terms of obligation--after the
investigation is initiated, that you find that there's an
obligation to consult with DOD prior to issuing findings from
an IG in those areas. That's what your reading of the statute
is?
Mr. Laufman. Based on my reading of the statute, it seems
to me that Congress intended there to be a different kind of
relationship between the IG and the Secretary in those matters
that Congress delineated in the statute. How that is made
operational, I think, is going to depend on the prudence and
judgment of the IG, the particular matter at hand, and whether
the findings or potential recommendations are such as may get
into areas that are of particular proprietary concern to
operational commanders or intelligence issues where some
greater cross-communication is prudent.
Senator Levin. My question, however, is that, in your
answers to our questions, you said there's an obligation in
every report, in those areas, to consult with the Secretary of
Defense before that report is issued, in those section 8(b)(1)
areas.
Mr. Laufman. Well, I don't know if I could say that with
respect to every report. But, from a 30,000-foot view, it does
seem to me, as a general proposition, that the statute--not
explicitly, but this is how I read the statute--places on the
IG an obligation to engage in greater consultation in those
sensitive areas. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Have you had any discussions about this
matter with DOD?
Mr. Laufman. No, sir.
Senator Levin. Or the White House?
Mr. Laufman. No, sir.
Senator Levin. Have you discussed any pending IG
investigation with DOD or the White House?
Mr. Laufman. No, sir.
Senator Levin. Have you talked to the Acting IG about your
view that there is such an obligation to involve the Secretary
of Defense, through consultation, in findings of an IG, after
the IG has been authorized by the Secretary of Defense to
proceed with the investigation?
Mr. Laufman. I've had no conversations with him. I did
transmit my draft answers to the committee's questions, and
received no feedback, as best as I recall, on that issue, at
least none that I recall now.
Senator Levin. Was that answer to the question then
basically that you believe the IG has a statutory obligation to
consult with the Secretary of Defense regarding findings and
recommendations of those investigations prior to issuing a
report? Was that then bounced off the Acting IG?
Mr. Laufman. I think I submitted a written answer,
substantially identical to what you read as part of the package
of answers so I could elicit feedback from the IG's office----
Senator Levin. And received no feedback on that matter?
Mr. Laufman. I don't recall receiving it.
Senator Levin. So, you don't know if that has been the
practice of the current IG or not, or the previous IGs?
Mr. Laufman. I really don't, Senator. All I can do is do my
best as a lawyer to read a statute. As I say, that particular
portion of the IG act seems to be, as a matter of statutory
construction, one that Congress took a different approach in,
and that's the basis for my views today, sir.
Senator Levin. Yes, we did, indeed. It has to do with
authorizing those investigations and making sure that DOD
authorizes any such investigation. But I don't believe it has
been the practice of the IGs to consult with DOD, or to feel
obligated to consult with DOD, relative to those findings
following those investigations, because to do so would be a
real impingement on the independence of the IG. It is these IGs
that we rely upon for independent findings in investigations.
If you're proposing a practice--and I say ``if,'' and I believe
you are--that is different from any that has been followed
before by any IG, I believe that you are, in fact, proposing a
practice which will impinge upon that independence. So, that's
why I am very surprised by your answer. I think it is different
from the prior practice, and I think it represents a departure,
in terms of the independence of the IG.
Mr. Laufman. I appreciate your concern, Senator. I will
say--and I hope it's been made clear through my answers and
opening statement today--that the independence of the IG is
going to be, first and foremost, a guiding principle for me,
and I do not anticipate taking any course of action that
infringes on the actual independence of the IG. If, for
example, I were to consult, if confirmed, with someone in the
Secretary's office, I think it would be appropriate--and I
think I made this clear in my answers--that the nature and
circumstances of those consultations should be memorialized in
a report if they had any bearing whatsoever on findings and
recommendations, so there would be--and I would insist on--a
measure of transparency that would, I think, preserve, in the
committee's view, the confidence that it reposes in the
independence of the IG.
Senator Levin. Do you know about how many section 8(b)(1)
investigations are currently underway at the IG's office?
Mr. Laufman. I do not, sir.
Senator Levin. Ms. Payton, at a committee hearing 2 years
ago, a senior Air Force acquisition official testified that in
the 1990s not only did we go through a very serious
restructuring of our forces in drawdown, but we also went
through a major acquisition reform that took much of the
oversight and took much of the checks and balances out.
Secretary Wynne has attributed some of these problems to the
depletion of the acquisition workforce over the last decade. In
his previous capacity as Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Secretary Wynne told our committee that ``I
believe we're at the point where any further reductions in the
defense acquisition workforce will adversely impact our ability
to successfully execute a growing workload. The numbers are
startling,'' he said. ``The defense acquisition workforce has
been downsized by roughly half since 1990, while the contract
dollars have roughly doubled during the same period. We need to
continue to renew and restore the defense acquisition
workforce. Now, more than ever, I believe we need to increase
the size of the acquisition workforce to handle the growing
workload, especially as retirements increase in the coming
years.''
Do you share Secretary Wynne's concerns about the
acquisition workforce?
Ms. Payton. Senator Levin, I more than share Secretary
Wynne's concern. Any organization that I've ever gone to and
then left has improved, and it will be one of my number-one
goals to look at the acquisition workforce, to look at the
skill levels, to look at the numbers, and to determine the best
way ahead to strengthen our acquisition workforce.
Senator Levin. Thank you. The acquisition of contract
services has been often neglected by senior DOD acquisition
officials who spend a majority of their time on the major
weapons system. As a result, we continue to spend billions of
dollars for contract services without adequate assurance that
we are getting our money's worth. If confirmed, will you make
it a top priority to improve the management of contract
services by the Department of the Air Force?
Ms. Payton. Senator, if confirmed, this will be one of my
top priority items. When I was in industry, I was under a
services' contract. There were milestones to meet. There were
deliverables to meet. I believe that we need to examine this
issue and determine the right way ahead again. If confirmed, it
will be one of my top priorities.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Tobey, last week the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)
issued the Atom Study, reviewing the progress of actions taken
to reduce the possibility that nuclear or radioactive materials
or nuclear weapons would be stolen. Much has been accomplished,
but many of the sites and large quantities of material remain
unsecured. I'd appreciate it if you would share your thoughts
on how we address some of the problems highlighted in that
report. For instance, the report states that two-thirds of the
highly enriched uranium supplied by the United States to
overseas research reactors is still not covered by agreements
to take back the fuel and convert the reactors to safer, lower
enriched uranium fuels. Is it possible to increase the quantity
of highly enriched uranium fuels subject to takeback
agreements? How would you go about that? Are you familiar with
that NTI report?
Mr. Tobey. Yes, Senator, I am familiar with the report.
Senator Levin. Can you just comment, perhaps, on that one
recommendation, and any of the other recommendations that they
made, as to how we can do better, in terms of securing
materials at the many sites that remain unsecured?
Mr. Tobey. Sure. With respect to your specific question, my
understanding is that about two-thirds of material not being
covered by takeback agreements actually resides in France and
Germany, and is, therefore, a lower priority, in terms of our
concerns about its safety and security.
I should say, though, that it's clear that preventing the
spread of nuclear weapons is a complex and vital issue, and I'd
expect there to be criticism and advice with respect to the job
we're doing to deal with the proliferation. It would be my
intention, if confirmed, to try and use that criticism and
advice to improve our efforts. So, I welcome the report. I
intend to talk to the report's authors. I've studied it over
the weekend, as it just came out last week.
I would also note that from my reading of the report, the
three principal recommendations were to: one, launch a global
coalition to prevent nuclear terrorism; two, forge effective
global security standards; and three, accelerate removal of
weapons-usable material. I think, actually, we're doing much of
what was encouraged in the report. For example, the initiative
announced by Presidents Bush and Putin over the weekend, I
think, will do much to accomplish the first two
recommendations.
Senator Levin. I think the chairman has asked you about
that already, and we appreciate that.
Mr. Wilkie, this relates to a pre-hearing policy question
as to an e-mail of more than 75 pages of information your
office sent to a number of congressional offices in connection
with the debate in the Senate on certain amendments relating to
Iraq recently. You said that the Department routinely prepares
position papers and statements of policy for use by Congress.
This was an effort by the Department in the National Security
Council. Are you familiar with that 75-page e-mail?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Was that sent to all the offices?
Mr. Wilkie. The instructions, sir, were to have the
document sent to the communications list that we had in our
office. That means the Republican Policy Committee, the
Democratic Policy Committee, the leadership offices. What
happened within an hour of that e-mail being sent out, the
individual in the office who pushed the button on the computer
started to receive a whole host of administrative errors. We
cleaned up that list, and, within an hour, we not only re-sent
the document to your office, to Ms. Pelosi's office, but we
cleaned up the list. It was a strange list. I don't know how,
to be honest with you, the U.S. Embassy in Belgium ended up on
that communications list, but that was one of the
administrative errors, but the rest of that day, we sent the
document out to anyone who requested it, both in the press and
also any congressional offices that had not received it through
their leadership chain.
Senator Levin. So, the document that I'm referring to was
sent to too broad of a list or an inaccurate list, but the same
document was then sent to our leadership on both sides of the
aisle?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. There were some quotes in that draft that--
where you quoted, I believe, ``only Democrats.'' Are you
familiar with that?
Mr. Wilkie. I know that there were, I think, two pages of
quotes that were placed into that document that quoted members
of the Democratic Party, yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Do you know why it was limited to Democrats?
Mr. Wilkie. I think the authors of the product believed
that those quotes were in support of the position that the
administration took. The talking points that were included in
that document, they were compilations of talking points that
the President, the Secretary, and, I believe, the Vice
President had used. So, those talking points were certainly the
product of the President, the Vice President, and the
Secretary.
Senator Levin. Who were the authors?
Mr. Wilkie. The authors, if you could use that term, sir,
people just collected talking points. The National Security
Council (NSC) provided them. The Department provided them, and
those were put together in that document.
Senator Levin. Not by your office?
Mr. Wilkie. We did collate the documents that were handed
to us by the NSC. We sent it back to the White House and the
NSC, and they sent it back to us for distribution.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin. I think we have
very thoroughly examined this distinguished panel. I compliment
the President and other members of the administration for
working to see that these nominations were brought to
Congress--that is, the Senate, specifically, under the advise
and consent provisions--very expeditiously. It is my hope and
expectation that our committee can act expeditiously on this
panel and seek confirmation of the full Senate prior to the
August recess. We have that as our goal.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, if the record could be kept
open for additional questions, it would be appreciated.
Chairman Warner. I announced earlier we'd keep the record
open through the close of business today. Do you wish a longer
period?
Senator Levin. I think it would be better if perhaps we
kept it open through close of business on Thursday, that would
be good.
Chairman Warner. Fine. We'll try to accommodate the Senator
in that, for some point on Thursday, in the hopes that perhaps
by Thursday afternoon we might address--could we make that,
say, midday Thursday?
Senator Levin. Questions for the record? That would be
fine.
Chairman Warner. Fine. We'll examine those responses to
questions to determine the ability to get those members of the
panel who've complied through and confirmed.
I thank you, and the members of the family who joined us
today, I appreciate your patience. I see some of our littler
guests have departed, but I'll see that they get copies of the
record.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, also let me just thank you.
This is a very large panel, an unusually large panel. Even
though this has been a fairly long hearing, given the number of
nominees, it's due, I think, to your organization and
efficiency that we've been able to get through this many.
Chairman Warner. Senator, it speaks to the good fortune
that you and I have of an excellent professional staff, who, as
you said, work together in a bipartisan way to achieve the
goals of this committee.
This hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Charles E. McQueary by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. I see no need for modifications to any Goldwater-Nichols
Act provision as I understand them.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. N/A
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)?
Answer. I understand that, if confirmed, my duties as DOT&E will be
to serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as to
the conduct of test and evaluation (T&E) within the Department and in
formulating and implementing operational T&E policy. I would also be
required to provide to Congress an annual report summarizing
operational T&E activities, to include comments and recommendations on
operational T&E resources and facilities, levels of funding made
available for operational T&E activities. I would provide Beyond Low
Rate Initial Production reports and respond to specific requests from
Congress for information relating to operational T&E in the Department
of Defense. If confirmed, my duties will include responsibility for
prescribing policies and procedures for the conduct of operational T&E,
providing guidance to and consultation with the Secretary of Defense
and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, and for monitoring and reviewing all operational and live-
fire T&E within the Department. I would also be responsible for
coordinating joint operational testing, review of and recommendations
to the Secretary of Defense on all budgetary and financial matters
relating to operational and live-fire T&E, including test facilities.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. Throughout my private industry career which began in 1966
and spanned 36 years, I have led various technical activities which
involved research, development, test, and manufacture of systems to
support the Department of Defense and other government agencies.
Specifically, I spent 2 years on Kwajalein (1971-1973) as head of
Missile Operations on the Safeguard Antiballistic Missile Program.
Subsequently, I led a group which installed, operated, and provided
training for an undersea surveillance system at an overseas location.
This system successfully passed a Commander, Operational Test and
Evaluation Force evaluation. I have led groups who designed, developed,
and manufactured towed sonars for submarines, fiber optic undersea
surveillance systems, fiber optic communication systems, and signal
processing hardware and software.
In the final 10 years of my career, I had full profit and loss
responsibility for those systems designed and developed by my
organization.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the DOT&E?
Answer. If confirmed, there are several steps I intend to take, to
include becoming familiar with the various programs that DOT&E
oversees, getting involved with the Military Departments' Operational
Test Agencies, getting out to observe operational testing, and
communicating routinely with Congress. I see the upcoming development
of the Director's Annual Report as an opportunity to take many of these
steps.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense will assign to you?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would
look to the Director to carry out duties as assigned by statute and
regulation; in particular, advise and propose policies on all T&E
activities, and funding/management of operational test facilities, test
ranges, and other related issues.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the DOT&E?
Answer. While I am still learning about the challenges that I will
face if confirmed, I have formed some initial opinions. The long war on
terrorism (LWOT) is making resources for adequate OT&E difficult to
come by. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are in general either
deployed into theater or training to return to theater. The Army and
Marines are particularly affected.
The workload on the DOD T&E community has been steadily increasing
without an increase in manning. The Operational Test Agencies are
struggling in general, and DOT&E is also feeling the pinch. Increased
demands stem from: complexity of systems, systems-of-systems testing,
increased emphasis on information assurance and interoperability,
involvement in rapid acquisition to support the LWOT, ACTD evaluations,
joint and multi-service testing, new types of weapons systems (e.g.,
directed energy weapons), etc.
Operational realism incorporated during DT and the open sharing of
DT data during development is essential to understanding system
performance and progress and readiness for OT&E.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. My initial thoughts that I would follow-up on if confirmed
are:
To forge a stronger bond between the test and training communities
so that exercises or events can be phased to support both testing and
training objectives.
To actively engage in the DOD Planning, Programming, and Budget
Execution process to ensure organizations with designated
responsibilities have the resources, including the manning with which
to carry out those responsibilities.
To work with the Defense Acquisition Executive and the Service
Secretaries to promote transparency and sharing of performance data
early during development so OT&E is not perceived as threatening to a
program.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the DOT&E?
My initial thoughts are:
DOT&E and the OTAs are dependent upon the process for generating
and validating requirements that are affordable and that will lead to
``. . . quality products that satisfy user needs with measurable
improvements in mission capability and operational support. . .''
Getting the requirements right and reasonable with a well thought out
rationale is essential for successful development and to demonstrate
performance through adequate OT&E.
Developing acquisition strategies that include adequate OT&E to
support procurement decisions, and, in today's environment, before
decisions to deploy systems into combat is essential to ensure
warfighters receive weapons that are operationally effective, suitable,
survivable, and lethal.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and timelines would
you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to meet with the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC) Chairman, the Military Department Secretaries,
and the DAE to address these issues within 30 days of taking office. I
believe it is imperative that DOT&E participate in the topdown
leadership structure of the Department. Providing advice to the
requirements generation process as well as the development of
acquisition strategies is part of that leadership.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, how will you work with the following: 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 Personnel and Readiness; the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering; the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Networks and Information Integration; the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense; the General Counsel of the Department of
Defense; the Service and agency officials responsible for major
acquisition programs; the Directors of the Services' T&E organizations;
the JROC; and the Director of the Defense Test Resource Management
Center (DTRMC).
Answer. The relationship of the Director with many of these offices
is described or defined in regulation or policy documents. If
confirmed, I intend to develop a rapport with these officials to ensure
the interests of the public and the Department are served and Congress
remains informed.
independence and objectivity
Question. Congress established the position of Defense DOT&E as an
independent and objective evaluator of the performance of major
systems. Report language accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1984 (Public Law 98-94), which was
codified as section 139 of title 10, U.S.C. states that ``the Director
[is] to be independent of other DOD officials below the Secretary of
Defense'' and ``not circumscribed in any way by other officials in
carrying out his duties.'' In describing the Director's duties, the
report also noted an expectation that the Director ``safeguard the
integrity of operational testing and evaluation in general and with
respect to specific major defense acquisition programs.''
Can you assure the committee that, if confirmed, you will be
independent and objective in your evaluations, and that you will
provide your candid assessment of Major Defense Acquisition Programs to
Congress?
Answer. Yes. I strongly believe independence to be crucial to
objective testing and reporting. If confirmed, I intend to be
independent and to provide candid assessments of all oversight programs
to Congress.
Question. In your view, does the DOT&E have the necessary
authorities under sections 139 and 2399 of title 10, U.S.C., and
applicable departmental regulations to carry out the duties prescribed?
Answer. Yes, I believe the statutory authority presently ascribed
to the position of DOT&E is sufficient to allow me to carry out the
duties as director, if confirmed.
Question. Section 2399 of title 10, U.S.C., establishes certain
requirements regarding the impartiality of contractor testing personnel
and contracted for advisory and assistance services utilized with
regard to the T&E of a system.
What is your view of these requirements?
Answer. I believe the key point is that we must test systems in the
realistic environment in which they will be employed with the same
maintenance and logistics structure that will support that system once
fielded. If contractors are specifically intended to be part of that
support structure, their participation in test is appropriate.
Otherwise, their participation is not appropriate. In my view, section
2399 allows the flexibility to properly structure the operational
testing, and properly provides for impartial contracted advisory and
assistance services.
Question. How will you maintain independence from the often
conflicting goals of the acquisition community and the mandates for
necessary operational testing?
Answer. From DODD 5000.1,``The purpose of the acquisition system is
to acquire quality products that satisfy user needs with measurable
improvements to mission capability and operational support, in a timely
manner, and at a reasonable price.'' I support this purpose.
Improvement in mission capability cannot be measured without testing in
relevant operational context. Independence is essential to ensure
objective T&E reporting. The DOT&E authorities and responsibilities for
OT&E and LFT&E, set out in title 10 U.S.C., establish that
independence. I have reviewed DOT&E reports and found them to be fair
and balanced. In the case of the Missile Defense Agency, in which DOT&E
provides advice on DT, I also found the reporting to be unbiased and
credible. If confirmed, I intend to maintain the credibility DOT&E has
established over the years.
test and evaluation funding
Question. In the fiscal year 2007 budget request, the Air Force
reduced T&E activities by nearly $400 million over the Future Years
Defense Program, relative to projected budgets for this activity
presented to Congress with the fiscal year 2006 budget request.
Operating and investment budgets for Major Range and Test Facility
Bases have been historically underfunded.
Do you believe that the Department's T&E function is adequately
funded?
Answer. I am aware of a DSB finding that the T&E process is not
adequately funded and notes that the age of the facilities and
capabilities averages over 35 years, with some over 50 years old.
Service T&E resources investment proportionately reflects the overall
Service budgets. If confirmed, I will look closely at this issue as I
believe that as the complexity of systems under test continues to grow,
so must the investment in new T&E capability.
Question. What are your views about the importance of accurately
projecting future test facility instrumentation requirements and
budgeting for these needs?
Answer. In my view accurately projecting future T&E resources needs
within a program's T&E Master Plan at program inception is absolutely
critical. The discipline required to accurately define these resources
goes a long way to ensuring a program is deemed executable at
inception. Such projection also supports and justifies Service planning
and budgeting for those T&E assets that must be modified or developed
to meet a program's needs years into the future. Reviewing and
assessing program T&E resources plans is a critical part of assessing
the adequacy of testing.
Question. How do you plan to evaluate and improve the operational
testing workforce in DOD especially in light of the growing numbers of
new technologies embedded in weapon systems and the desire to speed the
acquisition and deployment of systems to the battlefield?
Answer. In response to section 234 of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, the Department reported
to Congress on the ``Capabilities of the Test and Evaluation Workforce
of the Department of Defense.'' The report provided an overview of
ongoing efforts to improve personnel management and concluded that a
strategic plan would be developed to address future manpower.
In May 2006, the Department published the initial version of the
AT&L Human Capital Strategic Plan. This plan addresses recruiting,
governing, measuring performance, and improving the knowledge of all
acquisition workforce members, including T&E personnel.
If confirmed, I will examine this effort and follow-up on the
Department's plans.
operational and developmental testing
Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently
reported that the Department's acquisition system incentivizes delayed
operational testing ``because that will keep `bad news' at bay.''
According to GAO, program managers have an incentive to suppress bad
news and continually produce optimistic estimates, because doing
otherwise could result in a loss of support and funding and further
damage their programs.
Do you agree with the GAO finding?
Answer. I am not thoroughly familiar with that report but generally
understand the argument. Acquisition programs compete each year for
continued funding and support. Within the Services, program managers
and resource sponsors vie with others to gain or retain programmed
funds. The process repeats itself many times as the Defense budget is
submitted, reviewed, and approved.
At any point in this process, performance deficiencies identified
in testing are perceived as weakness. The established planning,
programming, and budget system tends to reward perceived ``good news''
and punish ``bad news'' by reducing funding, sometimes to the point of
forcing programs to restructure.
I believe the incentives in the acquisition system could be changed
to value early realistic testing. Such testing strengthens weapon
systems by revealing design flaws and allowing time to correct them
during system development. In my view, incentives could be provided to
foster the discovery of such design flaws early in development. When
system developers realistically test their design, subjecting it to the
stresses expected in combat conditions, they have the opportunity to
improve that design. The most successful weapon system development
programs are those that discover and acknowledge deficiencies early and
commit resources to correct them.
Question. What are your views on the appropriate point in concept
development of a new acquisition program for incorporation of T&E
planning and integration of testing requirements?
Answer. During concept refinement (Pre-Milestone A = Concept
Refinement Phase) the major effort should be to develop a strategy to
evaluate system performance and mission accomplishment. During
technology development (Pre-Milestone B = Technology Development with
Program Initiation at Milestone B) the test-related efforts might
include analysis, modeling, simulation, component, subsystem, and
breadboard testing. During this phase, detailed T&E activities should
be planned, resourced, and documented in a Test and Evaluation Master
Plan (TEMP). The ultimate objective of these activities should be an
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation in a realistic combat
environment and full-up system-level live-fire testing prior to full-
rate production and deployment.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should
take to ensure that testing takes place early enough in the program
cycle to identify and fix problems before it becomes prohibitively
time-consuming and expensive to do so?
Answer. I would strongly support the practice of conducting
rigorous operationally oriented developmental test and robust
operational assessment prior to entering low-rate initial production.
If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize the early involvement of
operational testers and work to ensure that no weapon system is
delivered to the warfighter until it has been subjected to the stresses
of modern combat and objectively evaluated
Question. Acquisition programs continue to complete developmental
testing satisfactorily, but perform poorly on operational testing
suggesting that developmental testing lacks sufficient rigor or realism
to adequately characterize the technical performance of a system under
test.
What are you views on the current relationship between
developmental and operational testing?
Answer. Developmental and operational testing complement each
other. The current DOD relationship is appropriate. Developmental
testing should be the program manager's tool to understand system
performance, discover design flaws, and determine readiness to enter
initial operational T&E. There is evidence that developmental testing
must be more rigorous and realistic, and that deficiencies discovered
in developmental testing should be corrected prior to operational
testing.
Operational testing should determine that a unit equipped with the
system can accomplish its mission and determine if the system is
operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and lethal for combat
use.
Question. When is it appropriate for developmental and operational
testing to be combined?
Answer. The focus of developmental evaluation is engineering and
system technical performance. The focus of operational evaluation
should remain on the ability of a unit equipped with the system to
successfully accomplish combat missions. Often a single test event
might be designed to provide needed information to system engineers and
to operational evaluators. It is appropriate to combine developmental
and operational testing when the objectives of both evaluations can be
met. This may provide shared data at a reduced cost.
I do not believe it is appropriate to combine developmental and
operational testing solely to recover program schedule. I strongly
believe in the value of event-based acquisition program management and
test execution.
The final step in development should be the field test of end-to-
end missions by an operational unit equipped with the system under
realistic combat conditions.
defense acquisition performance assessment
Question. The Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA)
report recommended that laws governing operational testing be modified
to add a new ``operationally acceptable'' test evaluation category and
provide fiscal and time constraints for operational testing.
What is your view of these recommendations?
Answer. My initial review of the DAPA highlights some very good
points, but I do not believe that the provisions governing operational
testng in title 10 need to be changed to incorporate a new category of
``operationally acceptable.'' To me, this new reporting category sounds
like a watered down standard that would be difficult to define and
enforce. ``Operationally acceptable'' implies something less than
operationally effective and suitable for combat.
Question. The DAPA report notes that ``[b]etween fiscal years 2002
and 2005, the T&E workforce grew by over 40 percent while the program
management workforce declined by 5 percent, production engineering
declined by 12 percent, and financial managers declined by 20
percent.''
Do you agree with these DAPA findings on the T&E workforce?
Answer. No, I understand that the DAPA's findings on the T&E
workforce were based upon flawed or incorrect personnel accounting.
Those findings seem to confuse the T&E acquisition career field within
AT&L, which increased by 40 percent, and the T&E workforce (mostly
outside AT&L) that actually decreased by 10 percent. If confirmed, I
intend to look into this issue more closely.
adaptation of t&e to evolving acquisition strategies
Question. A natural tension exists between major program objectives
to reduce cost and schedule and the T&E objective to demonstrate
performance to specifications and requirements. This committee has
received testimony by senior Defense Department leadership indicating
the need to streamline the acquisition process to reduce the fielding
times and cost for new weapons systems and capabilities.
If confirmed, how would you propose to achieve an appropriate
balance between the desire to reduce acquisition cycle times and the
need to perform adequate testing?
Answer. The time to conduct operational testing is only a small
percentage of the overall acquisition cycle time. Delays in entering
operational testing usually are much longer than the timeframe of the
operational test itself. Because the operational tests supporting full
production occur near the end of the acquisition cycle, there is
greater pressure to rush such tests. I feel that the early involvement
of operational testers can contribute to reducing cycle time by
identifying issues early in the development cycle when the problems can
be solved with less impact on the program.
Question. In your view, would a review of T&E processes be useful
in light of evolving acquisition approaches?
Answer. I understand that DOT&E and USD(AT&L) recently commissioned
and received a study by the National Research Council, titled ``Testing
of Defense Systems in an Evolutionary Environment.'' I am in the
process of reviewing the principal findings of that study.
Question. What requirements and criteria would you propose to
ensure an effective test program is established for an evolutionary
acquisition program?
Answer. Evolutionary acquisition requires a time-phased
requirements process with a distinct set of requirements for each
development spiral. The important point is that each spiral should
remain ``event-based,'' as opposed to'' schedule driven.'' Each spiral
can then be operationally tested and evaluated against appropriate
requirements.
Question. Recent equipment problems have brought to light potential
testing deficiencies resulting from programs fielded that fall below
the thresholds established for oversight by the DOT&E. In many cases,
such as with body armor, helmets, vehicle armor kits, and ammunition,
the materiel involved is crucial to the everyday mission effectiveness
and survivability of our military forces.
If confirmed, how would you ensure acquisition and fielding of such
critical equipment is effective, safe, and suitable for our military to
take into combat?
Answer. It is a challenge for DOT&E to become involved in these
programs for several reasons. The smaller programs do not meet the
statutory thresholds that require formal program oversight by DOT&E.
The Service Acquisition Executive manages and executes these
acquisition programs and, in most cases, DOT&E does not even know the
programs exist. DOT&E becomes aware of issues with these systems, such
as with ground vehicle armor, body armor, helmets, and ammunition, when
problems surface internally in the Department or through the media.
Since there is no statutory requirement for DOT&E oversight of these
programs, the Services are reluctant for DOT&E to become involved. In
all these cases, DOT&E leadership has successfully engaged with
Services to conduct a comprehensive review of the issues, and as
required, conduct adequate analyses and/or testing to address the
problems. This presents a challenge to DOT&E because the staff size is
limited to that required for oversight of the Major Defense Acquisition
Programs (MDAP) only. Time the DOT&E staff spends to resolve these
critical issues with the non-MDAP programs, detracts from statutory
oversight of the major programs.
If confirmed, I will work with the Services to continue to address
problems with the smaller programs, as they arise. I will try to
influence the Department to adopt policy that to gives DOT&E formal
insight to any acquisition program that impacts a soldier, sailor,
airmen, or marine's personal effectiveness, safety, and survivability.
Question. What are your views on the testing of systems under
spiral development?
Answer. Systems under spiral development should include as much
operational realism as possible in a robust DT program. Such systems
should also use operational assessments to support decisions to
continue low-rate production. Appropriate LFT&E and end-to-end mission
context OT&E should be completed before a spiral, block, increment,
etc. is deployed and placed in harm's way.
Question. Do you believe that follow-on operational testing should
be required for each program spiral?
Answer. Each program spiral that is to be deployed and placed in
harm's way should be required to complete appropriate LFT&E and OT&E.
In many cases that may be through a follow-on test, as you suggest.
combination of testing with training exercises
Question. Some hold the view that the most representative
operational testing would be to allow operational forces to conduct
training exercises with the system under evaluation.
In your view, should testing be combined with scheduled training
exercises for efficiency and effectiveness?
Answer. I understand that the Department has combined testing and
training events since the 1960s. I favor combined test and training
events in a joint environment when they provide increased test realism,
more realistic friendly and threat forces, and a broader operational
context, but still allow for the necessary collection of data. Large
scale exercises often present an economical way to create such
conditions.
Question. What are the barriers, if any, to doing so?
Answer. On the other hand, I recognize there may be differing
objectives between testing and training. Testing requires the ability
to control events and collect data, which may interfere with
commanders' training objectives. These potential barriers require close
cooperation between the tester and trainer in order to be successful.
This is challenging in today's environment as commanders prepare for
ongoing contingency operations.
suitability performance
Question. A study of acquisition programs from 1985-1990 and 1996-
2000 showed that the percentage of systems meeting reliability
requirements decreased from 41 percent to 20 percent. This trend may be
evidence that the Department, in attempting to field systems more
rapidly, is focusing on effectiveness and treating suitability--to
include reliability, availability, maintainability, and logistics--as
less important. Late last year, the Department developed a guide to
address this concern and to promulgate metrics for reliability,
availability, and maintainability (RAM) of systems.
What are your views about the appropriate balance between the need
for rapid fielding of effective systems and RAM of such systems?
Answer. My firm belief is that we cannot compromise the mission
capability of the force and poor RAM does just that. As a practical
matter, there does not necessarily have to be a trade-off between
mission effectiveness and suitability (RAM) if both are designed for
early in-program development. If confirmed, I will ensure that DOT&E
continues to look for that duel emphasis early in-program development.
``system-of-systems'' testing
Question. Many programs are now developing what is called a
``system-of-systems'' approach.
What inherent challenges exist for operational testing with regard
to DOD programs that are a part of an overall ``system-of-systems''?
Answer. I believe there are significant challenges in conducting
adequate operational T&E of a ``system-of-systems'' or programs that
are a part of an overall ``system-of-systems.'' Some of the inherent
challenges are: size of the unit, size of the threat, size of the test
and test area; complexity of the test and test instrumentation;
differing Service and Joint solutions; interdependence;
interoperability between systems and Services; integration of complex
systems; schedule synchronization; cost of test; and availability of
operational units and opposing forces for test.
Question. How should a ``system-of-systems'' be tested to assess
the effectiveness of the whole?
Answer. I believe the ``system-of-systems'' should be tested end-
to-end as a complete unit, ideally in conjunction with first unit
equipping and training activities.
Question. Complex system integration and related software
development have emerged as the primary risks to major defense program
development.
If confirmed, how would you propose to assess the effectiveness of
and, if necessary, improve the force's methodology for verification and
validation of these extremely large, intensive computer programs which
are so critical to the performance of today's weapon systems?
Answer. The testing and assessment of complex software programs
should be based on the same principles that we use for any weapon
system--realistic, rigorous, and robust testing focused on the missions
and tasks the software supports; used by the soldiers, sailors, airmen,
marines, and DOD civilians as they will operate with it in the field or
in their daily work environment. To do so, the Department must have the
right tools available to create the complex, joint environment in which
they often operate. If confirmed, I would urge Congress and the
Department to support the development of a test environment as outlined
in the testing in the Joint Environment Roadmap developed under Tom
Christie's watch.
In addition, if confirmed I would work closely with the Services
and Joint Forces Command to develop the means to combine testing with
training events. Major training events bring large numbers of forces
and organizations together in a way that can rarely be duplicated for a
single operational test event--creating that complex, stressful
environment needed by these programs.
Our growing reliance on complex software and information
technologies for net-centric warfare creates a natural vulnerability to
cyberthreats. If confirmed, I will transition the success DOT&E has had
in assessing the information assurance posture for the combatant
commanders to operational testing of systems during acquisition.
Finally, if confirmed, I would stress the need for intense systems
engineering and developmental testing prior to moving into operational
testing. The Department has many hard lessons learned (and relearned)--
if the time isn't taken upfront to engineer the software and it isn't
exercised in an operationally realistic architecture in a lab
environment, then there is a high probability it will not work in the
field. Testing of these complex systems must be event driven--and not
schedule driven.
t&e facilities and instrumentation
Question. Concern over long-term support for and viability of the
Department's test ranges and facilities led to creation of the DTRMC in
2002 and a requirement for direct research, development, and T&E
support of facilities.
In your view, how are these changes working to address funding and
sustainability concerns at the department's test ranges and bases?
Answer. I understand the Department revised its financial
regulations in fiscal year 2005 as they pertain to the test
infrastructure. This resulted in a realignment of funding to support
the Major Range and Test Facility Base in an amount of approximately
$600 million per year. The effects of such a significant redistribution
in Department funding will take time to assess. If confirmed, I will
continue to work with the DTRMC to ensure that the Department's
investment strategy for test and evaluation is adequate to meet future
needs.
Question. Is the Department developing adequate test targets,
particularly aerial targets, and ranges to represent emerging threats
and environments?
Answer. A 2005 Defense Science Board Study said that threat
realistic aerial targets, in sufficient quantities, are critical to
assessing the effectiveness of weapons and sensor systems. The DTRMC
reinforced this position by establishing Full-scale Aerial targets and
Supersonic Sea-skimming Missile targets as two of their four Critical
Interest Items within the Strategic Plan for Defense Test Resources.
These targets, and their control systems, have historically had
difficulty competing in Service budget deliberations. If confirmed, I
will closely monitor the approach that the Services take to these
critical interest items during the certification of Service T&E
budgets.
Question. How can training and testing ranges be used more jointly
and efficiently?
Answer. Consistent with the Secretary identifying the
implementation of joint test, training, and experimentation as one of
his key priorities for fiscal year 2008, I know that DOT&E has an
established liaison with Joint Forces Command to more efficiently
integrate joint testing and training. I recognize this is an important
issue and, if confirmed, will pursue steps to efficiently integrate
testing and training.
advanced concept technology demonstrations
Question. Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD), to
include, the new Joint Concept Technology Demonstrations, are one
mechanism by which the Department rapidly transitions promising
technology into the hands of the operational forces.
How do you view the role of operational T&E in the execution of
ACTDs, especially for those demonstrations where the system is to be
fielded operationally upon completion of the ACTD?
Answer. I believe that it is a leadership responsibility to ensure
that all systems deployed for combat work. If confirmed, I will work
with the Services and their OTAs to ensure that ACTD systems being
considered for deployment receive some type of operational assessment
prior to their employment so that commanders completely understand
those systems' capabilities and limitations.
live-fire testing
Question. The live-fire testing program is a statutory requirement
to assess the vulnerability and survivability of platforms, while also
assessing the lethality of weapons against the required target sets.
Do you believe that the Department's current live-fire testing
program is accomplishing its purpose?
Answer. Yes. The Abrams Tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the
M109 Howitzer Family, the F18E/F fighter aircraft, the Apache and
Blackhawk helicopters, and more recently the Stryker family of
vehicles, are all outstanding examples where the live-fire program
directly affected the system design and improved both system and crew
survivability.
Question. How would you propose to overcome limitations that the
live-fire testing program suffers due to shortages in threat-
representative targets?
Answer. This question addresses two areas--weapon system live-fire
lethality (section 2366) and operational end-to-end weapon
effectiveness testing against threat systems, also referred to as
``live-fire testing.''
The shortage of high fidelity threat representative targets does
not have a significant impact on characterizing munitions lethality.
Much of this testing is at the warhead level in the laboratory or
controlled test environment where there are adequate threat or threat
surrogate targets, test methodology, and analytical tools to
characterize warhead lethality.
The need for high fidelity threat representative targets is crucial
for the operational end-to-end weapon effectiveness testing--especially
in a joint environment where various weapon and sensor platforms using
a variety of technologies have to detect, acquire, track, and
successfully engage threat targets. The Department needs to have an
integrated DOD approach to the target problem. In the near-term, the
Department should identify and fund innovative initiatives to improve
the threat representation of the existing target suite. For the longer-
term, the Department should focus on the recent recommendations from
the Defense Science Board to acquire threat representative supersonic
missile targets and establish a replacement program for the aging QF-4
fixed-wing aircraft target. If confirmed, this will be a high priority
issue for me.
modeling and simulation
Question. Advances in modeling and simulation (M&S) have provided
an opportunity to streamline the testing process, saving time and
expense.
What do you believe to be the proper balance between modeling and
simulation and actual testing of the developed product?
Answer. It is appropriate to use models to support core T&E
processes. For example, M&S can be used to effectively predict results
of tests to be conducted. It can be used effectively to produce a full
parametric evaluation of system performance where actual parametric
testing may be too expensive. Models can also help the Department
design tests to maximize learning and optimally apply resources. Still,
M&S is a complement, not a replacement, for operational testing.
Question. How is the amount of this actual testing determined to
ensure reliability and maintainability thresholds are met with
sufficient statistical confidence?
Answer. The amount of actual testing required to validate RAM
thresholds would vary from program to program. In terms of using M&S to
support that process, it would seem to me that program managers who
make an early commitment to integrate the use of models as tools to
support learning and to gain insight and understanding throughout the
life cycle of a program would be much better positioned to be
successful than those who try to use models late in the life of a
program as a means to respond to resource or schedule constraints.
Question. Can T&E modeling and simulation be integrated with
exercise simulation?
Answer. Again, T&E modeling and simulation can help represent the
environment during test to realistically stress the system under test.
M&S should complement, not replace, actual testing.
t&e science and technology
Question. The Department's T&E science and technology (S&T) effort
now falls under the jurisdiction of the Director of the Major Test
Resource Management Center.
What are your views on the appropriate level of investment in the
S&T of testing?
Answer. Given my background, I believe strongly in a robust S&T
effort. If confirmed, I look forward to investigating means by which we
can apply technology to enhance our T&E capabilities.
Question. What mechanisms will you employ to ensure the S&T
portfolio is responsive to the department's future test instrumentation
needs?
Answer. I look forward to working with the USD(AT&L) and his
subordinate organizations to shape the S&T portfolio to best suit the
Department's instrumentation needs, if confirmed. I am particularly
interested in examining the use of embedded instrumentation that can be
used by testers, trainers, and operator-maintainers.
operational test agencies
Question. Operational Test Agencies (OTA) are tasked with
conducting independent operational testing and evaluation of
acquisition programs. Recent demands on these organizations have
increased to meet rapid acquisition initiatives, to demonstrate joint
and advanced concept technology programs, and to evaluate information
assurance, information operations, and joint T&E requirements.
In your view, are these agencies sufficiently staffed to perform
the required functions?
Answer. The OTA staffs appear to be stretched thin by added test
types and events, such as demonstrations of rapid acquisition
initiatives; demonstrations of ACTDs; and evaluations of Information
Assurance, Information Operations, and Joint T&Es. If confirmed, I
intend to look into manning issues to ensure there is adequate military
operational experience in the OTAs without inappropriate reliance upon
contractor support.
I have also been made aware of the potential adverse impact on the
Army T&E Command of their impending relocation. If confirmed, I will
monitor that situation closely as they may suffer a loss of experienced
personnel and loss of continuity just as they will be involved in the
testing of the very complex Future Combat System (FCS).
Question. How would you propose to arbitrate shortfalls between
program managers' limited funding and OTAs independent test
requirements?
Answer. Title 10 and DOD Directives require DOT&E to assess the
adequacy of operational testing. Service leadership retains the
responsibility to ensure programs are managed to meet testing
requirements. If confirmed, I will ensure the DOT&E staff continues to
facilitate dialogue between program stakeholders.
Question. Do you have any concerns about the independence of the
OTAs?
Answer. Yes, I am concerned that there will always be pressures on
the OTA Commanders to support component acquisition strategies. I think
that it is important that they continue to report to the top level of
their respective components, independent of the acquisition
organizations.
Question. Should policies and procedures of the OTAs be
standardized?
Answer. Each of the component OTAs has unique processes for the
conduct of OT&E. As long as these processes lead to a robust
operational T&E of all acquisitions, I believe DOT&E does not need to
dictate standard processes that may limit component flexibility. I do,
however, believe the capability to develop, test, train, and experiment
complex systems in a joint operational environment needs improvement.
The ``Testing in a Joint Environment Roadmap,'' approved in November
2004, defines capabilities in common, measurable, warfighting terms. I
look forward to advancing the objectives identified in the roadmap, if
confirmed.
information assurance
Question. Recent defense authorization legislation provided the
DOT&E with oversight responsibility for information assurance (IA)
evaluations of fielded systems. There has reportedly been an increased
focus on IA as an evaluation issue for systems on the operational T&E
oversight list and a group of acquisition programs have been identified
for an expanded review of the adequacy of IA evaluation planning.
Does the operational T&E component of the Department possess
adequate expertise, staffing, and funding to carry out its IA
responsibilities?
Answer. The IA community, both in DOD as well as industry, has for
many years been relatively small, but has experienced considerable
growth in the past few years. At present, DOD appears to possess
adequate expertise within the traditional cryptologic and
communications professional fields, but may need increased staffing and
funding to address all of the systems and areas where IA has become
critical. In multiple assessments, it has been observed that the
network support personnel are frequently over-tasked in what is a
growing technical discipline. The OTAs are not currently manned to
address all of the areas of concern. If confirmed, I will support
efforts to provide additional resources to the OTAs for hiring,
training, and fielding IA experts to test, assess, and validate the
readiness of network systems for operations. Additionally, if
confirmed, I will continue the work of my predecessor, Tom Christie, in
revising the IA acquisition policy to ensure that IA is addressed in
all operational testing for systems in which the secure exchange of
information is integral to mission success.
Question. What is the status of the recommendation that IA should
become an exercise objective wherever information is critical to
mission accomplishment?
Answer. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has provided direction to
the combatant commanders requiring that IA be addressed in every major
combatant command exercise by fiscal year 2007 (and in half of all
fiscal year 2006 exercises). The combatant commanders have dramatically
increased the focus on IA in recent years, and the inclusion of
training objectives specifically addressing networks, network security,
and network personnel has become more common. If confirmed, I will
continue to work closely with the combatant commanders, the National
Security Agency, the Joint Staff, and the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Networks, Intelligence, and Integration (ASD-NII) to
increase attention on IA, improve the way it is assessed, and provide
the operational commanders with the information they need.
ballistic missile defense
Question. The United States is developing a Ballistic Missile
Defense System (BMDS) that is intended to defeat ballistic missiles of
all ranges, in all phases of flight, to defend the United States, its
allies, and friends with a very high degree of confidence.
Can you assure the committee that, if confirmed, you will ensure
that adequate operational testing and evaluation is conducted of the
BMDS, and that you will make a determination of whether the system and
its elements that are tested are effective and suitable for combat?
Answer. DOT&E provides an annual report and a BMDS Block assessment
report to Congress. If confirmed, I will assess BMDS system operational
effectiveness and suitability as well as test adequacy in these
reports.
Question. If you determine that such operational testing and
evaluation does not demonstrate that the BMDS or its elements are
effective and suitable for combat, will you inform Congress of that
determination?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will provide my assessment on test
adequacy and BMDS and element effectiveness and suitability in the
annual reports to Congress.
Question. According to title 10, U.S.C., major defense acquisition
programs are required to complete initial operational T&E before
proceeding beyond low-rate initial production. This is to ensure that
weapons systems work effectively before they are produced in large
numbers and at great expense. The Defense Department has exempted the
BMDS from this requirement, saying that there will be only one BMDS,
and thus no question of proceeding beyond low-rate initial production.
What do you believe is the appropriate role for the office of the
DOT&E in providing an independent and objective assessment of the
operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the BMDS?
Answer. I believe there should be adequate operational testing of
any element to demonstrate its capability before it is fielded as an
operational system. Where there are urgent requirements to rapidly
deploy an element, testing should be conducted to confirm it is safe to
operate and to characterize its performance capability to address the
urgent requirement. After the urgency subsides, operational testing and
assessment should continue to ensure the system is effective, suitable,
and survivable for its intended mission.
Question. Concerning the BMDS, the 2005 DOT&E Annual Report states:
``As reported last year, there is insufficient evidence to support a
confident assessment of Limited Defensive Operations or Block 04
capabilities.''
Do you believe it is essential to conduct operationally realistic
testing of the BMDS to characterize its operational capability and
assess whether it is operationally effective, and suitable for combat?
Answer. Yes. I believe operational testing should be conducted on
the BMDS to characterize its operational capability and to demonstrate
its effectiveness, suitability, and survivability.
Question. Concerning the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
system, the 2005 DOT&E Annual Report notes that the ``lack of flight
test validation data for the simulations that support the ground
testing limits confidence in assessments of defensive capabilities,''
that ``robust testing is limited by the immaturity of some
components,'' and that ``flight tests still lack operational realism.''
The last five attempted intercept tests with the GMD system have
resulted in failures.
Do you support robust, operationally realistic testing and
disciplined operational T&E of the GMD system as necessary steps to
properly demonstrate the system's capabilities and to assess its
operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability?
Answer. Yes. I believe there should be adequate, robust,
operationally-realistic testing of GMD to demonstrate its capability.
Where there are urgent requirements to rapidly deploy an element,
testing should be conducted to confirm it is safe to operate and to
characterize its performance capability to address the urgent
requirement. After the urgency subsides, operational testing and
assessment should continue to ensure the system is effective, suitable,
and survivable for its intended mission.
Question. In 2005, the Mission Readiness Task Force (MRTF) examined
problems with the GMD testing program, found numerous problems, and
recommended a number of corrective actions, which the Defense
Department has adopted.
Do you support the MRTF findings and recommendations as appropriate
and prudent steps to return the GMD program to successful flight
testing?
Answer. Yes. The MRTF review was thorough and sobering. The review
findings are a reminder that the GMD program is still in development.
The MDA Director embraced the results and has taken actions to
implement the recommendations. The slow down in the GMD test program is
a direct result of his prudent philosophy of ``test-analyze-fix-test''
which has proven to be the correct approach as demonstrated by recent
successes in the Aegis BMD, THAAD, and even the GMD programs.
ground-based midcourse defense
Question. The Senate-passed version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 includes an increase of $45
million to improve the ability of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to
conduct concurrent test and operations of the GMD system and to improve
the pace of flight testing.
Do you support the establishment of procedures and infrastructure
to support combined operations and robust testing?
Answer. The capability to test and train on the operational
configured BMDS as it evolves is critical to ensuring the
effectiveness, suitability, and readiness of the integrated fielded
capability. MDA should develop and employ a concurrent test and
operations capability for the full BMDS. The concept would be similar
to that used for the Cheyenne Mountain Upgrade Program for training and
testing the ``on-line'' Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack
Assessment mission capability. The solution should allow MDA to conduct
robust end-to-end testing of the fully-integrated operational system,
including flight test interceptors, sensors, and launch equipment using
warfighters and operational tactics, techniques, and procedures, while
the combatant commanders maintain an on-alert posture for the BMDS.
Question. Do you believe the pace of GMD flight testing can
reasonably be accelerated?
Answer. The 1998 Welch Report on Reducing Risk in Ballistic Missile
Defense Flight Test Programs concluded that schedules can be more
aggressive, but only if justified by processes or approaches that
support shorter development times. Accelerating schedules by simply
accepting more risk carries a high risk of failure. Accelerating the
GMD flight test schedule would add significant risk to the program. The
program needs adequate time to accomplish the structured ground and
flight test program currently planned. Recent intercept successes with
Theater High-Altitude Area Defense and Aegis proves that MDA's current
engineering, development, and test-analyze-fix-test philosophy is
successfully maturing the elements. The MDA is finding and fixing
problems that are only surfacing due to its test-analyze-fix-test
initiatives. MDA is allocating time between the conduct of ground and
flight tests to analyze data, and to find and fix design and
manufacturing problems that surface from the previous tests.
Accelerating flight-testing would reduce this critical time and limit
the MDA's opportunities to find and fix problems that surfaced from the
previous test. History shows that program timelines are shortened when
all the essential steps are done right the first time. The MDA's test-
analyze-fix-test philosophy reduces the potential for the ``rush to
failure'' result highlighted in the Welch Report. MDA appears to be
working hard to get it right this time--on its own schedule.
Question. What missile defense lessons do you expect the
operational test and evaluation community to learn from the North
Korean flight test of short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic
missiles in July 2006?
Answer. I am uncertain about what we might be able to learn from
these recent events. These firings occurred just days ago. It will take
time to analyze the data that our intelligence assets were able to
collect. The data may be limited due to the extremely short duration of
the ballistic missile's flight prior to failure. I am advised that any
relevant lessons-learned from these events will be addressed as part of
the February 2007 BMDS Report.
Question. On April 4, 2006, the Acting DOT&E, David Duma, testified
before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee that ``with the current
program and test events scheduled, it's very likely that the [GMD]
system will demonstrate ultimately that it is effective.''
Do you concur with this assessment, based upon your initial review
of the GMD system?
Answer. Yes. Based on the reports I have seen and the briefings I
have been given, I believe the GMD element is on a growth path towards
maturity. However, I am not sure that there is sufficient test data to
establish where the system is on the maturity growth curve. Future
testing will ultimately demonstrate whether the system is effective and
suitable.
environmental issues
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004 included provisions that were intended to add flexibility to the
Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to
ensure the ability to conduct realistic military testing and training.
What has the DOD experience been conducting test operations under
these more flexible provisions?
Answer. Since enactment of the amendments, I understand that the
Department has been able to conduct its test operations adequately
while making compensating adjustments to address environmental issues
when necessary.
Question. What type of testing has the Department been able to
conduct and what type of encroachment concerns on military testing have
been avoided as a result of these provisions?
Answer. The provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2004 certainly provide the Department overall with
greater flexibility to conduct its programs that address military
readiness. Consequently, I believe that the act's provisions
effectively contribute to the accomplishment of adequate testing for
the Department's acquisition programs.
Question. The Secretary of Defense, after conferring with the
Secretary of Commerce, recently invoked the national security exemption
to the MMPA for a period of 6 months. During the same week, the Navy
settled a lawsuit brought by the National Resources Defense Council
that challenged Navy and Commerce Department compliance with the MMPA
which sought to halt the Navy's Rim of the Pacific exercise near
Hawaii.
How do you envision these developments impacting military T&E of
sonar and other technologies that involve the marine environment?
Answer. While I cannot speak to the terms of the litigation
settlement reached between the Navy and the National Resources Defense
Council, I believe the exemption is an essential element in the
statutory framework that supports departmental test programs and its
judicious use will foster test adequacy.
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.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to
appear before this committee and other appropriate committees of
Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the DOT&E?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
testing of force protection technologies
1. Senator Reed. Dr. McQueary, at the hearing, you and Chairman
Warner engaged in a discussion relating to the Director's role in the
development and deployment of helmets and other force protection
technologies. What role specifically do you think the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) should play in the development
and deployment of force protection technologies?
Dr. McQueary. Since force protection equipment directly impacts the
survivability and well being of our military personnel, I believe the
Director should have similar oversight authority for these programs as
for the major defense acquisition programs. Typically, the budget and
program offices for these type programs are much smaller and require
less organizational infrastructure than the major acquisition programs.
I believe that DOT&E should not create unnecessary additional
bureaucracy for these programs, but should oversee the programs to
ensure the Services appropriately define operational survivability
requirements and then plan, execute, and report on adequate testing to
demonstrate the equipment or technology performs as intended.
2. Senator Reed. Dr. McQueary, in your answers to pre-hearing
policy questions on Ballistic Missile Defense, you stated that you
believe ``there should be adequate operational testing of any [missile
defense] element to demonstrate its capability before it is fielded as
an operational system.'' Of course, that is the practice with all other
major defense acquisition programs, except missile defense. You also
state that in cases where there are ``urgent requirements to rapidly
deploy'' a missile defense system, ``testing should be conducted to
confirm it is safe to operate and to characterize its performance
capability to address the urgent requirement.'' Do you believe that
testing has already been conducted on the Ground-Based Midcourse
Defense (GMD) system to ``characterize its performance capability,'' or
that such testing remains to be conducted on this system that has been
deployed since 2004?
Dr. McQueary. My knowledge of the GMD system test program is
limited to what I have read in the media and the DOT&E reports while
preparing for this hearing. Based on those reports, I believe the
deployed GMD system is not fully characterized at this time and must
yet demonstrate that it can reliably and repeatably detect, acquire,
track, and intercept threat ballistic missiles in an operationally
realistic end-to-end engagement scenario.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
acquisition incentives
3. Senator Akaka. Dr. McQueary, in your written testimony, you note
that you believe that incentives in the acquisition system could be
changed to value early realistic testing and that incentives could be
provided to foster the discovery of such design flaws. Yet, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified the Department of
Defense's (DOD) use of incentive and award fees as a ``longstanding
business management challenge'' for the DOD. Given that the GAO has
found that awarding incentives has not produced the desired results
and, in fact, can undermine performance, in what ways do you believe
that adding another layer of incentives will improve program success?
Dr. McQueary. When I said that incentives in our acquisition system
could be changed to value early realistic testing, I did not mean to
imply that the incentives should necessarily be fees. I believe that
Congress has provided an excellent set of incentives in the new
language on acquisition in section 801 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. That language specifies that an
acquisition program may not receive Milestone B approval until the
milestone decision authority certifies that, among other things. . .
1. . . . the technology in the program has been demonstrated
in a relevant environment;
2. . . . the program demonstrates a high likelihood of
accomplishing its intended mission.
It seems to me that this language provides a great incentive for
early realistic testing. The results are also highly visible: the
certification is to be submitted to the congressional defense
committees.
With respect to the GAO report, I believe they recommended DOD
improve the use of fees, not that DOD abandon them. The GAO
recommendations were directed to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
______
[The nomination reference of Charles E. McQueary follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 29, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Charles E. McQueary, of North Carolina, to be Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense, vice Thomas P.
Christie, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Charles E. McQueary, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Charles E. McQueary
Dr. McQueary was nominated by President Bush to fill the position
of the Department of Defense, Director Operational Test and Evaluation
on June 30, 2006. His career spans nearly 40 years of public and
private sector service in the science, technology, research and
development fields. His public service includes the honor of serving as
the Nation's first Under Secretary for Science and Technology in the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Over the past 3 years, his
efforts at DHS have led to significant technical advancements in our
country's ability to combat terrorism at home and abroad.
In 1997, Dr. McQueary joined General Dynamics Corporation, as
President of General Dynamics Advanced Technology Systems where he led
all aspects of business operations and strategy in one of America's
premier defense contractors. From 1987 to 1997, he served as President
and Vice President of AT&T/Lucent Technologies. Dr. McQueary also held
executive leadership positions with AT&T Bell Laboratories from 1966 to
1997.
A native of Gordon, Texas, Dr. McQueary is a graduate of the
University of Texas, Austin where he earned a B.S. Degree in Mechanical
Engineering; M.S. Degree in Mechanical Engineering; and a Ph.D. in
Engineering Mechanics as a NASA Scholar (M.S. & Ph.D.) and member of
five Academic Honor Societies.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Charles E.
McQueary in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Charles Everette McQueary; nickname: Chuck.
2. Position to which nominated:
U.S. Department of Defense Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation.
3. Date of nomination:
June 29, 2006.
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 1, 1939; Gordon, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Cheryl McQueary (nee Bath).
7. Names and ages of children:
Joanna Lea Gossett (nee McQueary), 43.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of Texas, Austin--Ph.D., Engineering Mechanics, 1966.
University of Texas, Austin--M.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1964.
University of Texas, Austin--B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1962.
Gordon High School, Gordon, Texas--Diploma, 1958.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Senior Executive Service, LT, U.S. Department of Defense,
Washington, DC, April 2006-present.
Under Secretary, Science & Technology Directorate, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, March 2003-March 2006.
President, Advanced Technology Systems, General Dynamics,
Greensboro, NC, October 1997-December 2002.
President, Advanced Technology Systems, Lucent Technologies,
Greensboro, NC, 1995-September 1997.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Life Member, Phi Eta Sigma (scholarly organization).
Life Member, Tau Beta Pi (scholarly organization).
Life Member, Phi Kappa Phi (scholarly organization).
Honorary Member, Sigma Xi (scholarly organization).
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.
Senator Elizabeth Dole--$2,000.
The Honorable Asa Hutchinson--$500.
Republican National Committee--$2,000.
Re-elect Mike Barber--$100.
Justice Butterfield--$250.
Kay Hagen--$200.
Sixth District Republican Party--$250.
Boyd for Congress--$100.
Britt for Congress--$100.
General Dynamics PAC Contributions--$1,200 estimate.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Academic Fraternities: Phi Eta Sigma, Pi Tau Sigma, Tau Beta Pi,
Phi Kappa Phi, Sigma Xi; Tau Beta Pi Outstanding Senior Engineer;
Distinguished Engineering Graduate of the University of Texas at Austin
(1997); NASA Scholarship; NDIA Homeland Security Leadership Award.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Nonlinear Periodic Modes of Oscillation of Elastic Continua
(Technical paper, 1968).
Oscillations of a Circular Membrane on a Nonlinear Elastic
Foundation (Technical paper, 1967).
Bessel-Function Integrals Needed for Two Classes of Physical
Problems (Technical paper, 1967).
Periodic Oscillations of a Class of Non-Autonomous Nonlinear
Elastic Continua (Technical paper, 1967).
The SPARTAN Missile--A Major Component of the Sentinel System
(Technical paper, 1968).
Recipe for Success in Defense Industry: ``Acquire or Be Acquired''
(National Defense article, October 1998).
Industry Interview (Military Information Technology, Vol. 4, Issue
5).
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. I gave approximately 150 speeches in 3 years in my position
at the Department of Homeland Security.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Charles E. McQueary.
This 10th day of July, 2006.
[The nomination of Charles E. McQueary was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on July 20, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 21, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Anita K. Blair by Chairman
Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. After 20 years, and especially after September 11 and its
aftermath, it is only prudent to review our basic assumptions about how
best to organize and operate in the context of today's national
security mission.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act has proven immensely valuable to
the Department of Defense (DOD), especially in establishing the
conditions for success of joint military operations. National security
needs today demand close cooperation and coordination between military
and civilian operations. The Goldwater-Nichols Act provides a
successful model for improving military-civilian jointness, both within
the DOD and involving interagency, intergovernmental, nongovernmental,
and contractor activities. Similarly, to sustain the success of the
All-Volunteer Force, I believe it is worthwhile to review the way we
manage our military personnel, including compensation, assignment,
development, and force integration policies.
duties
Question. Section 8016 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs
shall have the principal duty of ``overall supervision of manpower and
Reserve component affairs of the Department of the Air Force.''
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that
Secretary Wynne will assign to you?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to being part of Secretary
Wynne's management team, and I expect that he will assign me duties
consistent with the title 10 requirements for this position.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:
The Secretary of the Air Force
The Under Secretary of the Air Force
The General Counsel of the Air Force
Answer. The Secretary is the head of the Department of the Air
Force. Along with the Under Secretary, the General Counsel and other
Assistant Secretaries, I will, if confirmed, report to the Secretary
and perform duties as he assigns.
Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:
The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness
The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs
Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
is the representative of the Secretary of Defense for matters
concerning those areas. The Principal Deputy and the Assistant
Secretaries for Reserve Affairs and Health Affairs report to the Under
Secretary. If confirmed, I will collaborate and cooperate with these
officials and their staffs.
Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:
The Chief of Staff of the Air Force
The Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for
Personnel
The Surgeon General of the Air Force
Answer. The Chief of Staff presides over the Air Force staff,
delivers plans and recommendations of the Air Staff to the Secretary,
and upon the Secretary's approval, acts as his agent for carrying them
into effect. He is assisted by deputies, including the Surgeon General,
who is the chief for Air Force medical matters. If confirmed, I will
work on behalf of the Secretary to coordinate policies and proposals
with the appropriate members of the Air Staff. The Air Force Chief of
Staff is also a member of the Joint Chiefs and has other operational
duties, including keeping the Secretary fully informed of significant
operations affecting the Secretary's duties and responsibilities.
Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:
The Chief, National Guard Bureau
The Chief, Air National Guard
The Chief, Air Force Reserve
Answer. The Chief, National Guard Bureau is the principal adviser
to the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff, and to the
Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff, on matters
relating to the National Guard, the Army National Guard of the United
States, and the Air National Guard of the United States. The Chief, Air
National Guard heads the air portion of the National Guard. The Chief,
Air Force Reserve is the head of the Reserve component of the Air
Force. If confirmed, I will work closely with these officials to
provide good policies and effective oversight of the Guard and Reserve
on manpower and personnel matters.
Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:
Airmen and their families
Airmen and their families are the reason why there is an Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs--an
official dedicated to ensuring that the people who serve and make
sacrifices on behalf of their country are properly treated and cared
for. If confirmed, I will strive to be their most vigilant guardian and
humble servant.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you have that you
believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer. I am humbled and honored to be considered for the position
of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs. My most relevant background and experience is the past 5 years
I have served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Military
Personnel Policy, responsible for policy and oversight relating to
manpower and personnel matters affecting Navy and Marine Corps Active-
Duty servicemembers and their families. Major issues have included
recruiting and retention; training and education; Active-Duty strength
and compensation; character, leadership development and diversity/equal
opportunity; health affairs; counterdrug programs; family support; and
morale, welfare, and recreation. In February 2005, I accepted
additional duties as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Total
Force Transformation, leading efforts to modernize the management of
the Department's total force of Active-Duty, Reserve, civilian, and
contractor personnel. Since August 2001, I have also had the
opportunity to observe and learn from both civilian and military
leadership, not only in the realm of manpower and Reserve affairs, but
across a range of DOD activities.
Before joining DOD in 2001, I practiced law for about 20 years,
initially concentrating in corporate law and litigation and later, as a
nonprofit organization leader, focusing on constitutional equal
protection and individual rights issues. In prior public service, I
served on the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) Board of Visitors from
1995 to 2001, and chaired the Board's committee overseeing the
successful assimilation of women at VMI. In 1998-1999, I was chairman
of the Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related
Issues, which was established in the aftermath of a string of scandals
in the mid-1990s involving sexual misconduct in the military.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform the duties of the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the Air
Force, its mission, and its people so that I can improve my ability to
perform my duties.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges and problems
confronting the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs?
Answer. People are our most valuable asset. Even if we have the
most advanced technology and hardware in the world, if we do not have
good people, we cannot accomplish our mission. The enduring challenge
is to attract, retain, and manage people in such a way that both they
and the institution can succeed and thrive.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with others--in the
Air Force, in DOD, Congress, and beyond--to apply the best knowledge
and experience toward solving and overcoming these challenges.
air force active-duty end strength reductions
Question. Following recommendations made in the Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR), the President's budget for fiscal year 2007 begins the
process of reducing Air Force manpower by 40,000 full-time equivalents
across the total force. The Air Force plans to take a reduction of over
23,000 airmen by September 30, 2007.
What is your understanding of how the Air Force intends to achieve
these planned Active-Duty Force reductions within the officer and
enlisted ranks in a single fiscal year, and they will affect readiness
and recruiting?
Answer. I understand that the Air Force plans to reduce its end
strength in the near future. The Navy has faced similar challenges in
the past few years. If confirmed, I expect to examine this subject
thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
Question. If the Air Force is unable to implement planned
retirement of aircraft, such as the F-117, U-2, B-52, and C-21, what is
your understanding of how this would affect the Air Force's ability to
achieve planned reductions?
Answer. I understand that planned reductions may be affected by the
number and types of platforms in use in the Air Force. As a platform-
based service, the Navy has had to deal with comparable issues. If
confirmed, I expect to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air
Force staff and others.
Question. To what extent does the Air Force plan to rely on
military-to-civilian conversions to achieve reductions in end strength
while continuing to perform its missions, and have any studies been
performed that address military-to-civilian conversions, availability
of funding for civilian salaries, and the amount of time needed to
achieve significant reductions using this means?
Answer. I am not familiar with the Air Force's plans as they may
relate to military-to-civilian conversions. The Navy and Marine Corps
have also planned and executed such conversions; both have ``lessons
learned'' to share. If confirmed, I expect to examine this subject
thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
air national guard and air force reserve end strength reductions
Question. Under the QDR, the Air Force plans to cut over 14,000
part-time end strength positions from the Air National Guard (ANG) and
about 7,700 part-time positions from Air Force Reserve over the next 5
years.
What is your understanding of how the ANG and Air Force Reserve
will absorb these reductions in end strength over the FYDP given the
missions they have been assigned worldwide?
Answer. I understand that the Air Force plans to reduce its ANG and
Air Force Reserve end strength in the near future. I am not familiar
with the details of the Air Force plan. If confirmed, I expect to
examine this subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
Question. What is your understanding of the current status of
coordination about the impact of these reductions with the National
Guard Bureau and the State National Guard units affected?
Answer. I am not familiar with the current status of Air Force
coordination with the National Guard Bureau and State National Guard
units on the possible impacts of end strength reductions. If confirmed,
I expect to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff
and others.
Question. What missions currently assigned to the ANG and Air Force
Reserve would be changed or eliminated in order to meet end strength
reductions?
Answer. I am not familiar with the Air Force's plans for adjusting
ANG or Air Force Reserve missions to meet end strength reductions. If
confirmed, I expect to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air
Force staff and others.
reserve component involuntary recall policy
Question. The DOD has implemented a policy that limits the
involuntary recall of Reserve and National Guard personnel for
mobilization to 24 cumulative months.
What is your understanding of the impact, if any, of the 24-month
policy on the Air Force Reserve and ANG with respect to their ability
to generate forces for operational missions?
Answer. I understand that the policy limiting involuntary recall to
24 cumulative months may have an impact on Air Force Reserve and ANG.
The Navy and Marine Corps have had to deal with the same policy;
however, I recognize that the policy may have different impacts on
different Services. If confirmed, I expect to examine this subject
thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
Question. What is your understanding of the number and percentage
of members of the Air Force Reserve and ANG who are unavailable for
deployment as a result of the 24-month policy and the impact, if any,
that this has on mission readiness?
Answer. I am not familiar with Air Force statistics on non-
availability of Reserve or Guard personnel or the impact on mission
readiness, as a result of the 24-month policy. If confirmed, I expect
to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
Question. What measures are being taken in the Department to
respond to operational requirements for low density, high demand units
and personnel whose skills are found primarily in the Reserve
components?
Answer. I am not familiar with measures taken in the Department of
the Air Force to respond to such skill gaps. The Navy Reserve has
reorganized to align itself better with the Active-Duty Navy and its
current and forecasted missions. The Marine Corps Reserve remains
flexible and agile to meet new requirements on a continuous basis. If
confirmed, I expect to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air
Force staff and others.
officer management issues
Question. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, what role would you expect to play, if
any, in the officer management and promotion system, including policies
affecting general officers?
Answer. If confirmed, I will provide support as directed by the
Secretary of the Air Force in matters concerning the officer management
and promotion system, including policies affecting general officers.
force shaping initiatives
Question. The Air Force has requested authority to reduce the
number of its Active-Duty airmen by 23,000 in fiscal year 2007. In
order to implement this ambitious plan without irreparably harming
recruiting, the Air Force intends to employ both voluntary separation
incentives and involuntary separation procedures.
What is your understanding of Air Force planning with respect to
the numbers of officer and enlisted personnel by paygrade who must be
separated in 2007 to achieve end strength requirements?
Answer. I understand that the Air Force has requested force-shaping
authorities. I am not familiar with the Air Force's detailed planning.
The Navy has engaged in similar planning in recent years in connection
with its force reductions. If confirmed, I expect to examine this
subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
Question. What oversight role, if any, would you play, if
confirmed, to ensure that involuntary separations or forced retirement
are implemented as equitably as possible?
Answer. If confirmed, and with the advice of the Department's legal
staffs, I will require that Air Force policies governing involuntary
separations or forced retirement be implemented in a manner consistent
with applicable law and policies, as well as fundamental principles of
fairness.
implementation of tricare for reservists
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006 authorized new categories of eligibility for TRICARE for members
of the Selected Reserve, which are required to be implemented by
October 1, 2006.
What is your assessment of the Department's ability to timely
implement the new benefits and the challenges it will have to overcome?
Answer. I understand that the Air Force, like other Services, has
members of the Selected Reserve who are intended beneficiaries of this
new extension of TRICARE. Effective communication and notification will
be important in meeting the deadline. If confirmed, I expect to examine
this subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in coordinating
the Air Force's efforts implementing these new benefits?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to oversee the efforts of the Air
Force staff, including the Air Force Reserve, and to assist the Air
Force Surgeon General in coordinating those efforts with the DOD
TRICARE agency.
gender-integrated training
Question. You were the Chairman of the Commission on Military
Training and Gender-Related Issues that from 1998 to 1999 studied
cross-gender relationships of members of the Armed Forces and, in
particular, the basic training programs of the Services. The Commission
recommended that the Services continue to train recruits of both sexes
in accordance with their current policies, which for the Air Force,
Navy, and Army, meant gender-integrated basic training. You disagreed
with the Commission's finding in this regard, and issued a personal
statement expressing your view that military effectiveness should
dictate how the Services conduct basic training and that there were
unanswered, serious questions about the relative effectiveness of
gender-integrated versus gender-separate training.
Based on your experience since August 2001 as the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Military Personnel Policy and, since February
2005, Total Force Transformation, what are your current views about the
military effectiveness of gender-integrated training?
Answer. I believe that military effectiveness should be the
standard by which Services make decisions about training. Pursuing
military effectiveness as a goal, the Services should not stand still,
but continually reexamine their assumptions and seek out better ways to
accomplish their training mission.
In the Department of the Navy today, both Services have retained
the same format for basic training that they had in 1999: Navy boot
camp is gender-integrated, and Marine Corps boot camp is gender-
separate. Both Services report that they are satisfied with the product
they obtain and they are able to perform their assigned missions.
Question. If confirmed, what actions, if any, would you take with
respect to evaluating the benefits of gender-integrated versus gender-
separate training in the Air Force?
Answer. If confirmed, I will let the Air Force know (as I have done
with both the Navy and Marine Corps) that I stand ready to support
efforts to improve training results.
employment of military spouses
Question. In your view, what progress has been made, and what
actions need to be taken to provide increased employment opportunities
for military spouses?
Answer. Thanks to congressional support extending over the past 20
years, many programs exist today to provide increased employment
opportunities for military spouses. These include relocation
assistance, both in the United States and worldwide, job search aids,
Federal preferences for military spouses, education and job training
programs, and even assistance in starting their own businesses.
It is important to assess the effectiveness of these programs and
continue to support those that work, while improving or replacing
others with new program opportunities that may produce better results
for our military families.
management and development of the senior executive services (ses)
Question. The Air Force has initiated a senior leader management
model to enhance and improve management, development, and assignment of
SES and general officers.
What is your assessment of how the Air Force program is working?
Answer. I am aware that the Air Force has initiated a new model for
management, development, and assignment of SES and general officers. I
applaud the Air Force's initiative in this important area. The program
is in a very early stage, and it may take several years before the
program fully takes shape. I look forward to learning more about the
design, deployment, and results of this model.
Question. What is your vision of the approach the Air Force should
take to further improve the management, development, and assignment of
SES members, especially in the critically important areas of
acquisition and financial management?
Answer. I believe these efforts should be aligned with the relevant
provisions of the QDR and similar strategic documents to achieve the
vision of a capable, flexible, and agile future Total Force. The
leadership of the future Total Force must be of the highest character,
competence, and accountability. I believe the acquisition and financial
management communities would benefit from studying how other
professions are organized and governed, to include specific ethical
rules, some form of internal self-policing, minimum competency
standards, and requirements for continuing education.
joint assignment opportunities for military and civilian personnel
Question. The QDR Report of February 2006 calls for reorienting
defense capabilities in support of joint operations, to include joint
air, joint mobility, and joint command and control.
What is your view of the opportunities for joint training and
assignment today for both military and civilian personnel in DOD?
Answer. Opportunities for joint training and assignment for
military and civilian personnel in DOD remain somewhat limited today,
but are growing steadily. The leadership in both DOD and the Service
Departments is focused on increasing capabilities by expanding the pool
of individuals who may be able to perform the many jobs involved in our
national defense. ``Jointness'' no longer applies only to the military
services, but to the Total Force of Active and Reserve component
military, plus government, nongovernment, and contractor civilians.
Question. If confirmed, how would you assess the adequacy of the
Air Force civilian workforce--in terms of training, experience, and
numbers of government personnel--to support the Air Force mission?
Answer. I have not had enough exposure to the Air Force civilian
workforce to be able to assess their training, experience, and numbers.
If confirmed, I expect to examine these issues in detail with Air Force
staff and others.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to move closer
to the goal of reorienting Air Force personnel in support of a joint
concept of operations?
Answer. If confirmed, I would gather information and data to assess
the current status of Air Force personnel, identify gaps that need to
be addressed in order to bring them fully in support of a joint concept
of operations, and along with Air Force staff and others, develop plans
and programs to fill the gaps, along with measures of progress and
performance.
medical personnel shortages
Question. The military medical corps of all three Departments are
facing unprecedented challenges in the recruitment and retention of
medical and dental personnel needed to support DOD's medical mission.
What steps would you take, if confirmed, to address recruitment and
retention challenges in the Air Force Medical Services as well as the
Air Force Reserve?
Answer. I have worked with Navy medicine in addressing similar
challenges, and I hope that experience will be useful. I am aware,
however, that the Navy and Air Force medical corps have somewhat
different missions and requirements, and so I would not assume that
either the problems or the solutions are the same for both Services. If
confirmed, I expect to examine these issues in detail with Air Force
staff and other Service and DOD colleagues, among others.
Question. Based on your Navy experience, are you confident that the
Department has sufficient tools to achieve goals for recruitment and
retention of highly skilled health care personnel? If not, what
additional tools might be worthy of consideration in the future?
Answer. Based on my knowledge of Navy medicine's concerns and
challenges, I know that a number of tools already exist--including
scholarships, loan repayment programs, and critical skills accession
and retention bonuses--to recruit and retain highly skilled health care
personnel. The Navy recognizes that it needs to make full use of the
tools it already has. Bottom Line: While I cannot say that I am
confident that the Department has all the tools it might need for this
purpose, I do believe the Services should look critically and
creatively at the full range of tools, flexibilities and authorities
that Congress has already provided and make good use of them.
It is hard to compete with the private sector on a financial basis
alone. Further, I believe many people who are attracted to military
medicine are not necessarily motivated by money alone. In addition to
financial incentives, the ability to offer flexible career options
could help us recruit and retain highly skilled health care personnel.
For example, on- and off-ramps (allowing people to leave the Service
for a period of time and return later) could be very attractive to some
of our medical personnel, who may wish to leave the military for a time
to devote themselves to raising a family or pursuing other personal or
professional goals, then return to military medicine later. Permitting
the Services to experiment with different approaches to managing their
medical Reserve components (for example, adjusting the timing and
conditions of Reserve duty to avoid undue damage to the physician
reservist's private practice) also could help with recruiting and
retention.
personnel and health care costs
Question. Senior military leaders have testified in favor of the
administration's plan to significantly increase health care fees for
military retirees as a result of the growing portion of the DOD budget
devoted to personnel and benefit costs.
Do you share the view that future operational readiness of the
Armed Forces is threatened by the increasing costs of personnel
benefits?
Answer. The increasing costs of personnel benefits, especially
health care, do pose a budgetary threat because we must operate within
the limits of finite resources. Funds for increased entitlement costs
must come from discretionary spending elsewhere in the budget. Thus,
dramatic increases in benefit costs are bound to affect the amount of
money we can apply toward operational readiness.
Question. What efficiencies and personnel benefit changes do you
believe warrant consideration to ensure a viable and affordable force?
Answer. I believe that the government must keep its promises, and
it is important to keep faith with servicemembers who rely upon
promises previously made to them. Nevertheless, we all have a stake in
ensuring a viable and affordable force. I believe there may be more
creative options that could both reduce costs and increase members'
satisfaction. For example, cafeteria-style benefits plans enable
individual employees to select the benefits that are most valuable to
them personally. Other nonfinancial benefits, such as allowing more
individual choice in transfers and assignments, might yield equal or
better retention at lower cost to DOD.
national security personnel system (nsps)
Question. Although currently enjoined from implementation of a new
labor-relations system, the Department is planning to move ahead in the
implementation of a pay-for-performance civilian personnel system.
Based on your experience in the Navy, what is your assessment of
the adequacy and quality of training that is being provided on the new
personnel system?
Answer. Based on my experience in the Navy, NSPS training appears
to be proceeding as planned and receiving a lot of attention from
leadership. The success of the plan will not be known until results can
be seen and evaluated. Meanwhile, I believe that the leadership of the
Department of the Navy is committed to ensuring that managers and
others receive the training they need. Leaders are watching these
programs carefully and are willing to adapt in response to experience
in order to achieve the best results.
Question. What is your understanding of the manner in which pay
levels will be determined under the new system?
Answer. I understand that under NSPS employees will be assigned to
a pay band that reflects their current pay, with no reduction in actual
pay, and they will have the opportunity to earn future increases
through merit and performance.
Question. If confirmed, how would you monitor the acceptance of the
new system by the civilian workforce, and how would you intervene if
acceptance of the system fell below expected levels?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to work closely with both Air Force
staff and other elements of DOD to monitor workforce acceptance of
NSPS. If acceptance falls below expected levels, I will work with
colleagues to determine how best to respond to workforce concerns.
family support
Question. In your view, do the Services have adequate programs in
place to ensure support for Active and Reserve component families,
particularly those who live great distances from military
installations?
Answer. Thanks to Congress, military family support programs have
improved tremendously. The Services are able to offer a wide range of
programs to meet the needs of families in both Active and Reserve
components. Toll-free telephone support, such as OneSource, allows
families who live far away from military installations to have access
to support tailored for their needs. Customer surveys and retention
rates in the Navy and Marine Corps show that family support programs
appear to be adequate.
Question. If confirmed, what additional steps would you take to
enhance family support to airmen?
Answer. In the Department of the Navy, although there are many
similarities between the Navy and the Marine Corps, there are also many
differences, resulting in different programs that nonetheless meet the
needs of each Service. I have found it is important to ask what people
feel they need rather than impose ``solutions'' that they don't want
and can't use. If confirmed, I would not want to make assumptions about
what airmen and their families need or want, but instead I would ask
them what they think and do my best to develop programs that respond to
them.
general and flag officer nominations
Question. Under section 506 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the Services must provide substantiated
adverse information to promotion selection boards selecting officers
for promotion to the grades of O7 and above.
What problems, if any, do you foresee in the Air Force's ability to
implement this requirement?
Answer. I have no information about the Air Force's ability to
provide substantiated adverse information to promotion selection boards
for grades of O7 and above.
Question. If confirmed, what guidance would you provide to
promotion selection board members about the manner in which such
adverse information should be considered?
Answer. Any guidance naturally would start with the legislative
language itself. In addition, I understand that the Office of Secretary
of Defense is about to publish regulations providing guidance as
required under section 506, which will be effective October 1, 2006. If
confirmed, I expect to provide support in this area as directed by the
Secretary of the Air Force.
interservice transfers
Question. At the same time that the Army and Marine Corps are
working harder than ever to achieve recruiting goals, the Navy and the
Air Force are planning for significant reductions in Active-Duty and
Reserve military personnel. Under section 641 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, an interservice bonus for
transfer was authorized. Additional incentives may be necessary,
however, to encourage ``blue to green'' transfers in order to retain
sailors and airmen with valuable military training, skills, and
experience
What is your assessment of the adequacy of existing incentives for
interservice transfers?
Answer. It may be that monetary incentives alone will not prove
sufficient to persuade members of one Service to join another. Each
Service has a unique culture, with which its members strongly identify.
I endorse the idea of promoting ``blue to green'' transfers, but I
believe that, to be successful, the program should consider other
methods of motivating departing sailors and airmen to stay in the
military in another Service.
Question. If confirmed, and given your experience as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, what steps would you take to enhance
the number of ``blue to green'' interservice transfers?
Answer. If confirmed, I would like to explore other possible
methods of assisting the Army and Marine Corps in fulfilling their
mission requirements. For example, one barrier to interservice
cooperation is the lack of a common set of competencies for various
jobs. Recently, the Navy was able to provide Master at Arms (MA)
sailors to assist the Army in Military Police (MP) work by identifying
competency gaps between the two communities and providing ``just in
time'' training to MAs so that they could do the work of MPs. I look
forward to continuing to work with other Service Department colleagues
on this issue.
diversity in the air force
Question. In its policies and practices, the Air Force is committed
to the principles of equal opportunity with the goal of promoting
equity, eliminating unlawful discrimination, and building teamwork and
readiness. Diversity initiatives, including reliance on affirmative
action plans, according to Air Force instructions, focus on ``broad
policies seeking to remove barriers to status inequality and to
capitalize on demographic changes in society. Diversity initiatives
constitute a philosophy and practical tools aimed at producing
results.''
What is your view of the proper use of affirmative action plans and
measures aimed at achieving or nurturing diversity in the Armed Forces?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the Air Force
diversity plan, but I appreciate the strategic importance of ensuring
that service in the Armed Forces is broadly supported by all Americans
and that our Armed Forces are able to work effectively in many
different areas and cultures around the world.
``Affirmative action'' originally meant taking positive steps to
identify and remove barriers and to ``cast a wider net'' in seeking to
offer qualified persons an opportunity to compete based on their own
merits. I endorse this original intent, and I believe there are many
ways in which the Armed Forces can take positive steps as just
described, without resorting to quotas and preferences, in order to
achieve or nurture diversity. For example, both Navy and Marine Corps
have produced ads and marketing plans tailored to reach nontraditional
markets. We also challenged Navy recruiters, not to deliver a certain
number of minority sailors, but instead to increase measurably their
contacts with minority prospects. Both these efforts--classic examples
of ``casting a wider net''--helped to increase diversity without using
quotas or preferences.
Question. In your opinion, how, if at all, should considerations
relating to gender and minority status with respect to race, ethnicity,
and national origin be addressed in the guidance provided by the
Secretary of each Service to promotion selection boards?
Answer. Precept language relating to race, ethnicity, national
origin, or gender should emphasize that candidates must be evaluated
based on merit and performance in the assignments they have been given.
Precepts should also advise boards that the demonstrated ability to
lead a diverse force and deal successfully with different cultures is
valued and important.
Question. What is your understanding of the manner in which
considerations relating to gender and race, ethnicity, and national
origin are used in selection processes for the U.S. Air Force Academy?
Answer. I am not familiar with the manner in which the U.S. Air
Force Academy considers gender and race, ethnicity, and national origin
in its selection processes.
Question. Do you agree with the Air Force Academy's approach with
respect to the selection of applicants?
Answer. I am not familiar with the Air Force Academy's selection
process, but if confirmed, I expect to examine this area in detail with
Air Force staff and others.
sexual assault
Question. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Personnel conducted a hearing on policies and programs
of DOD for preventing and responding to incidents of sexual assault in
the Armed Forces at which the Service Vice Chiefs endorsed a ``zero
tolerance'' standard. Subsequently, in response to congressional
direction, the Department developed a comprehensive set of policies and
procedures aimed at improving prevention of and response to incidents
of sexual assaults, including appropriate resources and care for
victims of sexual assault.
Do you consider the new sexual assault policies and procedures,
particularly those on confidential reporting, to be effective?
Answer. The new sexual assault policies and procedures have not
been in effect very long. Early indications seem to show that the
expanded opportunity for confidential reporting may have had the
desired effect of inducing more victims of sexual assault (who
otherwise might not have reported their attacks) to come forward and
receive assistance and treatment. It is not yet clear whether increased
reporting rates will yield greater numbers of substantiated cases or
convictions.
Question. What problems, if any, are you aware of in the manner in
which the new policies have been implemented?
Answer. For over 10 years before the recent DOD policies became
effective, the Department of the Navy had regulations on Sexual Assault
Victim Intervention (SAVI), setting standards for mandatory Navy and
Marine Corps programs in response to sexual assault victim needs and
rights, reporting requirements, and investigations and prosecutions. As
a result, the Navy and Marine Corps already had well-developed programs
and a strong culture of victim support and zero tolerance for sexual
assault. The only problem I am aware of so far in connection with
implementation of the new policies is that both Services had to change
some of their previous terminology (e.g., SAVI to SARC) in order to
comply with the DOD policy, and those changes seem to have caused some
confusion in the fleet and field.
Question. If confirmed, what oversight role, if any, would you
expect to play?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to devote substantial and constant
attention to these issues.
united states air force academy
Question. In 2003, in response to complaints of sexual assaults and
harassment of female cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy, the
Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff initiated the
``Agenda for Change,'' which introduced numerous changes at the Academy
aimed at preventing and responding to incidents of sexual assault.
What elements of the Agenda for Change have been repealed, and why?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the implementation of
the Agenda for Change at the U.S. Air Force Academy.
Question. What is your assessment of the reforms included in the
Agenda for Change, and what is your current assessment of the equal
opportunity climate at the U.S. Air Force Academy?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of reforms and the
current equal opportunity climate at the U.S. Air Force Academy.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you expect to play with
respect to implementation of Air Force-wide policies regarding equal
opportunity and prevention of and response to sexual assault at the Air
Force Academy?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to devote significant attention to
these issues.
Question. The reviews focused on the status and problems
experienced by female cadets at the Air Force Academy in 2003
demonstrated the importance of focused, informed oversight by service
civilian and military senior leaders of conditions for female cadets
and midshipmen. The Service Academy 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault
Survey found that even with the implementation of corrective measures,
sexual assault, and harassment continue to be factors negatively
affecting female cadets at the military academies.
What is your evaluation of the conclusions and recommendations of
the Service Academy 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault Survey and the
Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at
the Military Service Academies?
Answer. The 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault Survey revealed
that, in the case of the U.S. Naval Academy, 59 percent of female and
14 percent of male midshipmen indicated they had experienced some form
of sexual harassment, while 5 percent of women and 1 percent of men
reported experiencing sexual assault. According to the Defense Manpower
Data Center, these statistics are consistent with those for civilian
college students; however, I believe it is fair to expect a higher
standard of behavior from young people privileged to attend a Service
Academy and intending to pursue a military career.
Concerning the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence
at the Military Service Academies, most of its recommendations were
consistent with pre-existing policies in the Department of the Navy,
which has mandated comprehensive sexual assault victim intervention
programs in the Navy and Marine Corps for over 10 years.
Question. What actions would you expect to take, if confirmed, to
address the problems of sexual assault and sexual harassment at the
U.S. Air Force Academy and with respect to the Air Force's programs in
this regard?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to devote significant attention to
these issues. As the Task Force noted, ``sexual harassment and assault
is not a `fix and forget' problem'' but requires ``a long-term,
sustained effort, not only by the leaders of the Academies, but also by
the cadets and midshipmen.''
religious practices in the air force
Question. What is your assessment of corrective measures taken at
the U.S. Air Force Academy to ensure religious tolerance and respect,
and of Air Force guidelines regarding religious tolerance that were
promulgated in August 2005?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of corrective measures
taken at the U.S. Air Force Academy or the August 2005 Air Force
guidelines on religious tolerance and respect. If confirmed, I expect
to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
Question. What additional steps, if any, do you think need to be
taken with respect to the role of military chaplains in performing
their duties in ministering to airmen?
Answer. I believe the recently revised Department of the Navy
instruction strikes a proper balance between the free expression rights
of chaplains and of servicemembers. If confirmed, I would want to learn
more about the Air Force guidelines on religious tolerance and what
issues are present in the Air Force before determining any specific
course of action.
foreign language transformation roadmap
Question. A Foreign Language Transformation Roadmap announced by
the Department on March 30, 2005, directed a series of actions aimed at
transforming the Department's foreign language capabilities, to include
revision of policy and doctrine, building a capabilities-based
requirements process, and enhancing foreign language capability for
both military and civilian personnel.
What is your understanding of the status of the actions identified
in the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap?
Answer. I am not familiar with the status of Air Force
implementation of Defense Language Transformation Roadmap requirements.
In the Navy Department, both Navy and Marine Corps have recently
submitted progress reports indicating they are on track in executing
their service-level language transformation plans. Of note, the Navy is
revitalizing its Foreign Area Officer (FAO) program, and the Marine
Corps has established a new Center for Advanced Operational Culture
Learning (CAOCL). As described on its Web site, the CAOCL ``ensures
marines are equipped with operationally relevant regional, culture, and
language knowledge to allow them to plan and operate successfully in
the joint and combined expeditionary environment in any region, in
current and potential operating conditions, and targeting persistent
and emerging threats and opportunities.''
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to identify
foreign language requirements, and to design military and civilian
personnel policies and programs to fill those gaps?
Answer. If confirmed, I would encourage a joint approach in which,
for example, each Service might take the lead for developing culture
and language capabilities in the regions where that Service typically
operates. I would also encourage the use of informed risk-management in
determining how we should allocate both financial and human resources
to attain optimum cultural and language readiness. Our policies and
programs should seek ways to leverage existing capabilities, for
example, by employing knowledge management systems that can help us
find individuals with the needed mix of skills, no matter what their
current positions might be.
Question. What is your assessment of an appropriate timeframe
within which results can be realized in this critical area?
Answer. The timeframe for results depends on the nature of the
actions required. When emergent requirements are known, there may be
ways to ``jump-start'' capabilities (e.g., recruiting native speakers,
using new technologies). But in general, building language capabilities
should be regarded as a long-term investment. We need to acknowledge
that language skills decline if not properly maintained and provide the
right kind of assignments and opportunities for skilled linguists.
military quality of life
Question. In May 2004 the Department published its first
Quadrennial Quality of Life Review, which articulated a compact with
military families on the importance of key quality of life factors,
such as family support, child care, education, health care and morale,
welfare and recreation services.
How do you perceive the relationship between quality of life
improvements and your own top priorities for military recruitment and
retention?
Answer. Quality of life improvements are definitely one of the most
important factors in successful military recruiting and retention--
which in turn, is fundamental to mission accomplishment for any
Service. Some quality of life programs primarily benefit the individual
servicemember, and others provide support for members' families; both
kinds are important. We know that families often play a decisive role
in whether a member stays in or leaves the Service.
If confirmed, what further enhancements to military quality of life
would you make a priority, and how do you envision working with the
Services, combatant commanders, family advocacy groups, and Congress to
achieve them?
Answer. If confirmed, I would encourage further enhancements to
military quality of life that would give servicemembers greater ability
to select the benefits and programs of most interest to them. I would
also like to examine quality of service improvements, such as longer
tours, fewer moves, and greater ability to pursue jobs of special
interest to the member. The Services, combatant commanders, family
advocacy groups, and Congress would be vital partners in efforts to
enhance quality of life programs along these lines.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
organization membership
1. Senator Levin. Ms. Blair, at your nomination hearing earlier
this week, I asked you several questions about two organizations of
which you are a member--Independent Women's Forum and the Virginia
Affiliate of Eagle Forum. You responded in part: ``I would hasten to
mention that neither one is a membership organization in the sense that
anybody who may--one pays dues or is apt to be eliminated if one
doesn't agree with everything that they say.'' The Web sites for both
organizations provide membership application forms, including annual
contributions for various categories of membership (copies attached).
In addition, you listed yourself as a member of each organization in
your response to the committee questionnaire (question A-12). In the
cover letter for this form, you stated: ``I am a member of certain
organizations and professional societies, which are either listed below
or have been previously provided to the committee. None of these should
pose any conflict of interest with regard to my governmental
responsibilities.'' How do you reconcile your statement that neither of
these two organizations is a ``membership organization'' to which ``one
pays dues'' with the membership forms and dues information provided on
the organizations' Web sites?
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Blair. In my oral answer, I was referring to the definition of
a ``membership organization'' as I used and understood that term when I
was a nonprofit executive. Under Virginia corporation laws (which
applied to the Independent Women's Forum when I worked there), if a
nonstock (nonprofit) corporation opts to have ``members'' under its
charter or bylaws, the members may have certain statutory rights. A
``membership'' organization typically requires its members to pay dues
and comply with other conditions of membership, such as agreeing to
abide by certain principles or standards.
During my tenure the Independent Women's Forum was not a membership
organization, and I believe that is still true today. To the best of my
knowledge the same is true of the Virginia Eagle Forum. A person who
``joins'' the Independent Women's Forum or Virginia Eagle Forum
receives no right to vote on the governance of the organization and is
subject to no obligations or conditions imposed by the organization.
When I was involved with the Independent Women's Forum, we tried
not to use the terms ``member'' or ``membership'' in promotional
materials because we did not want to imply that any contributor or
supporter might have any rights or obligations in relation to the
organization. Since I resigned as an officer and employee 5 years ago,
prior to accepting my current position in the Department of the Navy, I
cannot speak for the current policies or practices of the Independent
Women's Forum. I have never been an officer, employee, or active
participant in any way in either the National or Virginia Eagle Forum,
and thus cannot speak for their past or present policies or practices.
2. Senator Levin. Ms. Blair, how do you reconcile this statement
with your response to the committee questionnaire, in which you
indicated that you are a member of these organizations?
Ms. Blair. In completing the questionnaire, I assumed that the
committee was using the term ``membership'' in a colloquial sense, and
I wished to inform the committee fully about organizations with which I
have had any connection, whether or not constituting ``membership'' in
the legal sense. In fact, since August 2001, when I commenced my
current job in the Department of the Navy, I have not been an officer,
director, or employee nor actively participated in any organizations.
The only contact I have had with the Independent Women's Forum was to
attend its 2004 and 2006 dinners in honor of Hon. Lynne Cheney and
Secretary Condoleezza Rice, respectively. I did so at the group's
invitation, which was extended to me based on my personal capacity as a
former president and not connected with my government employment.
3. Senator Levin. Ms. Blair, have you paid dues (or any annual
payments in connection with membership, regardless of how they may be
designated) to these organizations?
Ms. Blair. I have not contributed any money to the Independent
Women's Forum since before 2001. I have no record of ever paying any
dues or contributions to the National Eagle Forum (whose Web site was
cited in the hearing). For several years my husband and I have
contributed approximately $20-$40 per year to the Virginia Eagle Forum.
4. Senator Levin. Ms. Blair, given that each of these organizations
has taken a position contrary to the position of the Air Force on the
issue of gender-integrated training, would you agree that your
continued membership in these organizations could create the appearance
of a conflict of interest?
Ms. Blair. Consistent with the standard of ethics set forth in 5
C.F.R. Sec. 2635.202 (rules for Federal employees concerning the
appearance of impartiality), I do not believe that any circumstances
exist that would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the
relevant facts to question my impartiality on this subject. I have no
business, contractual or other financial relationship with these
organizations, nor does anyone in my family or household. I am not an
active participant in these organizations. If a particular matter
involving specific parties should arise that might create the
appearance of a conflict of interest, I would consult with my agency
ethics designee to determine how best to handle the matter. As I stated
at the hearing regarding gender-integrated training in the Air Force: I
will be guided by the opinions of the experts who are running the
training programs as to what ways they may want to pursue to attempt to
improve their training. I have no purpose, plan, or agenda to require
the Air Force to change its gender-integrated training format.
4. Senator Levin. Ms. Blair, in the advanced questions sent to you
by this committee, you were asked several questions regarding
reductions in Air Force Active-Duty end strength as recommended in the
Quadrennial Defense Report. In response, you asserted that you hoped to
employ the ``lessons learned'' by other forces, particularly the Navy
and Marines, who have experienced similar reductions. To what extent do
you think that these ``lessons learned'' are directly applicable to the
Air Force and, in what ways does the Air Force face unique challenges
in its attempt to implement a reduction in force?
Ms. Blair. Some of the ``lessons learned'' by other Services may be
applicable to the Air Force. For example, after the drawdowns of the
early 1990s, followed by failure to meet recruiting goals later in the
1990s, the Navy found itself with insufficient numbers of junior
personnel in certain jobs and year-groups. This created difficulties in
managing the assignment and promotion systems, and even today some
year-groups remain at relatively lower levels than expected.
These problems might have been avoided if the Navy had been able to
execute its drawdown in a more targeted fashion, taking care to
preserve the right number, seniority and quality of sailors in various
jobs, especially those that require a long period of technical
training. Since that time, the Navy has developed a better system of
analysis for identifying the types of skills and experience that need
to be preserved in order to ``shape the force'' without undue stress.
Another ``lesson learned'' is that, even though the Services have
broad legal rights to discharge members without cause and without
compensation, it is important to ensure that members perceive they are
being treated fairly. Thus it is very desirable for a Service to have
access to an array of force-shaping tools (monetary or otherwise).
Not being familiar with the details of Air Force manpower
management, I am not able to say whether such ``lessons learned'' may
be directly applicable to the Air Force, nor whether the Air Force
faces unique challenges. If confirmed, I will be alert to point out
areas where other Services' experience could be helpful to the Air
Force, and I will also keep in mind that the Air Force may have unique
situations where the experience of other Services is not particularly
relevant.
______
[The nomination reference of Anita K. Blair follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 24, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Anita K. Blair, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force, vice Michael L. Dominguez.
______
[The biographical sketch of Anita K. Blair, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Anita K. Blair
Effective 1 February 2005, Anita Blair assumed the responsibilities
of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Total Force Transformation (TFT). As
the Deputy Assistant Secretary (TFT), she serves as the Program
Executive for the Department of the Navy's human capital transformation
agenda, leading efforts to modernize the management of the Department's
total force of Active-Duty, Reserve, civilian, and contractor
personnel. Working closely with the other Deputy Assistant Secretaries
and with the military Services, the Department seeks to develop a human
capital management system that is agile, flexible, and integrated in
support of contemporary requirements, including meeting the challenges
of the global war on terrorism.
Dual-hatted as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Military
Personnel Policy (DASN (MPP)), Anita Blair is also responsible for
policy and oversight related to personnel matters affecting Navy and
Marine Corps Active-Duty servicemembers and their families. Issues
include recruiting and retention; training and education; Active-Duty
strength and compensation; character, leadership development, and equal
opportunity; health affairs; counterdrug programs; family support; and
morale, welfare, and recreation. She was sworn in on 15 August 2001.
In prior public service, Ms. Blair chaired the 1998-1999
Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related
Issues, which investigated ``cross-gender'' issues such as rules on
adultery, fraternization, and sexual conduct in the military, as well
as the effectiveness of military basic training. The Commission
conducted several weeks of hearings with nearly 100 witnesses and over
a dozen inspection tours of military training and operational
facilities, including deployments overseas. The Commission's final
report included extensive new scientific studies and surveys of over
30,000 servicemembers.
Ms. Blair also served for 6 years on the Virginia Military
Institute (VMI) Board of Visitors, originally appointed by Governor
George Allen in 1995 and reappointed by Governor James S. Gilmore III
in 1999. She chaired the Board's initial Assimilation Review Task
Force, providing continuing oversight of issues related to the
admission of women to VMI.
Before joining the Department of the Navy, Ms. Blair had been a
lawyer in private practice in Virginia and the District of Columbia
since 1981, concentrating in business law and litigation. She served 8
years on the Board of Governors of the Virginia State Bar Section on
Antitrust, Franchise and Trade Regulation Law, which she chaired in
1998-1999. Beginning in 1992 she was also Executive Vice President and
General Counsel and later President of the Independent Women's Forum
(IWF), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to research and
public education on policy issues concerning women. Among other
activities, Ms. Blair appeared in the media, testified before Congress,
and oversaw IWF's participation as amicus curiae in several high
profile constitutional law cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Born in Washington, DC, Anita Blair attended Catholic schools and
received her bachelor's degree in Classical Greek from the University
of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1971. She graduated in 1981 from the
University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville, where she met
her husband and law partner, C. Douglas Welty.
______
[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 Anita K. Blair
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.)
Anita Katherine Blair, formerly: Anita Katherine Dascola 1970-1974
(former marriage).
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve
Affairs).
3. Date of nomination:
April 24, 2006.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
November 15, 1950; Washington, DC.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to C. Douglas Welty.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, VA (1978-
1981), J.D., May 1981.
Washington School of Law, American University, Washington, DC
(August-December 1974), (no degree).
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (1968-1971), B.A., December
1971.
La Reine High School, Suitland, MD (1964-1968), high school
diploma, May 1968.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Military Personnel Policy &
Total Force Transformation (August 2001-present).
President, General Counsel, Executive Vice President, Independent
Women's Forum, Arlington, VA (1995-2001).
Chairman, Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-
Related Issues, Arlington, VA (April 1998-July 1999).
Managing Director, Welty & Blair, P.C., Arlington, VA (1991-2001).
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Board of Visitors, Virginia Military Institute (1995-2001).
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
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.
04/07/02........................... Cuccinelli for Senate. $ 100
06/29/03........................... Bush-Cheney 2004...... 1,000
09/30/03........................... Bush-Cheney E-donation 1,000
04/05/04........................... Citizens for Salazar.. 100
06/29/04........................... Virginians for Jerry 500
Kilgore PAC.
01/06/05........................... Cuccinelli for Senate. 100
05/11/05........................... McDonnell for Virginia 125
09/30/05........................... Virginians for Jerry 250
Kilgore.
04/25/06........................... Friends of George 450
Allen.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
University of Michigan, Hopwood Awards, Fiction and Poetry (Summer
1971).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
Copies of the following are attached:
(1) Opening Statement before House Committee on Veteran's
Affairs (Subcommittee on Benefits) on Military Transition
Assistance Programs (18 July 2002).
(2) Remarks to Navy Counseling, Advocacy and Prevention
Biennial Conference (August 12, 2002).
(3) Remarks at opening of Navy Child Development Group Home,
Norfolk, Virginia (October 15, 2003).
(4) Remarks presented to the Congressional Women's Caucus
(status of DOD Task Force on care for victims of sexual
assault) (March 31, 2004).
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.
Anita K. Blair.
This 28th day of April, 2006.
[The nomination of Anita K. Blair was returned to the
President on December 9, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Benedict S. Cohen by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act changed Department of Defense
operations profoundly and positively. Although I believe that the
framework established by Goldwater-Nichols has significantly improved
interservice and joint relationships and promoted the effective
execution of responsibilities, the Department, working with Congress,
should continually assess the law in light of improving capabilities,
evolving threats, and changing organizational dynamics. Although I am
currently unaware of any reason to amend Goldwater-Nichols, if
confirmed, I will have an opportunity to assess whether the challenges
posed by today's security environment require amendments to the
legislation with a view to continuing the objectives of defense reform.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. This milestone legislation is now 20 years old and has
served our Nation well. If confirmed, I believe it may be appropriate
to consider with Congress whether the act should be revised to better
address the requirements of the combatant commanders and the needs and
challenges faced by the military departments in today's security
environment.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the General Counsel of the Department of the Army?
Answer. Section 3019 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the General
Counsel of the Army shall perform such functions as the Secretary of
the Army may prescribe. The Secretary has done so through general
orders, regulations, and memoranda. The General Counsel provides legal
advice to the Secretary of the Army, the Under Secretary, the Assistant
Secretaries, and other offices within the Army Secretariat. As the
chief legal officer of the Department of the Army, the General Counsel
determines the controlling legal positions of the Department of the
Army. The General Counsel's responsibilities extend to any matter of
law and to other matters as directed by the Secretary. Examples of
specific responsibilities currently assigned to the General Counsel
include providing professional guidance to the Army's legal community,
overseeing matters in which the Army is involved in litigation, serving
as the Designated Agency Ethics Official, exercising the Secretary's
oversight of intelligence and other sensitive activities and
investigations, and providing legal advice to the Army Acquisition
Executive.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. The diversity and complexity of legal issues confronting
the Department of the Army are such that no one lawyer can have in-
depth experience in all of them. However, the General Counsel must
possess absolute integrity, mature judgment, sound legal and analytical
skills, and strong interpersonal and leadership abilities. I believe
that my background and diverse legal experiences in both the public and
private sectors have prepared me to meet the challenges of this office.
I received my undergraduate degree magna cum laude from Yale in
1980 and my law degree from the University of Chicago Law School in
1983, having served as an associate editor of the Law Review. I clerked
for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit. I have been in private practice at two law firms. As a staff
director for two House committees, my principal focus was on legal,
national security, and homeland security policy. In addition, I served
as Associate Counsel to President Reagan, Senior Counsel at the U.S.
Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and
Natural Resources Division, and Deputy General Counsel (Environment &
Installations) of the U.S. Department of Defense.
I believe that my extensive experience in the legislative and
executive branches have helped prepare me for the extraordinary
challenge of serving as General Counsel of the Department of the Army
and overseeing the delivery of legal services in the Army during a
period of wartime and of Army transformation. My familiarity with the
Department of Defense and with broader governmental legal practice have
equipped me to address this important responsibility.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the General Counsel of
the Department of the Army?
Answer. Based on my 20 years of public service with all three
branches of government, I believe I have the requisite legal training
and abilities and leadership skills to serve as the Army General
Counsel. I look forward to dealing with the full array of legal issues
associated with the operations of the Army. If I am confirmed, I will
work to further my understanding and knowledge of the Army, its people
and organization, the resources necessary to sustain and transform it,
and the challenges it faces. I will work with and through the talented
and dedicated civilian and military lawyers serving the Department to
broaden my expertise and increase my knowledge and will seek advice and
counsel from the many and diverse stakeholders dedicated to the success
of the Army, including Members and staff of Congress.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Harvey would prescribe for you?
Answer. Although Secretary Harvey has not discussed with me the
duties and functions he will expect that I perform, I anticipate that
he will rely on me to provide accurate and timely legal advice to help
ensure that the Army complies with both the letter and spirit of the
law. Presumably, the current enumeration of General Counsel
responsibilities set forth in the general order prescribing the duties
of each principal official of the Headquarters, Department of the Army,
will generally remain in effect. Apart from such formally prescribed
duties, I believe the Secretary of the Army would expect me to continue
a collegial and professional relationship with the General Counsels of
the Department of Defense, the other military departments, and the
defense agencies and, as required, the legal staffs of other Federal
agencies. I anticipate that Secretary Harvey will expect me to continue
the extraordinarily effective and professional working relationship
between the Office of the General Counsel and The Judge Advocate
General and his staff. Finally, I anticipate that Secretary Harvey will
expect me to manage the General Counsel's office efficiently and
effectively, and to ensure that the Army legal community is adequately
resourced to perform its important mission.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense?
Answer. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense is the
Chief Legal Officer and final legal authority for the Department of
Defense, including the Department of the Army. If confirmed, I
anticipate having a close and professional relationship with the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense, characterized by
continuing consultation, communication, and cooperation on matters of
mutual interest, in furtherance of the best interests of the Department
of Defense.
relationship with the judge advocate general
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with The
Judge Advocate General of the Army?
Answer. I believe that close, professional cooperation between the
civilian and uniformed members of the Army's legal community is
absolutely essential to the effective delivery of legal services to the
Department of the Army. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that the
Office of the General Counsel and The Judge Advocate General and his
staff continue to work together to deliver the best possible legal
services to the Department of the Army.
Question. How are the legal responsibilities of the Department of
the Army allocated between the General Counsel and The Judge Advocate
General?
Answer. The Army General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the
Department of the Army. The Office of the Army General Counsel is a
component of the Army Secretariat, and provides legal advice to the
Secretary of the Army and other Secretariat officials on all legal
matters. The Judge Advocate General is the legal adviser of the Chief
of Staff of the Army, members of the Army Staff, and members of the
Army generally. In coordination with the Army General Counsel, The
Judge Advocate General serves as military legal adviser to the
Secretary of the Army. I note that the Ronald Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 expressly prohibited
interference with the ability of The Judge Advocate General to give
independent legal advice to the Secretary of the Army; even in the
absence of that recent statutory change, I would always welcome the
expression of independent views about any legal matter under
consideration. The Judge Advocate General also directs the members of
The Judge Advocate General's Corps in the performance of their duties.
By law, he is primarily responsible for providing legal advice and
services regarding the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the
administration of military discipline. The processing of military
claims and the provision of legal assistance are other functions for
which The Judge Advocate General is primarily responsible. The Office
of the Army General Counsel and the Office of The Judge Advocate
General have developed and maintain a close and effective working
relationship in performing their respective responsibilities. If
confirmed, I will work to continue our synergistic partnership in
providing legal services to the Army.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the General Counsel of the Department of the Army?
Answer. In my opinion, the major challenge will be to provide
responsive, accurate legal advice regarding the broad array of complex
issues likely to arise in connection with the Army's role in the
prosecution of a global war against an asymmetric enemy while
simultaneously planning and executing broad strategic transformation
efforts. Although the current environment makes it difficult to
anticipate specific legal questions, I expect to confront issues
relating to operational matters, acquisition reform, privatization
initiatives, military and civilian personnel policies, compliance with
environmental laws, and oversight of Department of the Army
intelligence activities. I am not aware of any serious problems in the
current delivery of legal services in these areas. However, if
confirmed, I will work hard to ensure that the Army legal community is
adequately staffed and resourced to provide the responsive, accurate,
and timely legal advice necessary to ensure success on the battlefield
while executing the Department's successful transformation.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize legal issues in the manner
that best serves the Department of the Army. I will also ensure that
the talented and dedicated lawyers comprising the Army legal community
continue to provide timely legal advice of the highest possible quality
in response to the Department of the Army's recurring legal
responsibilities and the numerous issues that the Army confronts every
day. I would endeavor to keep Army lawyers involved at all stages of
the decisionmaking process, because I believe that preventive law,
practiced early in the formulation of departmental policies, will
undoubtedly facilitate the Department's adaptation to the changing
operational environment. I would work diligently to adequately resource
the Army legal community, in order to guarantee decisionmakers at all
levels access to the best possible legal advice.
priorities
Question. The Army is engaged on a daily basis in combat in
Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, restructuring itself in
accordance with the goals of the Quadrennial Defense Review, relocating
troops and units from Europe and Asia, and transforming its Total Force
to deal with a host of traditional and non-traditional threats to the
security of the Nation,
In what ways can you, if confirmed as General Counsel, contribute
to military readiness and the success of the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, and subject to the guidance of the Secretary
of the Army, I would focus particularly on the delivery of legal
services related to Army core functions of recruiting, supplying and
equipping, training, mobilization and demobilization, and
administering, to include the morale and welfare of personnel, all with
a view to generating and maintaining a trained and ready force while
taking care of our people--individual soldiers and leaders--the Army's
most important asset.
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues which must be addressed by the Office of the General Counsel of
the Department of the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I will focus foremost on the issues that
directly impact soldiers, their families, readiness, and support of
Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I anticipate that the
other legal issues of highest priority will arise from the Army's
transformation to meet the challenges posed by today's dynamic security
environment. I will also ensure that the Army legal community continues
to provide timely legal advice of the highest possible quality,
executing the Department's recurring legal responsibilities and
anticipating and responding to the numerous issues the Army confronts
every day.
attorney recruiting and retention issues
Question. How do you assess your ability to hire and retain top
quality attorneys and provide sufficient opportunity for advancement?
Answer. The Department of the Army continues to recruit and appoint
top quality attorneys in both civilian and military positions and is
confident it can maintain current recruiting standards. As I understand
it, application levels remain high and exceed available positions. One
key to continued recruiting success in the military context is access
to law students. Many of the best and brightest law students are
interested in learning about the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps
and join the Corps in response to successful recruiting visits by Army
judge advocates to law school campuses. The Army continues to retain
and promote top quality attorneys at all grades, civilian and military.
Question. In your view, does the Department of the Army have a
sufficient number of attorneys to perform its missions?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army has sufficient
civilian and military attorneys to execute the Department's missions. I
note that as the Army transforms, it has emphasized the role of the
military judge advocate as a vital component of the new modular force.
Question. In your view, what incentives to successful recruiting
and retention of attorneys, if any, need to be implemented or
established?
Answer. I understand that law students continue to accumulate
tremendous debt in course of becoming attorneys. Many students now
incur debt in excess of $100,000 in order to become licensed to
practice law. Electing a career as either a military attorney or a
civilian attorney in public service presents a financial challenge for
many. Accordingly, I support the Judge Advocate Continuation Pay as
well as civilian attorney student loan repayment programs. As a matter
of principle, I will support programs that enable the Army to recruit
and retain lawyers of the same extraordinarily high quality as are
currently serving in the Department.
base realignment and closure (brac)
Question. In 2005, the BRAC process was concluded, and the BRAC
Commission's recommendations enacted. These decisions will close or
realign significant numbers of military installations, increasing the
military value of our infrastructure, transforming certain common
functions across the Department, and saving valuable resources.
Now that those recommendations have the force and effect of law,
how would you approach implementation of those recommendations if you
are confirmed?
Answer. I understand that the Department of Defense has a legal
obligation to implement fully the recommendations of the BRAC
Commission within the statutorily prescribed 6-year period. I have been
advised that the Army is developing implementation plans and budget
justification materials to execute the Army's BRAC recommendations and
a portion of the joint cross service group recommendations, as assigned
by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology &
Logistics). I understand that the successful implementation of BRAC
2005 is critical to Army Transformation, the Integrated Global Presence
Basing Strategy, and operational deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. I
will work to ensure that BRAC is executed in a manner that satisfies
operational and applicable legal requirements. As the Department of
Defense Deputy General Counsel for Installations and Environment, I was
involved with several environmental and disposal issues associated with
the implementation of previous BRAC rounds. If confirmed, and with the
guidance of the Secretary, I will work closely with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, other Federal agencies, Local Redevelopment
Authorities, Governors, and other appropriate State and local officials
to accelerate the property disposal process and return closed
installations to productive economic re-use as soon as possible. The
Army has effectively used current BRAC authorities to successfully
implement its closure, realignment, and disposal obligations and, if
confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to execute BRAC
2005.
military justice matters
Question. Article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice gives
primary jurisdiction over military justice to The Judge Advocates
General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
How do you view your responsibilities in the performance of
military justice matters with regard to The Judge Advocate General of
the Army?
Answer. Article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires
The Judge Advocate General or senior members of his staff to make
``frequent inspections in the field'' in furtherance of his
responsibility to supervise the administration of military justice.
Although The Judge Advocate General bears primary responsibility for
administering the military justice system within the Army, I understand
that he often coordinates with the Army General Counsel on particular
matters associated with the fair and consistent enforcement of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. I will, if confirmed, consult and
cooperate with the Judge Advocate General on matters of mutual interest
or concern relating to military justice, recognizing his statutory
duties and special expertise in this area. If confirmed, I will work
with the Judge Advocate General in establishing policy for the Army and
safeguarding the integrity of the military justice system.
To avoid the appearance or actuality of improper command influence,
decisions in individual military justice cases must be entrusted to the
accused's commander, the convening authority, the military judge, and
court members. The General Counsel, like the Secretary of the Army and
other senior civilian and military officials of the Department of the
Army, must avoid any action that may affect or appear to affect the
outcome of any particular case. The Army General Counsel helps to
ensure that the military justice system and its judicial officers are
shielded from inappropriate external pressures that may threaten or
appear to threaten the independence of the military's judicial system
or the commander's discretion in exercising his or her responsibilities
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to maintain good order and
discipline.
treatment of detainees
Question. What is your understanding of the definition of ``humane
treatment'' of detainees?
Answer. I have been advised that in the law of armed conflict,
humane treatment has traditionally been understood to be treatment
consistent with the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Conventions.
The general protection policy for Army detainees, expressed in Army
Regulation 190-8, Enemy Prisoners, Retained Personnel, Civilian
Internees, and Other Detainees, is derived in large part from the text
of the Conventions.
Question. What is the role of the General Counsel of the Department
of the Army in ensuring that all detainees in the custody of U.S. Armed
Forces are provided humane treatment?
Answer. I have been informed that the Secretary of the Army is the
DOD Executive Agent for administering policy related to enemy prisoners
of war and other detainees. Accordingly, if confirmed, I would consider
it as my duty to provide the Secretary with legal advice on all matters
related to his execution of that important responsibility. Further, I
believe the Army should continue to coordinate with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the combatant commands and Joint Staff, and with
other Services to broaden its capability to resource and sustain short-
term and long-term detainee operations in support of the global war on
terror. The humane treatment of detainees is and will continue to be an
inherent part of the doctrine, training, and culture of Army forces
charged with performing such operations.
Question. What is the role, if any, of the General Counsel of the
Department of the Army in ensuring that interrogation policies under
the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogations,
including any revisions to the current field manual, are consistent
with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005?
Answer. I understand that, in ordinary circumstances, the revision
and publication of Army field manuals would not require the Secretary's
personal attention or that of the Army General Counsel. The November 3,
2005, publication of DODD 3115.09, DOD Intelligence Interrogations,
Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning, however, imposed a
requirement to submit all implementation plans, policies, orders,
directives, and doctrine related to intelligence interrogation
operations to the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for
review and approval. Accordingly, I understand that the revisions to
the Army field manual that relates to intelligence interrogations have
been reviewed by Army attorneys, among others, for compliance with
applicable law, including the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, prior to
submission to the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for
review and approval.
consolidation of military and civilian legal staffs
Question. On September 10, 2001, Secretary Rumsfeld initiated a
``war on bureaucracy'' stating that in order to make decisions more
quickly, the Department must slash duplication, encourage cooperation,
and start asking tough questions about redundant staff. He noted:
``There are dozens of offices of general counsel scattered throughout
the Department. Each Service has one. Every agency does, too. So do the
Joint Chiefs. We have so many general counsel offices that we actually
have another general counsel's office whose only job is to coordinate
all those general counsels.''
What is your understanding of actions that have been taken in the
Department of Defense and Department of the Army to address the
Secretary's concerns?
Answer. As a DOD Deputy General Counsel, I worked closely with my
counterparts in the military departments, military Services, and
defense agencies to ensure consistency of approach and eliminate
duplication of effort, and I share the Secretary of Defense's interest
in the good stewardship of scarce legal resources.
Question. What actions need to be taken, if any, in response to
Secretary Rumsfeld's challenge?
Answer. If confirmed, and consistent with the Secretary of the
Army's business transformation initiatives, I would exercise my best
efforts to ensure that legal resources are effectively allocated and
deployed to maximize service and minimizing unnecessary duplication of
function, all with an emphasis on attorney accountability.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of the Army has the
legal resources necessary to carry out the missions that may be
required of it in wartime? If not, what is needed?
Answer. In view of the worldwide deployments underway and the
Army's business transformation initiatives, I understand that there is
a high demand for legal resources in the Army. If confirmed, and in
consultation with The Judge Advocate General, I would make it a high
priority to ensure both the sufficiency and quality of the Department's
legal resources.
religious guidelines
Question. What is your legal assessment of the measures being taken
by the Services to provide religious guidelines aimed at ensuring that
members of the Chaplain Corps of the Army, Navy, and Air Force ensure
religious tolerance and respect?
Answer. I am informed that the Army's policies support religious
tolerance and respect. If confirmed, I would make it an objective to
continue the Army's firm commitment to upholding the constitutional
tenets of the ``free exercise'' and ``establishment'' clauses. I am
informed that as they now stand, Army policies appear to require
chaplains to support all unit personnel, regardless of their beliefs.
It is my understanding that Army policies are consistent with the First
Amendment.
Question. What is your legal assessment of Army guidance regarding
chaplain prayers during official functions other than worship services
with respect to praying according to the manner and forms of the church
of which the chaplain is a member?
Answer. I am advised that during mandatory official functions,
chaplains are not compelled to offer prayers that are inconsistent with
their faith, but are expected to remain sensitive to the pluralistic
Army and society they serve. It is my understanding that these policies
are consistent with the First Amendment.
Question. What is your legal assessment of the adequacy of Army
guidance to commanders and other leaders regarding free exercise of
religion in the Army?
Answer. I am informed that it appears that Army regulations provide
commanders and other leaders ample guidance regarding the free exercise
of religion in the Army. AR 600-20, Army Command Policy: AR 165-1,
Chaplain Activities in the United States Army and DOD Directive
1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military
Services, provide detailed guidance on the important responsibilities
of commanders and leaders in this regard. It is my understanding that
these policies are consistent with the First Amendment.
general and flag officer nominations
Question. Under DOD Instruction 1320.4, adverse and alleged adverse
information pertaining to general and flag officers must be evaluated
by senior leaders in the Services and in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense prior to nomination.
If confirmed, what role, if any, would you play in the officer
promotion system, particularly in reviewing general and flag officer
nominations?
Answer. I understand that for all officer promotions, including
general officer promotions, the Office of the Army General Counsel, in
coordination with the Office of the Judge Advocate General, reviews
Memoranda of Instructions (MOIs) that govern the conduct of promotion
selection boards and subsequent promotion selection board reports.
These offices review adverse information that is not in an officer's
official military personnel file that may be presented to the promotion
selection board to ensure it is accurate and comports with the
requirements of title 10, U.S.C., section 615, e.g., that the
information is ``substantiated, relevant information that could
reasonably affect the deliberations of the selection board'' and
whether notice and opportunity to respond to the information has been
afforded to the officer. For adverse information that becomes available
after a promotion selection board makes its recommendations, these
offices assist the Secretary of the Army in determining whether a
promotion review board should be convened to consider whether the
Secretary should continue to support the promotion of the considered
officer or take steps to remove an officer from a promotion list. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 amended title
10, section 615, with regard to the processing of adverse information
for general officers. In general officer cases, the Office of the Army
General Counsel provides the same review, except the standard is ``any
credible information of an adverse nature.''
Question. What is your understanding of the role of the General
Counsel of the Department of the Army in ensuring the legal sufficiency
of statutory selection board processes?
Answer. I understand that under title 10, U.S.C., chapter 36, the
Secretary of the Army is responsible for the proper functioning of the
Department of the Army's promotion selection process. Prior to approval
by the Secretary of the Army, all MOIs for officer promotion selection
boards are reviewed by the Office of the Army General Counsel, in
coordination with the Office of the Judge Advocate General, to ensure
the Secretary's instructions conform to statutes and accurately reflect
his guidance regarding attributes necessary for service in the next
grade. All reports of promotion selection boards are processed through
the Office of the Army General Counsel prior to final action on the
report by the Secretary. The Army General Counsel must satisfy himself
or herself that the Army has met applicable statutory standards and
that individual selection board reports conform to the law. The Army
General Counsel must advise the Secretary of the Army of any case in
which a selection board report fails to adhere to the statutory
standards, either generally or with regard to a particular officer
being considered for promotion. In advising the Secretary of the Army
and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and
Reserve Affairs), the General Counsel helps to ensure that Army
promotion policies properly implement applicable laws and regulations
and are fairly applied. Moreover, the Office of the Army General
Counsel coordinates closely on these matters with the Office of the
Judge Advocate General.
Question. What is the role, if any, of the General Counsel of the
Department of the Army in reviewing and providing potentially adverse
information pertaining to a nomination to the Senate Armed Services
Committee?
Answer. I have been advised that under current Department of the
Army practice, the General Counsel's office reviews each selection
board report, as well as departmental communications to the committee,
the President, and the Secretary of Defense concerning nominations, to
ensure that the reports and communications comply in form and substance
with law and regulation. The General Counsel's office gives special
attention to cases of nominees with substantiated or potentially
adverse information, in order to ensure that such information is
reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee in a timely manner.
military personnel policy and cases
Question. In your view, what role, if any, should the General
Counsel play in military personnel policy and individual cases,
including cases before the Board for Correction of Military Records?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the
Army, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve
Affairs), and other senior Department of the Army leaders to ensure
that the Department of the Army's military personnel policies are
formulated and applied uniformly, fairly, and in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations. If I were to become aware of
individual cases in which military personnel policies were not fairly
and lawfully applied, I would take appropriate action to ensure that
the case is properly resolved. If confirmed, I will coordinate with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), who
exercises overall supervision of the Army Review Boards Agency, to
ensure that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records receives
the Army legal community's full support.
sexual assault prevention and response policy
Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct have been reported by
troops in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan over the last several years.
Many victims and their advocates contend that they were victimized
twice: first by attackers in their own ranks and then by unresponsive
or inadequate military treatment. They asserted that the military
failed to provide basic services available to civilians who have been
raped, from medical attention to criminal investigations of their
charges. Most of these incidents involve Army personnel because the
Army has the largest presence in the theater.
What is your view of the systems and programs the Army has in place
in deployed locations to offer victims of serious sexual assaults the
medical, psychological, and legal help they need?
Answer. If confirmed, I will focus on this area. I understand that
the Army has taken significant steps to improve the assistance to
victims of all sexual assaults, with enhanced recognition of the
special circumstances that apply to deployments. The Army recently
implemented a comprehensive Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Program. Under the program, the Army requires every unit, brigade-sized
and higher, to appoint and train a deployable Sexual Assault Response
Coordinator and every battalion to appoint and train two Unit Victim
Advocates. These individuals are trained to provide victim advocacy and
help victims through the process of recovery in a deployed location. I
also understand that Army policy now requires deployed mission
commanders to conduct monthly command oversight of, and to obtain
feedback concerning, the implementation of the program. If confirmed, I
will study this matter in greater depth with a view to ensuring the
Army is taking appropriate steps to provide medical, psychological, and
legal help to soldiers who are victims of sexual assault, both in
garrison and in deployed locations.
Question. What is your view of the steps the Army has taken to
prevent additional sexual assaults on female soldiers at their home
stations and when they are deployed?
Answer. I have been advised that this is an extremely important
issue for the Army leadership and, if confirmed, look forward to
working with them to ensure all appropriate measures are taken to
prevent sexual assault, both at home stations and in deployed
environments. With a view to preventing sexual assault, the Army has
promulgated specific guidance in Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command
Policy, that reinforces a commitment to eliminating incidents of sexual
assault through a comprehensive policy that centers on awareness and
prevention, training and education, victim advocacy, response,
reporting, and accountability. In accordance with that regulation,
commanders are required to conduct annual sexual assault prevention and
response training and ensure that such training is integrated into pre-
and post-deployment briefings. I understand that the Army maintains a
Web site with a set of comprehensive training packages to facilitate
standardized and progressive training at all levels. The Army safety
office also published guidance to assist commanders to identify risk
factors for sexual assault and to help reduce or eliminate the risk of
sexual assault. If confirmed, I will ensure that the legal community
fully supports these initiatives and will assess whether additional
steps can be taken.
whistleblower protection
Question. Section 1034, title 10, U.S.C., prohibits taking
retaliatory personnel action against a member of the Armed Forces as
reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition, protected
communications include communications to certain individuals and
organizations outside of the chain of command.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that senior
military leaders understand the need to protect servicemembers who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. Department of Defense Directive 7050.6, Military
Whistleblower Protection, implements title 10, U.S.C., section 1034,
and affirms that members of the Armed Forces shall be free from
reprisal for making or preparing a protected communication to a Member
of Congress; an Inspector General; a member of a DOD audit, inspection,
investigation, or law enforcement organization; or any other person or
organization (within or outside the chain of command) designated under
regulations or established procedures to receive such communications.
If confirmed, I will work with The Judge Advocate General to ensure
that military leaders are fully and accurately advised of the
whistleblower protections accorded by law and regulation, and
understand their legal responsibilities in this important area. In
addition, I will ensure that any individual cases involving illegal
reprisals that come to my attention are addressed in accordance with
the law.
support to army inspector general
Question. What role, if any, do you think the General Counsel of
the Army should have in reviewing the investigations and
recommendations of the Army Inspector General?
Answer. If confirmed, as the chief legal officer of the Department
of the Army and counsel to the Secretary and other Secretariat
officials, I will establish and maintain a close, professional
relationship with the Inspector General, and will communicate with him
directly and candidly as he performs his prescribed duties. I will
provide independent and objective legal advice with regard to all
matters that relate to Inspector General programs, duties, functions,
and responsibilities. I will oversee the provision of productive and
effective legal guidance to the Office of the Inspector General in
conducting investigations and delineating recommendations. Further, as
part of my responsibility to review legal and policy issues arising
from the Army's intelligence and counterintelligence activities, I will
advise the Inspector General concerning proper reporting of the Army's
intelligence oversight activities. Of course, given the Inspector
General's mandate for independence and candor in advising the Secretary
as to his investigative findings and recommendations, the Inspector
General has final authority over matters within his functional purview.
women in combat
Question. Section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 requires the Secretary of Defense to report to
Congress on his review of the current and future implementation of the
policy regarding assignment of women in combat. In conducting the
review, the Secretary of Defense must examine Army unit modularization
efforts and associated personnel assignment policies to ensure their
compliance with the Department of Defense policy on women in combat
that has been in effect since 1994.
What lessons have been learned about the feasibility of current
policies regarding women in combat from Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom and what is your assessment of the Army's
compliance with the requirements of law relating to women in combat?
Answer. The study requested by Congress and underway within the
Department of Defense will help the Department understand the
implications for, and feasibility of, current policies regarding women
in combat, particularly in view of the Army's transformation to a
modular force and the irregular, nonlinear nature of the battlefields
associated with today's conflicts.
It is my understanding that the Army's transformation to modular
units is expected to be based on the current policy concerning the
assignment of women. Women have and will continue to be an integral
part of our Army team, performing exceptionally well in all specialties
and positions open to them. Women make up about 14 percent of the
Active Army, 23 percent of the Army Reserve, and 13 percent of the Army
National Guard. Approximately 10 percent of the forces deployed in
support of the global war on terrorism are women soldiers. Today,
almost 14,000 women soldiers are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Question. How do you anticipate you will participate in the review
of the policy required by section 541?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has undertaken to
complete the comprehensive review requested by this committee and
Congress. It is an important study of complex issues critical to the
Department. The Army will support the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to complete this review. The Army, DOD, and Congress must work
together closely on this issue. If confirmed, I will endeavor to
provide the Secretary with cogent legal advice regarding implementation
of this policy. If in the future the Army determines that there is a
need to seek a change to the policy, I will, if confirmed, advise the
Army to comply fully with all notification requirements in title 10,
U.S.C., section 652.
civilian attorneys
Question. Judge advocates in the Armed Forces benefit from an
established career ladder, substantial training opportunities, and
exposure to a broad spectrum of legal areas and problems. By contrast,
civilian attorneys in the military departments normally do not have
established career programs and may do the same work for many years,
with promotion based solely upon longevity and vacancies.
In your opinion, does the personnel management of civilian
attorneys need changing? If so, what do you see as the major problems
and what changes would you suggest?
Answer. I believe that the entirety of the Army legal community
appreciates the growing need for a systemic civilian attorney
professional development program that appropriately reflects the tenets
by which we have historically developed judge advocates. In 2005, the
Office of the Army General Counsel, together with the Office of the
Judge Advocate General and the other Department of the Army qualifying
authorities, created, and have committed to long-term participation in,
a Department of the Army Civilian Attorney Professional Development
Working Group for the purpose of assessing and recommending programs
for the professional development of civilian attorneys. The Working
Group is currently creating a systemic plan for civilian attorney
professional development that will include identifying civilian
attorney training requirements and categorizing key management and
specialty positions for attorneys in the Department of the Army (DA).
The group is also creating a civilian attorney database to manage all
DA civilian attorneys and developing a plan for recruiting young
attorneys into the DA legal community. If confirmed, I would work
closely with The Judge Advocate General and the other qualifying
authorities to support this important endeavor.
environmental issues
Question. A number of major environmental statutes include national
security exemptions. For example, section 7(j) of the Endangered
Species Act states: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, the committee shall grant an exemption for any agency action
if the Secretary of Defense finds that such exemption is necessary for
reasons of national security.''
If confirmed as General Counsel of the Army, what role would you
expect to play in determining whether it would be appropriate to
exercise a national security exemption in connection with an activity
or function of the Department of the Army?
Answer. If confirmed as the General Counsel of the Army, I would
view my role as one of facilitating both the decision as to whether a
national security exemption is appropriate and, in those limited
circumstances where it may be determined that one is proper, assisting
the processing of the exemption to approval.
First, where important Army operations or capabilities are
significantly impacted by application of the requirements of
environmental law, it would be my role to advise senior Army
decisionmakers on their legal options, including the possibility of
pursuing available national security exemptions. However, before
advising on pursuing an exemption, I believe it would be imperative to
look at the environmental requirement in light of the operation or
capability being impacted and determine whether legal alternatives to
an exemption were available.
Second, if it were decided that it was appropriate to seek an
exemption, I would advise and assist in pursuing the exemption on
behalf of the Army. For example, some exemptions can be exercised only
in consultation with other agencies (such as that under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, which requires consultation with the Secretary
of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior). Even where consultation
is not specifically required, all environmental exemptions implicate
regulatory programs under the auspices of other agencies at the Federal
or State level and could benefit from the expertise of those agencies.
I believe my position as General Counsel would involve me in these
interagency discussions.
Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that the use of
such an exemption would be necessary and appropriate?
Answer. In crafting the exemptions that currently exist in
environmental law, Congress has appropriately established a high
hurdle, often requiring a presidential determination, based on the
highest possible standard: that the exemption is necessary in the
``paramount interest of the United States.'' Such is the case under
section 313(a) of the Clean Water Act, section 6001(a) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, section 118(b) of the Clean Air Act,
section 4(b) of the Noise Control Act, and section 1447(a) of the
Public Health Service Act (Safe Drinking Water Act). From this
standard, and from the limited duration for which exemptions may be
granted, it is clear that Congress intended that exemptions should be
invoked only in extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances, I
believe, include those where a particular environmental restriction
poses a significant threat to military readiness or national security
and no effective alternative exists which will allow compliance with
the environmental requirement and still permit the critical activity to
proceed.
In seeking an exemption, I believe the proponent must shoulder the
burden of identifying not only the restriction imposed and its impact
on military readiness, but also why the military training, testing, or
operational activity cannot be modified to avoid a conflict with the
environmental requirement without diminishing readiness, and an
explanation of how any environmental impacts of the exemption can be
mitigated. Finally, I believe the exemption should be tailored to be as
narrow as possible while still preserving military readiness.
Although I believe it is important that the existing environmental
exemptions should be used sparingly and with great caution, I must add
that their focus on individual activities, facilities, or pollution
sources, for a limited duration, makes them of limited suitability for
some ongoing actions, including many categories of readiness activities
that are part of the day-to-day training regimen for our forces. To
date, the Department of Defense has worked well and cooperatively with
the regulatory community and other stakeholders to avoid impacts on
these activities, which individually might not be significant, but
which cumulatively could have large impacts on military readiness.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the General Counsel of the
Department of the Army?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
relationship between general counsel and corps of engineers
1. Senator Sessions. Mr. Cohen, please explain your understanding
of the relationship between the Office of the General Counsel of the
Army and the various lawyers for the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Cohen. As provided for in General Order No. 3, the General
Counsel of the Army is the legal counsel to the Secretary of the Army
and is the chief legal officer of the Department of the Army. In that
capacity, the General Counsel exercises technical supervision over and
provides professional guidance to the attorneys assigned to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The General Counsel determines the
Army's final legal position on all issues. I am aware that the Army
General Counsel's office is divided into four functional legal practice
groups: Acquisition, Civil Works and Environment, Ethics and Fiscal,
and Operations and Personnel. Each practice group is led by a career-
appointed Deputy General Counsel. Each Deputy is a member of the Senior
Executive Service. I understand that lawyers for the USACE have a close
professional working relationship with attorneys in the Army General
Counsel's office. I further understand that frequent and routine
interaction occurs between USACE attorneys and attorneys in the General
Counsel's office. I believe that the close working professional
relationship the Army General Counsel's office has with The Judge
Advocate General's office, and with subordinate legal offices,
including the Office of the Command Counsel, Army Materiel Command, and
the Office of the Chief Counsel, USACE, is one of the strengths of the
Army's legal community.
2. Senator Sessions. Mr. Cohen, what is the principal role of the
General Counsel, and how does it compare or differ from lawyers for the
U.S. Corps?
Mr. Cohen. As noted above, the General Counsel of the Army is the
legal counsel to the Secretary of the Army and is the chief legal
officer of the Department of the Army. The General Counsel's
responsibility extends to any subject of law and to other matters as
directed by the Secretary of the Army. In addition to providing legal
counsel to the Secretary of the Army, the General Counsel is also
responsible for coordinating legal and policy advice, for determining
the final Army legal position on any legal question or procedure, for
establishing and administering the Army's policies concerning legal
services, for providing technical supervision over and professional
guidance to all attorneys and legal offices within the Army, and for
providing professional guidance and general oversight with respect to
matters in litigation.
In contrast, the Chief Counsel of the USACE is the legal counsel to
the Chief of Engineers, and Commander, USACE. The Chief Counsel
coordinates legal and policy advice within USACE, determines the final
USACE legal position on any legal question or procedure, establishes
and administers policies concerning the delivery of legal services
within USACE, provides technical supervision over and professional
guidance to all attorneys and legal offices within USACE, and provides
professional guidance and general oversight with respect to USACE
matters in litigation.
The General Counsel serves as intermediate rater in the performance
evaluation rating chain for the civilian heads of subordinate legal
offices. Thus, the General Counsel is the intermediate rater for the
USACE Chief Counsel. The Chief Counsel, in turn, is the intermediate
rater or senior rater for each subordinate legal office within USACE.
All civilian heads of legal offices at any level of the Army (e.g.
USACE Divisions, Districts, Labs, and Centers) are expected to support,
promptly communicate with, and generally be responsive to Army
headquarters. Moreover, each civilian head of a legal office is
expected to comply fully with higher level legal office guidance. I
have learned that this performance objective is contained in the
performance plan of all civil heads of legal offices at any level of
the Army.
3. Senator Sessions. Mr. Cohen, if a matter arose regarding the
Secretary of Army's discretion over U.S. Corps policy or execution of
Corps regulation, who would typically advise the Secretary: his General
Counselor U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lawyers? What is the reasoning
for this practice?
Mr. Cohen. Under these circumstances, it is my understanding that
the General Counsel of the Army would advise the Secretary of the Army,
as the Secretary of the Army looks to his or her General Counsel to
provide authoritative and independent legal advice and counsel. On
matters involving the USACE, such as the interpretation of an engineer
regulation or internal USACE policy, it would be prudent and
reasonable, in my opinion, for the General Counsel to consult fully
with the USACE Chief Counsel prior to advising the Secretary of the
Army. Ultimately, it is the General Counsel's responsibility to provide
the final legal position to the Secretary of the Army.
corps of engineers ongoing litigation
4. Senator Sessions. Mr. Cohen, in State of Alabama and State of
Florida v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a case regarding the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the judge issued a temporary restraining order to
block implementation of a settlement agreement that had been entered in
another case. On interlocutory appeal, the 11th Circuit vacated the
order and remanded the case, holding that the plaintiff failed to
``establish an imminent threat of irreparable harm'' nor a
``substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the case.''
Based on your understanding of appellate law, what does it mean to have
a case ``remanded?'' What is the status of such a case--does it
conclude after the appeal or is it ``pending litigation'' subject to
further action at the trial court level?
Mr. Cohen. Generally speaking, it is my understanding that when a
case is remanded, the case is sent back to the lower court for further
proceedings. An appellate court usually directs the lower court to take
specific action consistent with the opinion or ruling accompanying the
remand. In some cases, the opinion or ruling accompanying the remand
may actually dictate or result in final disposition of the case. In
other instances, the opinion or ruling accompanying the remand may not
dispose of the case but affirm or overrule a specific issue (or issues)
in the case. In this instance, the lower court then proceeds with
resolution of the case consistent with the appellate ruling.
updating operating manuals
5. Senator Sessions. Mr. Cohen, 33 C.F.R. Sec. 222.5 pertains to
the operating manuals that the Corps of Engineers uses to dictate
waterflow at various locks and dams. The section, in pertinent part,
provides: ``(3) Water control plans developed for specific projects and
reservoir systems will be clearly documented in appropriate water
control manuals. These manuals will be prepared to meet initial
requirements when storage in the reservoir begins. They will be revised
as necessary to conform with changing requirements resulting from
developments in the project area and downstream, improvements in
technology, new legislation and other relevant factors, provided such
revisions comply with existing Federal regulations and established
Corps of Engineers policy.'' Having reviewed that code section, do you
interpret 33 C.F.R. Sec. 222.5 to create a hard and fast legal mandate
that these manuals must be updated at a particular point in time, or do
you understand the section to simply authorize the Secretary to update
the manuals when he sees fit?
Mr. Cohen. Based upon my initial review of 33 C.F.R. Sec. 225.5, it
appears that this regulation is silent as to a specific time when water
control plans and manuals must be updated. Accordingly, the Secretary
of the Army must exercise sound discretion in determining when to
update these documents. The Secretary's discretion, however, is not
without constraints. In deciding when to commence the updating process,
the Secretary of the Army, in my opinion, must give due consideration
to all relevant factors. Unreasonably declining to update the water
control plans and manuals in the face of changing requirements, or
indefinitely delaying the updating process without cause, could be
challenged legally as abuses of the Secretary's discretion in this
area.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
acf and act river basins
6. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, please comment on your
understanding of the ongoing conflict over the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa
(ACT) River Basin in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. What role, if any,
do you believe the Army, specifically the Army Corps of Engineers,
should play in resolving this conflict?
Mr. Cohen. I understand there is a longstanding dispute between
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida over appropriate and equitable water
allocation in two specific river basins, namely the ACF basin and the
ACT basin. I am also aware of numerous lawsuits that have challenged
various aspects of the USACEs' water control management of these two
basins. I have been apprised that the Court in Alabama v. USACE
recently ordered the three States and the Army to attempt resolution of
the issues before the Court through mediation. I further understand a
mediator has been appointed and the parties have begun the mediation
process.
I understand that the Secretary of the Army and the USACE have
specific statutory responsibilities to manage and operate the ACT and
ACF River Basins to meet the purposes authorized by Congress. With
regard to the underlying water allocation dispute, it is my
understanding that neither the Army nor USACE has the authority, or
responsibility, to allocate water rights among the three States. The
three States must determine an equitable allocation of water or
litigate the dispute. When an allocation of water among the three
States is agreed to, I understand that the Army, and specifically the
USACE, would then accommodate, consistent with congressionally
authorized purposes, the allocation formula into its management and
operation of the two systems by making specific revisions to the
basin's water control plans and manuals. I understand the Army has
offered to provide technical and legal assistance to the three
Governors, to help facilitate an agreement among the States. Resolution
of the water allocation dispute, in my opinion, is, and should remain,
a State issue.
7. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, the Secretary of the Army stated
that he will begin the process of updating the water control manuals
for the ACF and ACT River Basins no later than January 2, 2007. What
legal impediments, if any, stand in the way of beginning that process
immediately?
Mr. Cohen. I am not aware of any current legal impediments that
would preclude the Army from immediately beginning the process of
updating the water control manuals and plans for the ACT and ACF River
Basins. I understand, however, the Secretary of the Army has carefully
considered all relevant factors, including the recommendation of the
Federal mediator appointed by the court to facilitate resolution of
this matter, and, as a matter of discretion, elected to temporarily
delay the updating process until 2 January 2007, having determined that
this approach will promote the overall success of the mediation
process.
8. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, in a letter dated January 30,
2006, from Assistant Secretary Woodley to myself, Senator Isakson,
Senator Sessions, Senator Shelby, Senator Martinez, Senator Nelson,
Governor Perdue, Governor Bush, and Governor Riley, he stated ``The
relevant litigation, as contemplated in my April 26 correspondence, has
concluded, as the Army presently is under no legal prohibition or
injunctive order, and must therefore faithfully execute its Federal
responsibilities in compliance with law and regulation. As the Army
proceeds with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis
associated with the interim storage contracts, required by the
Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc. (SeFPC) settlement
agreement, the Corps will by necessity have to update the operating
procedures and manuals for the ACT and ACF basins.'' Please provide the
statutory and regulatory responsibilities with which the Corps of
Engineers must comply and to which Assistant Secretary Woodley referred
in his January 30 letter.
Mr. Cohen. I am advised that the responsibilities may be found in
the Flood Control Act of 1944, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 709, which provides, in
pertinent part: On and after December 22, 1944, it shall be the duty of
the Secretary of the Army to prescribe regulations for the use of
storage allocated for flood control or navigation at all reservoirs
constructed wholly or in part with Federal funds provided on the basis
of such purposes, and the operation of any such project shall be in
accordance with such regulations. . .
The statute is implemented in regulations found at 33 C.F.R
Sec. 222.5. This regulation prescribes policies and procedures to be
followed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in carrying out water
control management activities, including establishment of water control
plans and manuals for Corps and non-Corps projects, as required by
Federal laws and directives. See section 222.5(a).
Water control plans developed for specific projects and reservoir
systems are to be clearly documented in appropriate water control
manuals. Water control plans and manuals are required to be kept up-to-
date. Revisions to the plans and manuals are required, as necessary to
conform to changing requirements resulting from developments in the
project area and downstream, improvements in technology, new
legislation and other relevant factors, provided such revisions comply
with existing Federal regulations and established policy. See section
222.5(f) (2) and (3).
9. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, please explain how proceeding with
the NEPA analysis associated with interim storage contracts does or
does not, by necessity, require an update of the operating procedures
and manuals for the ACT and ACF basins.
Mr. Cohen. I understand the ACF and ACT basins are each a system of
reservoirs and dams and not collections of independent projects and
facilities. A change in project operations and allocation of pools in
the reservoir at Lake Lanier would affect all the reservoirs downstream
of Lake Lanier in the ACF system. Consequently, studying the
environmental impacts of proposed interim water storage contracts at
Lake Lanier will involve studying how that proposed interim storage
affects releases from Lake Lanier on the downstream dams. In
considering alternatives to water storage at Lake Lanier, water storage
elsewhere or water from other systems may need to be considered. As the
ACT system is some 50 miles from the ACF system at Atlanta, it may be
an alternate source of water for consideration under NEPA.
The ACF River Basin includes four USACE reservoirs and three locks.
The only approved master manual for the ACF basin was prepared in 1958
and does not include Federal facilities at West Point, Walter F.
George, or George W. Andrews. Water control plans were developed for
individual projects as they came on line, or as operations changed
within the system. An Environmental Impact Statement for reservoir
projects was prepared in the 1970s. Current water control plans and
manuals do not address water supply operations. The ACF system is being
managed and operated in accordance with the draft 1989 water control
plans and manuals. The 1989 drafts have never been formally approved
and are currently contested in the Alabama v. USACE lawsuit.
Implementation of the SeFPC v. Secretary of the Army settlement
agreement will require interim changes in project operations to reserve
storage reallocated to water supply and to monitor use of storage. As
mentioned above, water supply operations are not reflected in existing
water control plans and manuals.
In order to execute the interim water storage contracts
contemplated by the SeFPC settlement agreement within 60 days after
completion of the NEPA process (a condition of the settlement
agreement), a revision to the ACF water control plans and manuals is
required to account for the interim reallocated storage. The revised
water control plans and manuals and the NEPA process associated with
the interim water storage contracts contemplated by the SeFPC
settlement agreement should both be completed before the interim water
storage contracts can be executed.
10. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, the Senate Energy and Water
Appropriations report contains the following language: ``Apalachicola,
Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers and Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa
Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Prior notification of the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees and affected congressional Members
is required before any funding shall be reprogrammed or otherwise used
for updating masterplans having to do with projects in these river
basins.'' Likewise the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill
contains the following language: ``Nothing in this act or any other act
shall be construed to require a specific deadline for implementation of
33 C.F.R. 222.5(f) (2) and (3).'' Please describe the effect you
believe these provisions will have on the ability of the Army Corps of
Engineers to move forward with updating the water control manuals for
the ACT and ACF River Basins.
Mr. Cohen. Upon initial review, I do not believe the report
language or the general provision (section 112 of H.R. 5427) would
negatively affect the ability of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
move forward with updating the water control plans and manuals for the
ACT and ACF River Basins. I understand the Secretary of the Army has
already been advised by the General Counsel's office that the
regulation requiring updating of water control plans and manuals does
not prescribe a specific deadline for when the updating process must
commence. Therefore, if this general provision is enacted into law, it
would not alter the current regulation, or cause the Army to modify its
interpretation of 33 C.F.R. 222.5(f) (2) and (3), as presently
codified.
With regard to the report language included in Senate Report 109-
274, Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, 2007, I am confident the
Army would timely notify Congress of expenditures or reprogrammed
funding related to updates of water control plans and manuals in
accordance with the language, and would document the rationale
justifying any decision to proceed with updating the water control
plans and manuals for the ACT and ACF River Basins.
11. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, at what point in either the
implementation of the SeFPC settlement agreement or the updating of the
water control manuals for the ACF and ACT River Basins will the Corps
of Engineers be able to process the pending permits for Gwinnett,
Cherokee, and Forsyth counties in Georgia?
Mr. Cohen. I understand these permit requests are currently being
processed and are in various stages of review. I further understand
these permit requests are not dependent upon the update of the water
control plans and manuals, or the SeFPC NEPA process, and should not be
delayed by those activities.
12. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, what is the anticipated timeline
for completing an update of water control manuals for the ACF and ACT
River Basins?
Mr. Cohen. I understand the current projected schedule has the
SeFPC NEPA process concluding in early December 2008, and the NEPA
process associated with updating the water control plans and manuals
concluding in late March 2009.
13. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, what are potential impediments to
completing such an update on schedule?
Mr. Cohen. The Army is committed to updating the water control
plans and manuals for the ACT and ACF River Basins in accordance with
its responsibilities under applicable law and regulation. As mentioned
in a previous response, I am not aware of any current legal impediments
precluding the immediate start of the updating process. Potential
impediments, as always, could include judicial mandates issued by
courts of competent jurisdiction, or legislative restrictions imposed
by Congress.
14. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, does updating the water control
manuals for the ACT and ACF River Basins explicitly or implicitly
create any legally binding water storage contracts between Georgia,
Florida, and Alabama?
Mr. Cohen. I understand that it does not. Management of the
Nation's water resources is a major Federal responsibility. This
responsibility, in significant measure, has been assigned to the USACE.
It includes the planning, design, construction, and operation of water
resource projects on a national basis. The USACE must direct these
water management activities on the basis of sound engineering and
science. The intricacies of water control management require the USACE
to work out a specific management plan. This plan, defined and
articulated in various water control plans and manuals, enables the
USACE to balance a wide array of public interests, including such
project purposes as flood control, navigation, hydropower, irrigation,
water supply, recreation, and environmental conservation. A primary
objective of efficient water control management, as reflected in water
control plans and manuals, is to produce beneficial water savings and
improvements in the availability and quality of water resulting from
project regulation and operation.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
military commissions
15. Senator Akaka. Mr. Cohen, the Supreme Court recently issued a
decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which held that the special military
commissions established by the administration to try detainees violated
both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
As Congress begins the process of building a system of justice for
prisoners captured in the global war on terror, it will rely on the
input from legal experts in the Department of Defense (DOD). What role
do you believe that the General Counsel should play in the development
of this new judicial process and how should it be coordinated with your
respective Judge Advocates General?
Mr. Cohen. A system of justice for prisoners captured in the global
war on terror is essential to our Nation's success in that conflict.
Legal experts from across the Department of Defense must be available
to consult with Congress as it undertakes to build such a system. I
believe the Army best can assist in this endeavor by participating
meaningfully with Congress in developing and implementing the
legislation invited by the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v.
Rumsfeld. Continuing the close, professional cooperation and
consultation that long have attended the relationship between the
Office of the Army General Counsel and the Office of The Judge Advocate
General, both the civilian and uniformed members of the Army's legal
community have been working together over the past month to assess
Hamdan's impact and to apply the Court's holdings in reviewing and
commenting on preliminary drafts of legislation to constitute a new
military commission system. Further, The Judge Advocate General has
recently detailed the Chief of his Criminal Law Division to a
Department of Justice working group charged with crafting such
legislation for submission to Congress. Recognizing the special status
of the Judge Advocate General as the guardian of the military justice
system within the Department of the Army, and given that congressional
efforts to develop a system of military commissions to try certain
detainees likely will be grounded in the tenets of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, I perceive Congress's extensive exchanges with the
Service Judge Advocate Generals over the past weeks as particularly
important and useful, and would support fully such continued
consultation.
______
[The nomination reference of Benedict S. Cohen follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
February 6, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Benedict S. Cohen, of the District of Columbia, to be General
Counsel of the Department of the Army, vice Steven John Morello, Sr.,
resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Benedict S. Cohen, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Benedict S. Cohen
Ben has 20 years of experience in high-level positions across the
Federal Government, with a principal focus on national security and
foreign policy. He is currently Senior Advisor to Chairman Cox at the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, where he has focused on legal
issues facing the agency and enhancing the Commission's crisis-
management and homeland-security capabilities. Prior to taking this
position, he served as staff director of the Committee on Homeland
Security of the U.S. House of Representatives; where he managed the
transition from select committee to full standing committee status and
the passage of authorization legislation for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and of legislation reforming DHS's grant program. He has
also served as Deputy General Counsel (Environment and Installations)
for the Defense Department, in which capacity he spearheaded DOD's
Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative, a multifaceted
legislative, regulatory, and resource-management program to ensure
sustainability of the military's test and training capabilities and
foster better environmental stewardship. He also provided legal support
for DOD's installation initiatives, and served as a principal spokesman
for the Department on environmental and installations issues. He has
also served in senior positions in the White House Counsel's Office,
the congressional leadership staff, and the Department of Justice, as
well as serving in two law firms.
Education
Ben graduated from Yale magna cum laude in 1980 with a B.A. in
history, and from the University of Chicago Law School in 1983, having
served as an Associate Editor of the Law Review. He clerked for Judge
Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
He lives in American University Park in Washington, DC. His wife is
an attorney in private practice. He has two children, ages 7 and 9.
______
[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 Benedict S.
Cohen 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.)
Benedict Simms Cohen.
2. Position to which nominated:
General Counsel, Department of the Army.
3. Date of nomination:
February 6, 2006.
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 9, 1959; Nashville, Tennessee.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Julia Evans Guttman.
7. Names and ages of children:
Paul Mark Cohen, age 9; Mary Susannah Cohen, age 7.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Montgomery Bell Academy, 1973-1977, high school diploma 1977.
Yale University, 1977-1980, B.A. 1980.
University of Chicago, 1980-1983, J.D. 1983.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
2005-2006: Senior Advisor to the Chairman, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Washington, DC.
2005: Staff Director, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
2002-2005: Deputy General Counsel (Environment and Installations),
U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC (Pentagon).
1995-2001: Executive Director, Policy 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.
1990-1993: Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environment and
Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
1989-1990: Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department
of Justice, Washington, DC.
1987-1989: Associate Counsel to the President, White House
Counsel's Office, Washington, DC.
1986-1987: Attorney-Advisor, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
1985-1986: Law Clerk to the Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court
of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
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.
New York State Bar Association, District of Columbia Bar,
Federalist Society.
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.
Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service.
Attorney General's Special Commendation Award, January 1993.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Ben Cohen, ``Separation of Powers and Federalism in the 104th
Congress,'' published in a Federalist Society publication in the mid-
1990s (either Engage or the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy);
(b) Benedict Cohen and Dirk D. Haire, ``Environmental Citizen Suits:
Standing and the Proper Scope of Relief,'' in Citizen Suits and Qui Tam
Actions: Private Enforcement of Public Policy (National Legal Center
for the Public Interest, 1996).
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.
During the past 5 years, I gave numerous speeches from notes to DOD
audiences, State and Federal officials, and their representatives on
the Defense Department's environmental program, and in particular DOD's
environmental legislative and regulatory initiatives (January 2002-
February 2005, including several annual meetings of the Conference of
Western Attorneys General and a panel on ``Protecting Living Marine
Resources'' at the June 2004 American Bar Association Spring Conference
on the Environment). These speeches were, however, given from summary
notes.
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.
Benedict S. Cohen.
This 16th day of February, 2006.
[The nomination of Benedict S. Cohen was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on August 1, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Frank R. Jimenez by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act strengthened the civilian
leadership of the Department of Defense and improved the clarity of the
chain of command. Implementation of Goldwater-Nichols has enhanced the
ability of the Services to act quickly and jointly. Although I am
currently unaware of any reason to amend Goldwater-Nichols, if
confirmed, I will have the opportunity to assess the act and propose
changes.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. Please see responses to previous question.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy?
Answer. Section 5019 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the General
Counsel of the Department of the Navy shall perform such functions as
the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe. The Secretary has done so
through regulations, instructions, and memoranda. The General Counsel
is the chief legal officer of the Department, and legal opinions issued
by the General Counsel are the controlling legal opinions within the
Department. The General Counsel provides legal advice, counsel, and
guidance to the Secretary, the Under Secretary and the Assistant
Secretaries, and their staffs. He is also responsible for providing
legal services throughout the Department in a variety of fields,
including business and commercial law, real and personal property law,
fiscal law, civilian personnel and labor law, intellectual property
law, environmental law, and litigation. In addition, the General
Counsel serves as the Debarring Official and Designated Agency Ethics
Official for the Department, and assists the Under Secretary of the
Navy in overseeing the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. The Office of the General Counsel in the Department of the
Navy has an extraordinarily broad range of responsibilities, including
litigation, contracts, acquisition, environmental, personnel,
legislative, ethics, and other issues. Though it is not possible for
any attorney to master them all, the General Counsel must possess sound
legal and analytical skills, as well as sound integrity and judgment.
The Office of General Counsel is also quite large, with more than 600
attorneys in over 100 locations worldwide. Accordingly, the General
Counsel must possess strong managerial qualifications and solid
interpersonal and leadership abilities. I believe that my experiences
and background have prepared me well to perform the duties of this
office.
I received my undergraduate degree from the University of Miami in
1987 and my law degree from the Yale Law School in 1991, where I served
as a notes editor of the Yale Law Journal and won the Harlan Fiske
Stone Prize (Best Oralist) and Benjamin N. Cardozo Prize (Best Brief)
in the Yale Moot Court of Appeals. After law school, I clerked for
Judge Pamela Ann Rymer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in Pasadena, California. I subsequently joined the Miami office
of Steel Hector & Davis LLP, where I practiced general commercial
litigation and white collar criminal defense in State and Federal
courts. A year after becoming a partner of the firm, I was asked to
join the staff of newly-elected Governor Jeb Bush as Deputy General
Counsel. In my 3\1/2\ years on the Governor's staff, I also served at
various times as Acting General Counsel and Deputy Chief of Staff,
helping in the latter position to supervise executive agencies covering
the environment, transportation, health, business regulation, land use,
and emergency management. In 2002, I became Chief of Staff at the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, assisting then-Secretary
Mel Martinez in managing more than 9,000 employees and an annual budget
surpassing $30 billion. For the last 2 years, I've served in the U.S.
Department of Defense, first as Principal Deputy General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy, then as Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel)
of the U.S. Department of Defense. I recently graduated with an MBA
from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
This experience in both legal and managerial positions in the
public and private sectors has prepared me to address the wide array of
challenges and responsibilities faced by the General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy. In particular, I believe my experience as
Principal Deputy General Counsel for the Department of the Navy in
2004-2005 will serve me and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) in good
stead if I am confirmed. During my year in Navy OGC, I developed many
relationships and a large volume of working knowledge that will allow
me to assume the duties of General Counsel quickly and effectively.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the General Counsel of
the Department of the Navy?
Answer. I believe that I possess the essential legal expertise and
leadership skills to be the General Counsel of the Department of the
Navy. As Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel) of the Department of
Defense, I have enhanced my understanding of the relationships between
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military departments, the
Defense agencies, and their respective legal communities. During my
service as Principal Deputy General Counsel of the Department of the
Navy, I became very familiar with the Department's leadership and
organization, its uniformed and civilian attorneys, and the legal
challenges facing the Department. If confirmed as the General Counsel,
I will continue to rely heavily on the wisdom and knowledge of those
who have devoted themselves to service in the Navy and Marine Corps, as
well as the career civil servants in the Department.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Winter would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect that Secretary Winter will desire my
candid and objective legal advice concerning issues, opportunities, and
problems as they arise. I anticipate that my formal responsibilities as
General Counsel of the Department of the Navy will remain largely as
they are currently. I also anticipate that Secretary Winter will expect
me to continue the exemplary relationship between the General Counsel,
the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and the Staff Judge Advocate to
the Commandant of the Marine Corps, in order to ensure the faithful
execution of the laws throughout the Department of the Navy and the
successful accomplishment of the Department's mission. I expect to work
closely with the General Counsels of the Department of Defense, other
military departments, defense agencies and other Federal agencies, and
with Congress, on matters of mutual interest or concern.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense?
Answer. While the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy
reports to the Secretary of the Navy, the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense is the chief legal officer of the Department of
Defense. If confirmed, I will work closely with the General Counsel of
the Department of Defense on matters of mutual interest or concern.
relationship with the judge advocate general
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Judge Advocate General of the Navy and the Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps?
Answer. The General Counsel, the Judge Advocate General of the
Navy, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps must have relationships marked by full consultation, open
communication, close and collegial cooperation, and careful
coordination. These relationships are essential to ensure the faithful
execution of the laws throughout the Department. In my experience as
Principal Deputy General Counsel, I found the existing relationships to
be truly extraordinary, and of great benefit to our clients throughout
the Department. If confirmed, I am confident that these close and
collegial relationships will continue.
Question. How are the legal responsibilities of the Department of
the Navy allocated between the General Counsel, the Judge Advocate
General, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps?
Answer. The Department of the Navy is unique among the military
departments, because it is served by three legal communities: the
General Counsel and Office of the General Counsel, the Judge Advocate
General of the Navy and Navy Judge Advocates, and the Staff Judge
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps and Marine Judge
Advocates. The governance model for legal services within the
Department of the Navy is founded upon close professional and personal
relationships between the General Counsel, the Judge Advocate General
of the Navy, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the
Marine Corps--relationships that emphasize communication, transparency,
and mutual support. The General Counsel is the principal legal advisor
to the Secretary of the Navy, the Assistant Secretaries, and their
staffs, and is the head of the Office of the General Counsel. In
addition, the General Counsel exercises other special authorities by
delegation or direction from the Secretary of the Navy, or by law or
regulation. For example, the General Counsel is the reporting senior
for the Director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, acts as
the Designated Agency Ethics Official for the Department of the Navy,
and administers the Department's alternative dispute resolution and
acquisition integrity programs. The Office of the General Counsel's
practice includes business and commercial law, environmental law,
personnel and labor law, fiscal law, intellectual property law, and
ethics, among other subjects. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy
also reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy, and generally
provides legal services in the areas of military justice, international
law, matters associated with military operations, environmental law,
military personnel law, administrative law, claims, and ethics. The
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps is the
senior military lawyer to the Commandant, and his responsibilities
largely parallel those of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The
responsibilities of the General Counsel, the Judge Advocate General,
and Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant will overlap from time to
time. In such instances, the three legal communities address matters by
working closely together for the benefit of the Department.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy?
Answer. I believe that the General Counsel's greatest challenge
will be to deliver timely, responsive, and accurate legal advice as the
Department of the Navy addresses two fundamental, emerging issues: the
conduct of global, asymmetric warfare, and the execution of strategic
and commercial transformation initiatives. To meet the Department's
needs in these areas, the General Counsel likely will address matters
concerning acquisition reform, privatization, oversight of
intelligence, environmental law and policy, and military and civilian
personnel law and policy. If confirmed, I will work, in cooperation
with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Staff Judge Advocate to
the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to ensure that the legal
communities of the Department of the Navy have the resources necessary
to meet the diverse and changing needs of their clients.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the resources, organization,
and operation of the Office of the General Counsel, and implement
whatever changes may be necessary to enhance its ability to confront
these challenges. I will work to maximize coordination and cooperation
with all stakeholders. I will also continue or enhance the previous
General Counsel's initiatives on career development and performance
measurement.
priorities
Question. The Navy and Marine Corps are engaged on a daily basis in
combat and combat support in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
Freedom, restructuring and recaptalizing in accordance with the goals
of the Quadrennial Defense Review, reducing Navy Active-Duty and
Reserve end strengths, and transforming the Department of the Navy's
Total Force to deal with a host of traditional and non-traditional
threats to the security of the Nation.
In what ways can you, if confirmed as General Counsel, contribute
to military readiness and the success of the Navy and Marine Corps?
Answer. If confirmed, I will strive to deliver effective and
innovative legal services to assist the Secretary of the Navy in
carrying out his statutory responsibility to recruit, organize, supply,
equip, train, service, mobilize, demobilize, administer, and maintain,
all in the interest of promoting readiness across the Navy and Marine
Corps. In this regard, I would work closely with the Secretary and the
senior leadership of the Department to ensure that the priorities of
the Office of the General Counsel are aligned with those of its
clients.
Question. What broad priorities would you establish, if confirmed,
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Office of the General
Counsel of the Department of the Navy?
Answer. My foremost priority will be to ensure that the Department
of the Navy receives the highest quality legal advice and services in
the most efficient manner, and that uniformed and civilian attorneys
work together to accomplish that goal. If confirmed, I will further
explore and develop more defined priorities.
attorney recruiting and retention issues
Question. How do you assess your ability to hire and retain top
quality attorneys and provide sufficient opportunity for advancement?
Answer. I believe that the Department of the Navy continues to hire
outstanding civilian attorneys. The Office of the General Counsel
receives a large volume of applications, and competition for employment
remains intense. Nonetheless, the increasing financial disparity
between Government attorneys and privately employed attorneys is a
challenge. If confirmed, I will work with the senior staff of the
Office of the General Counsel to address these issues. I will also
enhance the previous General Counsel's initiatives on career
development.
Question. In your view, does the Department of the Navy have a
sufficient number of attorneys to perform its missions?
Answer. I believe that the Department of the Navy has a sufficient
number of civilian and military attorneys to perform its missions. The
demand for civilian attorneys and judge advocates has grown
significantly, however, both generally and in response to specific
emerging issues. In this era of intense media scrutiny, complex
national security questions in domestic and international law,
environmental concerns, and the penchant of many to litigate, there is
an increasing demand for sophisticated, specialized legal services. If
confirmed, I will work with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and
the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps to
ensure the Department has a sufficient number of lawyers to meet its
needs.
Question. In your view, what incentives to successful recruiting
and retention of attorneys, if any, need to be implemented or
established?
Answer. The competition for legal talent is keen, and law students
typically enter the job market burdened by substantial debt.
Initiatives by Congress and the Department of the Navy have helped to
alleviate some of the financial pressures facing our young judge
advocates, and have improved retention. Similar incentives are not
currently available to civilian attorneys, but the Department of the
Navy Office of the General Counsel offers appointments to new attorneys
at grade levels that are highly competitive with other Federal
agencies. This may account, in part, for the Office of the General
Counsel's continued success in recruiting and retaining highly
competent attorneys. If confirmed, I will work with the senior staff of
the Office of the General Counsel to address these issues.
base realignment and closure (brac)
Question. In 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure process was
concluded, and the BRAC Commission's recommendations enacted. These
decisions will close or realign significant numbers of military
installations, increasing the military value of our infrastructure,
transforming certain common functions across the Department, and saving
valuable resources.
Now that those recommendations have the force and effect of law,
how would you approach implementation of those recommendations if you
are confirmed?
Answer. I understand that the Department of Defense must fully
implement the recommendations of the BRAC Commission within 6 years, as
required by law. I also understand that the Department of the Navy, in
order to execute its own BRAC 2005 recommendations and a number of
joint, cross-service group recommendations as directed by the Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), is
developing implementation plans and associated budget materials. BRAC
2005 is vitally important to the Department of the Navy, because it
will allow the Department to reduce excess infrastructure (allowing
scarce dollars to be moved to areas that result in improved readiness)
and to transform the remaining infrastructure.
military justice matters
Question. Article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice gives
primary jurisdiction over military justice to the Judge Advocates
General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
How do you view your responsibilities in the performance of
military justice matters with regard to the Judge Advocate General of
the Navy?
Answer. In article 6, Congress gave the Judge Advocate General of
the Navy or other senior members of his staff the responsibility to
``make frequent inspections in the field in supervision of the
administration of military justice.'' If confirmed, as the chief legal
officer of the Department of the Navy, I will have an interest in the
administration of military justice. I envision a close working
relationship with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Staff
Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, in which we share
information and work collaboratively when necessary to resolve issues
of policy and matters pertaining to specific cases. I believe that a
close working relationship with the Judge Advocate General and Staff
Judge Advocate to the Commandant, and reliance on their special
expertise, will enable us collectively to avoid any potential issues of
command influence.
treatment of detainees
Question. What is your understanding of the definition of ``humane
treatment'' of detainees?
Answer. The President's Military Order, November 13, 2001, requires
that detainees be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar
criteria; afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing,
and medical treatment; and allowed the free exercise of religion
consistent with the requirements of detention.
The recently enacted Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 requires that
no individual in the custody or under the physical control of the
United States Government, regardless of physical location, shall be
subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense issued guidance on July 7, 2006
stating that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,--S.Ct.----,
2006 WL 1764793 (U.S.) (June 29, 2006) (``Hamdan''), determined that
Article Three Common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (``Common
Article Three'') applies as a matter of law to the conflict with al
Qaeda.
Congress may further define the responsibilities of the United
States under Common Article Three in any future legislation adopted in
response to the Hamdan decision.
Question. What is the role of the General Counsel of the Department
of the Navy in ensuring that all detainees in the custody of U.S. Armed
Forces are provided humane treatment?
Answer. Under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, any individual
under the control of the Department of the Navy (or any other component
of the Department of Defense) must be treated humanely and kept from
being subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment, including individuals held as a result of counterdrug
operations (South/Central America), migrant operations, law enforcement
operations, and armed conflict. In this regard, the role of the General
Counsel is to provide guidance to the Department of the Navy regarding
its obligations under the Detainee Treatment Act and all other sources
of legal obligation toward detainees.
Regarding current detention operations in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
Afghanistan, and Iraq, the combatant commanders plan, execute, and
oversee combatant command detention operations. The Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff provides oversight to the combatant commanders to
ensure their detention operations, policies, and procedures are
consistent with DOD policies and requirements.
The Secretary of the Army is the Executive Agent for detention
operations. The Army is in the process of revising AR 190-8, the ``tri-
service'' detainee regulation.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) is responsible
for developing, reviewing, and coordinating all DOD policy pertaining
to the DOD Detainee Program. In July 2004, the Secretary of Defense
established the Office of Detainee Affairs under the USD(P) to serve as
the focal point for all detention policy matters.
Question. What is the role, if any, of the General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy in ensuring that interrogation policies under
the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogations,
including any revisions to the current field manual, are consistent
with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005?
Answer. The Department of the Army is responsible for providing
doctrinal guidance concerning the Army Field Manual 34-52,
``Intelligence Interrogations.'' The revision to FM 34-52, FM 2-22.3,
``Human Intelligence Collector Operations,'' is in the process of
coordination throughout the Department of Defense. It is my
understanding that the Department of Navy, including the Office of
General Counsel, has had an opportunity to provide comments concerning
this draft publication. The role of the General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy is to advise officials of the Department of the
Navy in their review of the draft Army Field Manual and in their
efforts to ensure that all Department of the Navy personnel comply with
the final version.
Should any credible allegations of abuse during detainee
intelligence interrogations come to the attention of the General
Counsel of the Department of the Navy, he or she should immediately
report such allegations to superiors and follow through until the
matter is satisfactorily resolved.
consolidation of military and civilian legal staffs
Question. On September 10, 2001, Secretary Rumsfeld initiated a
``war on bureaucracy'' stating that in order to make decisions more
quickly, the Department must slash duplication, encourage cooperation,
and start asking tough questions about redundant staff. He noted:
``There are dozens of offices of general counsel scattered throughout
the Department. Each Service has one. Every agency does, too. So do the
Joint Chiefs. We have so many general counsel offices that we actually
have another general counsel's office whose only job is to coordinate
all those general counsels.''
What is your understanding of actions that have been taken in the
Department of Defense and Department of the Navy to address the
Secretary's concerns?
Answer. As a DOD Deputy General Counsel and as Principal Deputy
General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, I have worked closely
with my counterparts in the military departments and other components
of the Department of Defense to ensure consistency of approach and
eliminate duplication of effort. I share the Secretary of Defense's
interest in the good stewardship of scarce legal resources.
Question. In your judgment, what actions need to be taken, if any,
in response to Secretary Rumsfeld's challenge?
Answer. If confirmed, with the guidance of the Secretary of the
Navy, and in close cooperation with the Judge Advocate General of the
Navy and Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, I
would work to achieve an efficient allocation of legal resources across
the Department of the Navy. It is critical not only to avoid
duplication of effort, but also to align legal organizations in a
manner that best serves the changing needs of our clients.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of the Navy has the
legal resources necessary to carry out the missions that may be
required of it in wartime? If not, what is needed?
Answer. In wartime, the needs of the Department of the Navy place
great demands on both uniformed and civilian attorneys. Although I
believe that the Department of the Navy has the legal resources
available to execute its missions, the increasing pressure to support
the Department's operations, at home and abroad, demands careful
attention. If confirmed, I will work with the Judge Advocate General of
the Navy and Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps
to ensure that the legal communities of the Department of the Navy
continue to meet the needs of their clients.
religious guidelines
Question. What is your legal assessment of the measures being taken
by the Department of the Navy to provide religious guidelines aimed at
ensuring that members of the chaplain corps of the Navy ensure
religious tolerance and respect?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Navy's guidelines on
religion ensure religious tolerance and respect. If confirmed, I will
continue to support the Navy's firm commitment to striking the proper
constitutional balance between the two tenets of the ``free exercise''
and ``establishment'' clauses.
Question. What is your legal assessment of Department of the Navy
guidance regarding chaplain prayers during official functions other
than worship services with respect to praying according to the manner
and forms of the church of which the chaplain is a member?
Answer. Military chaplains are trained to be sensitive to
facilitate the ministry of members of their own faiths, the members of
other faiths, and to care for all servicemembers. At command functions,
other than for the purpose of religious worship, chaplains are
encouraged to be especially sensitive to and inclusive of the diversity
of faiths of persons attending the functions. Chaplains are not ever
compelled to offer prayers inconsistent with their faith and, as such,
are free to decline participation, with no adverse consequences, in a
command event at which a commander determines the prayer should be
inclusive. In my mind, this is an appropriate balance between the
rights of the individual members, the chaplains, and the commander's
need to preserve good order and discipline.
Question. What is your legal assessment of the adequacy of
departmental guidance to commanders and other leaders regarding free
exercise of religion in the Navy and Marine Corps?
Answer. I am informed that departmental guidance provides
commanders and other leaders ample guidance regarding the free exercise
of religion in the Navy and the Marine Corps. Secretary of the Navy
Instruction 1730.7C, Religious Ministry Within the Department of the
Navy, ``The Department of the Navy Guidelines on Religious Ministry,''
and DOD Directive 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices Within
the Military Services, provide detailed guidance on the important
responsibilities of commanders and leaders in this regard. It is my
understanding that these policies are consistent with the First
Amendment.
general and flag officer nominations
Question. Under DOD Instruction 1320.4, adverse and alleged adverse
information pertaining to general and flag officers must be evaluated
by senior leaders in the Services and in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense prior to nomination.
If confirmed, what role, if any, would you play in the officer
promotion system, particularly in reviewing general and flag officer
nominations?
Answer. If confirmed, my role will be as directed by the Secretary
of the Navy. I will work closely with the Secretary of the Navy, the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), the
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, the Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, and other senior Department of the Navy
leaders to ensure that the Department of the Navy's military personnel
policies are formulated and applied uniformly, fairly, and in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Generally, legal
review of military personnel matters is under the cognizance of the
respective service judge advocates. I understand that officer promotion
matters in the Department of the Navy (both Navy and Marine Corps) are
under the purview of the Secretary and that the Judge Advocate General
has cognizance over legal review of promotion plans, precepts that
govern the conduct of promotion selection boards, subsequent promotion
selection board reports, and review of adverse information.
Question. What is your understanding of the role of the General
Counsel of the Department of the Navy in ensuring the legal sufficiency
of statutory selection board processes?
Answer. Under chapter 36 of title 10, U.S.C., the Secretary of the
Navy is responsible for the proper functioning of the Department of the
Navy's promotion selection process. If confirmed, my role will be as
directed by the Secretary of the Navy. Generally, military personnel
matters are under the cognizance of the respective service judge
advocates. I envision a close working relationship with the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy and Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant
of the Marine Corps, and Office of Counsel for the Commandant, an
office under my supervision, in which we work collaboratively, when
necessary, to resolve issues of policy and matters pertaining to
specific cases.
Question. What is the role, if any, of the General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy in reviewing and providing potentially adverse
information pertaining to a nomination to the Senate Armed Services
Committee?
Answer. It is my understanding that within the Department of the
Navy, the Judge Advocate General reviews each situation where adverse,
or potentially adverse, information involving an officer may exist
prior to the nomination of such officer being presented to the Senate,
in order to ensure that any reports and communications comply in form
and substance with law and regulation. When requested, the General
Counsel's office will provide advice on cases of Department of the Navy
nominees with adverse, or potentially adverse, information, in order to
ensure that such information is reported to the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
military personnel policy and cases
Question. In your view, what role, if any, should the General
Counsel play in military personnel policy and individual cases,
including cases before the Board for Correction of Naval Records?
Answer. If confirmed, my role will be as directed by the Secretary
of the Navy. I will work closely with the Secretary of the Navy, the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and
other senior Department of the Navy leaders to ensure that the
Department of the Navy's military personnel policies are formulated and
applied uniformly, fairly, and in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations. In the event I become aware of individual cases in which
military personnel policies were not fairly and lawfully applied, and
it is proper for me to intervene, I will take appropriate action. If
confirmed, I will coordinate with the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs), who exercises overall supervision of
the Navy Board for Correction of Military Records, to ensure the Board
receives full and comprehensive legal support.
sexual assault prevention and response policy
Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct have been reported
within the armed services over the last several years. Many victims and
their advocates contend that they were victimized twice: first by
attackers in their own ranks and then by unresponsive or inadequate
military treatment. They asserted that the military failed to provide
basic services available to civilians who have been raped, including
proper medical attention, adequate criminal investigations of their
charges, and timely prosecution.
What is your view of the systems and programs the Navy and Marine
Corps have in place in deployed locations to offer victims of serious
sexual assaults the medical, psychological, and legal help they need?
Answer. Proper care of victims of sexual assault is a top priority
for the Department of the Navy, and I understand the Department has
made significant strides in improving assistance to all victims of
sexual assault, including those in deployed locations. The Department
of the Navy has implemented the DOD confidentiality policy and the
restricted and unrestricted reporting options including the Collection
of Forensic Evidence. Navy victim advocates now have the option of
informing commanders of restricted cases of sexual assault for Active-
Duty victims without providing identifying personal information.
Victims of restricted cases of sexual assault are offered advocacy,
medical, and counseling services without triggering an investigation
through law enforcement or command. I understand the Department of the
Navy now provides 24/7 response capability for sexual assaults on the
installation and during deployment by activating watchbills for victim
advocates. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure the Department of
the Navy remains committed to maintaining policies that ensure the
proper care of sexual assault victims.
Question. What is your view of the steps the Navy and Marine Corps
have taken to prevent additional sexual assaults on female soldiers at
their home stations and when they are deployed?
Answer. I am advised that the prevention of sexual assault has been
a key issue for the Department of the Navy for some time. The
Department of the Navy was a pioneer in the Sexual Assault prevention
arena when it developed the Sexual Assault Victim Intervention (SAVI)
and Marine Corps' Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO)
in 1994. Both programs are designed to support the victim, investigate
fully and fairly, and continually evaluate and improve the programs. I
understand that the Department of the Navy has uncompromisingly
promoted victim assistance, awareness and prevention education, and
reporting of sexual assaults.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
required implementation of a standardized DOD Sexual Assault Prevention
program. I am told that the Department of the Navy is working closely
with the DOD Joint Task Force for Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response to standardize sexual assault prevention and identification
responses across DOD. If confirmed, I will continue to support all
efforts along the solid path of change followed by the Joint Task Force
for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, and continue to provide
oversight in all areas under my authority to ensure the prevention of
sexual assaults and protection of victims of sexual assault.
whistleblower protection
Question. Section 1034, title 10, U.S.C., prohibits taking
retaliatory personnel action against a member of the Armed Forces as
reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition, protected
communications include communications to certain individuals and
organizations outside of the chain of command.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that senior
military leaders understand the need to protect servicemembers who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. The Department of Defense implements the Military
Whistleblower Protection Act through Department of Defense Directive
7050.6, and the Department of the Navy further highlights the act
through its own instruction at SECNAVINST 5370.7C that sets forth the
protections afforded to military whistleblowers. If confirmed, I will
act to ensure that military members whose actions are protected by the
act are not subject to illegal reprisals or retaliation. If a case of
illegal reprisal comes to my attention, I will work to ensure that it
is addressed in accordance with the law. I am advised that the
Department of the Navy currently provides great emphasis on compliance
with the act by ensuring that all prospective commanding officers and
executive officers are briefed on the act's requirements, and
addressing the act's protections in the curriculum of eight separate
courses of instruction for Navy and Marine Corps personnel. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that this emphasis on the act in
formal Department training courses continues.
support to navy and marine corps inspectors general
Question. What role, if any, do you think the General Counsel of
the Navy should have in reviewing the investigations and
recommendations of the Naval Inspector General and the Deputy Naval
Inspector General for Marine Corps Matters?
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish a close and productive
relationship with the Naval Inspector General and Deputy Naval
Inspector General for Marine Corps Matters. As in other instances, I
will cooperate with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Staff
Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps as I cultivate
that relationship. Independence is essential to the mission of the
Inspector General, particularly with regard to the findings and
recommendations that result from investigations. I believe that the
General Counsel has an obligation, without infringing upon the
Inspector General's independence, to provide independent and objective
legal advice concerning the Inspector General's duties and
responsibilities. Further, as part of his responsibility to review
legal and policy issues arising from the Department of the Navy's
intelligence and counterintelligence activities, the General Counsel
should advise the Inspector General concerning proper reporting of the
Department's intelligence oversight activities.
civilian attorneys
Question. Judge Advocates in the Armed Forces benefit from an
established career ladder, substantial training opportunities, and
exposure to a broad spectrum of legal areas and problems. By contrast,
civilian attorneys in the military departments normally do not have
established career programs and may do the same work for many years,
with promotion based solely upon longevity and vacancies.
In your opinion, does the personnel management of civilian
attorneys need changing? If so, what do you see as the major problems
and what changes would you suggest?
Answer. During my time as Principal Deputy General Counsel, I found
that the Department of the Navy offered unique opportunities to its
civilian attorneys. The Office of the General Counsel, which is
composed almost entirely of civilian attorneys, occupies a distinct
place in relation to the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps and the
community of Marine Judge Advocates. Certain areas of practice--for
example, business and commercial law--are reserved to the Office of the
General Counsel as a matter of departmental policy. In areas of
practice that are common to the Office of the General Counsel and the
military legal communities, civilian and uniformed attorneys generally
represent different organizations within the Department. Thus, while
the civilian and uniformed legal communities work together closely and
constructively, there are unique professional opportunities available
to civilian attorneys. The opportunities for advancement to leadership
positions within the Office of the General Counsel are substantial.
There are a number of positions in the Senior Executive Service within
the Office of the General Counsel, and numerous supervisory positions
in organizations of all sizes around the globe. Competition for these
positions, as for entry-level positions, remains robust. The Office of
the General Counsel values a diversity of experience as a foundation
for advancement to positions of leadership, and offers a range of
practice sufficiently broad that attorneys may acquire that experience.
Although I believe that the Office of the General Counsel offers rich
opportunities for professional development, if confirmed, I will make
sure that the Office of the General Counsel will continue to look for
further ways to assist in the development of its civilian attorneys.
environmental issues
Question. A number of major environmental statutes include national
security exemptions. For example, section 7(j) of the Endangered
Species Act states: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, the committee shall grant an exemption for any agency action
if the Secretary of Defense finds that such exemption is necessary for
reasons of national security.''
If confirmed as General Counsel, what role would you expect to play
in determining whether it would be appropriate to exercise a national
security exemption in connection with an activity or function of the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed as the General Counsel of the Navy, I would
view my role as one of informing both the decision as to whether a
national security exemption is necessary and appropriate and, in those
few exceptional circumstances where it may be determined that an
exception is appropriate, assisting the processing of the exemption to
approval.
Where essential Navy operations or military readiness activities
may be significantly compromised by application of the requirements of
environmental law, it would be my role to advise senior decisionmakers
on their legal options, including the possibility of pursuing available
national security exemptions. Before recommending that an exemption be
invoked or sought, however, I believe it would be imperative to look at
the environmental requirement in light of the operation or military
readiness activity being affected and to determine whether legal
alternatives to an exemption may be available.
Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that the use of
such an exemption would be necessary and appropriate?
Answer. In crafting the exemptions that currently exist in
environmental law, Congress has appropriately established a high
hurdle, often requiring a presidential determination, based on the
highest possible standard: that the exemption is necessary in the
``paramount interest of the United States.'' Such is the case, for
example, under section 313(a) of the Clean Water Act, section 6001(a)
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and section 118(b) of
the Clean Air Act. From this standard, and from the limited duration
for which exemptions may be granted, it is clear that Congress intended
that exemptions should be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances.
Such circumstances, I believe, include those where a particular
environmental restriction poses a significant threat to military
readiness or national security and no effective alternative exists that
will allow compliance with the environmental requirement and still
permit the critical military readiness activity to proceed.
In seeking an exemption, I believe the proponent must shoulder the
burden of identifying not only the restriction imposed and its effect
on military readiness, but also why the military training, testing, or
operational activity cannot be modified to avoid a conflict with the
environmental requirement without diminishing readiness. Moreover,
where an exemption is invoked, I believe the proponent must identify
what measures it is prepared to take to mitigate the environmental
consequences of its actions.
Although I believe it is important that the existing environmental
exemptions be used only in exceptional circumstances, the focus of most
exemptions on individual activities, facilities, or pollution sources
makes them of limited suitability for some ongoing military readiness
activities. To date, the Department of Defense has worked well and
cooperatively with the regulatory community and other stakeholders to
avoid impacts on these activities, which individually might not be
significant, but which cumulatively could have large impacts on
military readiness.
Question. Please describe the circumstances that led to the
decision to invoke the national security exemption of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA).
Answer. The Secretary of Defense, after conferring with the
Secretary of Commerce, recently invoked a National Defense Exemption
(NDE) to the MMPA for a period of 6 months.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) proficiency--a highly perishable
skill--requires quarterly qualification. Sustaining skill levels
requires individual operator, unit, strike group, and coalition
training. Thirty-five exercises, on average, are conducted annually to
achieve and maintain ASW proficiency. The current process for obtaining
an authorization under the MMPA is inconsistent with realistic planning
timeframes for several dozen exercises annually. My understanding is
that it can take more than 2 years to plan and obtain an authorization
for a single exercise.
As an alternative approach to an exercise-by-exercise process, we
have discussed with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
programmatic approaches that would provide authorizations on a
geographic level or for use of specific types of sonar. Navy remains
cooperatively engaged with regulators in aggressively working toward
full compliance. The NDE was necessary to address challenges to
specific exercises in the near-term, and to serve as a bridge to full
compliance. It allows Navy to ensure near-term ASW proficiency while
cooperatively developing new processes for the long-term. Application
of the exemption was limited initially to 6 months to incentivize
continued progress.
In addition to process issues, the National Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit challenging Navy and Commerce Department
compliance with the MMPA and sought a temporary restraining order
against the Navy's Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise near Hawaii.
The lawsuit alleged that, despite the lengthy and detailed process
followed by Navy and NMFS to reach an Incidental Harassment
Authorization under the MMPA, Navy and NMFS efforts failed to fully
analyze impacts to marine mammals from the use of mid-frequency sonar.
The Navy and NRDC settled the lawsuit the same week that the NDE was
invoked.
A full report on the need for and scope of the exemption will be
provided to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees as required
under the MMPA.
Question. How will invocation of the national security exemption
alleviate those concerns?
Answer. An exemption will reduce but not eliminate all risk from
lawsuits. It provides the Navy with the opportunity to resolve issues
within the regulatory authorization process, enabling it to complete
the analyses and regulatory steps necessary to obtain authorizations
under the MMPA.
Question. What does the Navy plan to do to ensure compliance with
the MMPA in the future?
Answer. I understand that Navy is executing a prioritized program
of environmental analyses to obtain regulatory authorization where
necessary and to otherwise comply with applicable laws. During the
exemption period, the Navy will continue to employ mitigation measures
recommended by NMFS.
Question. What impact did the NRDC lawsuit over MMPA compliance for
the RIMPAC exercise have on the decision to invoke the MMPA's national
security exemption?
Answer. The NDE executed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense on 30
June 2006 exempted all military readiness activities that employ mid-
frequency active sonar during major training exercises or within
established maritime ranges or operating areas from the requirements of
the MMPA for 6 months. During this 6-month period, all exempted
activities are required to employ a suite of comprehensive mitigation
measures. For RIMPAC 06, the NDE further specifies that the exercise
will comply with the Incidental Harassment Authorization provisions
approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service on 27 June 2006. The
scope of the NDE, therefore, includes RIMPAC 06, but is not limited to
RIMPAC 06. The then-pending litigation was only one factor in the
signing of the NDE. It is important to note that the NDE is designed to
assist the Navy with its long-term MMPA compliance efforts and was not
focused on the NRDC lawsuit alone.
Question. What is the impact of the settlement of the RIMPAC
lawsuit on future training exercises and military testing and
evaluation using Navy sonar?
Answer. In October 2005, the NRDC brought a programmatic challenge
against the Navy's use of mid-frequency active sonar, challenging all
past, present, and future use of the sonar system. That case is still
pending. The RIMPAC 06 lawsuit was a separate legal challenge brought
by the NRDC on the eve of the training exercise. The settlement
agreement with NRDC makes clear that the agreement is not to be
construed as a concession by either party as to the potential impacts
of sonar on marine mammals, the validity of either party's factual or
legal positions, or the extent of measures required to comply with
environmental laws.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
military commissions
1. Senator Akaka. Mr. Cohen and Mr. Jimenez, the Supreme Court
recently issued a decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which held that the
special military commissions established by the administration to try
detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the
Geneva Conventions. As Congress begins the process of building a system
of justice for prisoners captured in the global war on terror, it will
rely on the input from legal experts in the Department of Defense
(DOD). What role do you believe that the General Counsel should play in
the development of this new judicial process and how should it be
coordinated with your respective Judge Advocates General?
Mr. Jimenez. With respect to communications with Congress, the
General Counsel of the Department of the Navy--as well as the other
members, both civilian and uniformed, of the DOD's legal leadership
team--should be available to consult closely with Congress as it
undertakes the important mission post-Hamdan of crafting a military
commission structure that comports with the Nation's highest principles
and traditions, and accounts for the exigencies of armed conflict and
the safety of our servicemembers. With respect to communications within
DOD, responsibility for detention and trial by military commission of
enemy combatants rests with combatant commands and not with military
departments. Accordingly, within DOD, the role of the General Counsel
of the Department of the Navy should be to provide opinions and advice
in the course of any comprehensive effort by DOD to gather informed
legal judgments from civilian and military legal leadership across the
Department about the establishment of a fair, legal, and sustainable
military commission process.
The Department of the Navy prides itself on close, collegial, and
collaborative working relationships between the General Counsel, Judge
Advocate General of the Navy, and Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps. If confirmed, I plan to do everything
within my power to see that this tradition continues. Accordingly, I
would work closely with my uniformed counterparts to provide
coordinated opinions and advice concerning military commissions to
Congress and within DOD.
______
[The nomination reference of Frank R. Jimenez follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 29, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Frank R. Jimenez, of Florida, to be General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy, vice Alberto Jose Mora, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Frank R. Jimenez, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Frank R. Jimenez
As the Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel) for the U.S.
Department of Defense, Frank R. Jimenez manages key litigation matters
covering the entire Department and coordinates with the White House
Counsel's Office, Department of Justice, and other agencies on pressing
legal issues. He also advises senior Defense officials on a wide
variety of legal questions and supervises the Office of Legislative
Counsel and the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals. Mr. Jimenez was
most recently the Principal Deputy General Counsel for the Department
of the Navy, where he served as the alter ego to the General Counsel of
the Navy in managing over 600 attorneys worldwide and overseeing the
Naval Criminal Investigative Service. He also advised senior Navy
officials on litigation, acquisition, environmental, personnel,
legislative, and ethics issues.
Mr. Jimenez was previously the Chief of Staff at the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As Chief of Staff,
he assisted Secretary Mel Martinez in managing more than 9,000
employees and an annual budget surpassing $30 billion. He helped
supervise HUD's many homeownership and affordable housing programs for
low-income Americans, as well as programs supporting the homeless,
elderly, people with disabilities, and people living with AIDS. Mr.
Jimenez's responsibilities also included supervising the Department's
interactions with the White House, public officials, industry groups,
and the general public.
Prior to arriving at HUD, Mr. Jimenez served for nearly 4 years in
the Executive Office of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, beginning with his
gubernatorial transition in 1998. For two of those years, Mr. Jimenez
served as Deputy Chief of Staff, with oversight duties at various times
for the Departments of Transportation, Business and Professional
Regulation, Environmental Protection, Community Affairs, Elder Affairs,
and Health, as well as the Agency for Workforce Innovation and the
Division of Emergency Management. Mr. Jimenez also served as Acting
General Counsel and as Deputy General Counsel to the Governor.
Prior to entering public service, Mr. Jimenez practiced at the
Miami law firm of Steel Hector and Davis L.L.P. (now Squire, Sanders
and Dempsey L.L.P.), specializing in complex commercial litigation and
white collar criminal defense, including Federal class action,
antitrust and product liability litigation, and representation of
clients under Federal grand jury and government agency investigation.
He joined the firm in 1992 and became a partner in 1998. Previously,
Mr. Jimenez served a 1-year clerkship in the chambers of Judge Pamela
Ann Rymer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
Pasadena, California; Mr. Jimenez is admitted to the Bars of Florida
and the District of Columbia.
Mr. Jimenez graduated with honors in 1987 from the University of
Miami, where he majored in biology. He received his law degree in 1991
from the Yale Law School, where he was Notes Editor of the Yale Law
Journal and won the Harlan Fiske Stone and Benjamin N. Cardozo Prizes
for best oral argument and best brief, respectively, in the school's
moot court competition. He also received an M.B.A. degree in 2005 from
the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Jimenez, who is proficient in Spanish, resides in Alexandria,
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 Frank R.
Jimenez 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.)
Frank Ruben Jimenez.
2. Position to which nominated:
General Counsel, Department of the Navy.
3. Date of nomination:
June 29, 2006.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
November 8, 1964; San Juan, Puerto Rico.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Single, never married.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Miami Christian School, 1973-1982, High School Diploma (June 1982).
University of Miami, 1982-1987, B.S. (December 1987).
Florida State University, 1987-1988, no degree.
Yale Law School, 1988-1991, J.D. (June 1991).
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, M.B.A. (May 2005).
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel) (2005-2006), U.S. Department
of Defense, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B688, Washington, DC.
Principal Deputy General Counsel (2004-2005), U.S. Department of
the Navy, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Room 4E635, Washington, DC.
Chief of Staff (2002-2004), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC.
Deputy General Counsel (1999), Acting General Counsel (2000),
Deputy Chief of Staff (1999-2000, 2001-2002), Executive Office of the
Governor, PL05 The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL.
Associate (1992-1998), Partner (1998-1999), Steel Hector & Davis
LLP (now Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP), 200 South Biscayne Boulevard,
40th Floor, Miami, FL.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Member, President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status (2003-2005).
Member, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (2002).
Chairman, Jimmy Ryce Act Enforcement Task Force (1999-2000).
Member, City of Miami Blue Ribbon Committee on Single Member
Districts (1997).
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Director, Missions Reaching Out Compassionately International, Inc.
(501(c)(3) application pending), P.O. Box 144401, Coral Gables, FL.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, The Florida Bar.
Member (inactive), The District of Columbia Bar.
Member, University Baptist Church, Coral Gables, FL.
Member, Missions Reaching Out Compassionately International, Inc.
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.
Danae Roberts for State Representative ($100), December 2001.
Bush-Brogan 2002 ($250), September 2002.
Bush-Cheney 2004 ($2,000), September 2003.
Mel Martinez for Senate ($1,000), January 2004.
Mel Martinez for Senate ($1,000), September 2004.
Charlie Crist for Governor ($200), June 2005.
Robert Fernandez for State Representative ($100), May 2006.
Adam Hasner for State Representative ($100), May 2006.
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 the Navy Superior Public Service Award (2005).
Wharton Graduate Fellowship (2003).
Named among ``The 100 Most Influential Hispanics'' in U.S. by
Hispanic Business magazine (2002).
Harlan Fiske Stone Prize (Best Oralist) and Benjamin N. Cardozo
Prize (Best Brief), Yale Moot Court of Appeals (1991).
Iron Arrow Honor Society (University of Miami) (1987).
Omicron Delta Kappa Honor Society (University of Miami) (1985).
Mortar Board National Honor Society (University of Miami) (1985).
Henry King Stanford Scholarship (University of Miami) (1982).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Note, ``Beyond Mergens: Ensuring Equality of Student Religious
Speech Under the Equal Access Act,'' 100 Yale Law Journal 2149 (1991).
Rebekah J. Poston, Frank R. Jimenez & Kimberly K. Dunn, ``Feds Urge
Businesses to Cough Up Health Fraud,'' National Law Journal, Sept. 18,
1995, at B12.
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.
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.
Frank R. Jimenez.
This 12th day of July, 2006.
[The nomination of Frank R. Jimenez was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on August 1, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on September 21, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to David H. Laufman by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act represents landmark legislation.
Although I do not have the benefit of first-hand experience in the
act's implementation, it is my understanding that the act has succeeded
in fulfilling its mandate to enhance jointness, increase readiness, and
create a higher standard of warfighting efficiency. If confirmed, I am
committed to working with Congress to determine if any legislative
modifications are needed in the future.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. Please see my response to question above.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG)?
Answer. The duties and functions of the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense are those specified in sections 4 and 8 of the
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. Additional duties and
responsibilities of the Inspector General are specified in Department
of Defense Directive No. 5106.01, which was signed by Deputy Secretary
of Defense Gordon England on April 13, 2006. (A copy of that directive
is attached hereto for the committee's convenience.) [Nominee responded
and the information is contained in the committee's executive files.]
By statute, the Inspector General conducts and supervises audits
and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the
Department of Defense. The Inspector General also provides leadership
and coordination, and recommends policy, for activities designed to:
(1) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the
administration of Department of Defense programs and operations; and
(2) combat fraud and abuse. In addition, the Inspector General is
responsible for keeping both the Secretary of Defense and Congress
fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies in defense
programs, the need for corrective action, and the status of such
action.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect that the Secretary of Defense will
prescribe for me the full range of duties and functions set forth in
the Inspector General Act, as amended, as well as the additional duties
and responsibilities specified in Department of Defense Directive No.
5106.01.
Question. Section 2 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 states
that its purpose is to create independent and objective units to
conduct and supervise audits and investigations; to provide leadership
and coordination, and recommend policies for activities designed to
promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; to prevent and detect
fraud, waste, and abuse; and to provide a means for keeping Congress
fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating
to the administration of programs and operations and the necessity for
and progress of corrective action.
Are you committed to maintaining the independence of the DOD IG, as
set forth in the Inspector General statute?
Answer. The ability of the Inspector General to fulfill his or her
statutory duties and responsibilities depends on establishing and
maintaining both the appearance and reality of independence. If
confirmed, I will be strongly committed to maintaining the independence
of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) consistent with the
provisions of the Inspector General Act.
Question. Are you committed to keeping the Committee on Armed
Services ``fully and currently informed,'' and, if so, what steps will
you take, if confirmed, to ensure that this responsibility is carried
out?
Answer. If confirmed, I will keep the Committee on Armed Services
``fully and currently informed.'' I will do so through the
dissemination of OIG products such as the Semiannual Report to
Congress, audit reports, and inspection/evaluation reports. In
addition, I will provide briefings for members and staff, and testimony
at hearings when requested
Question. Section 3 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 provides
that the head of an agency shall exercise ``general supervision'' over
an IG, but shall not ``prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from
initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or
from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or
investigation.'' Section 8 of the act, however, states that the DOD IG
shall ``be under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary
of Defense with respect to certain audits or investigations which
require access to information concerning sensitive operational plans,
intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal
investigations by other administrative units of the Department of
Defense related to national security or other matters, the disclosure
of which would constitute a serious threat to national security.
What is your understanding of the supervisory authority of the
Secretary of Defense over the DOD IG with respect to audits and
investigations, in view of the independence provided by section 3?
Answer. Section 3(a) of the act states that ``[e]ach Inspector
General shall report to and be under the general supervision of the
head of the establishment''--here, the Secretary of Defense. Although
the statute does not define ``general supervision,'' that term may
reasonably be construed to mean such supervision as does not infringe
on the Inspector General's independence.
Section 3(a), however, must be read in conjunction with section 8,
which contains specific provisions regarding the DOD IG and (in section
8(b)(1)) modifies the last two sentences of section 3(a). Given this
statutory framework, my understanding is that the Secretary of Defense
may exercise general supervisory authority over the Inspector General
and may prohibit the Inspector General from conducting audits and
investigations that implicate matters specified in section 8(b)(1) of
the act. I am advised, however, that the Secretary has never exercised
his statutory authority to preclude the Inspector General from
conducting any audits or investigations. I am also advised that the
Secretary has not exercised direct supervision over audits and
investigations.
Question. What is your understanding of the procedures in place to
effect the authority and control of the Secretary of Defense over
matters delineated in section 8 of the act?
Answer. Under section 8(b)(2) of the act, the Secretary of Defense
has the authority to ``prohibit the Inspector General from initiating,
carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing
any subpoena . . . if the Secretary determines that such prohibition is
necessary to preserve the national security of the United States.'' It
is my understanding that the Secretary has never exercised that
authority, and I am presently unaware of any procedures in place to
effect that authority. In the event that the Secretary exercised this
authority, I would submit an appropriate statement within 30 days to
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress, as
required under section 8(b)(3).
Question. Sections 4 and 8 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 set
forth various duties and responsibilities of Inspectors General beyond
the conduct of audits and investigations.
What is your understanding of the supervisory authority exercised
by the Secretary of Defense with regard to these issues?
Answer. In addition to directing the Inspector General to conduct
audits and investigations, section 4 directs the Inspector General to
``review existing and proposed legislation and regulations'' and make
related recommendations in semiannual reports; recommend policies to
promote economy and efficiency in the administration of Department
programs and operations and to prevent and detect fraud and abuse; keep
the Secretary of Defense and Congress fully and currently informed
about fraud and other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies;
recommend corrective actions for such problems, abuses, and
deficiencies; and report on the progress made in implementing such
corrective actions. Section 8(c)(1) adds that the Inspector General
shall ``be the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense for
matters relating to the preventing and detection of fraud, waste, and
abuse.''
It is my understanding that the Inspector General's duties and
responsibilities specified in section 4 and 8 come within the general
supervisory authority of the Secretary of Defense established under
section 3(a). It is also my understanding that the Secretary exercises
that authority by means of weekly updates on ongoing issues that the
OIG provides, through monthly meetings between the Inspector General
and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and through quarterly briefings
that the Inspector General provides to the Under Secretaries of
Defense. I am advised that the Secretary of Defense is not involved in
the day-to-day operations of the OIG.
Question. The previous DOD IG has been accused of slowing or
blocking investigations of senior government officials, improperly
spending appropriated funds on pet projects, and accepting gifts that
may have violated ethics guidelines.
Do you believe that these accusations have undermined confidence in
the integrity of the OIG?
Answer. I do not have first-hand knowledge regarding the substance
of these allegations, or whether the allegations have, in fact,
undermined confidence in the integrity of the OIG. If confirmed,
however, I am committed to doing everything possible to ensure that all
personnel in the OIG--including the Inspector General--uphold the
highest ethical and legal standards, and that the OIG has the full
trust and confidence of the Secretary of Defense, Congress, and the
American people.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to restore
confidence in the integrity of the OIG?
Answer. Please see my answer to previous question.
Question. What is your understanding of the methods currently in
use by the Secretary of Defense to exercise supervision over the
performance of the DOD IG?
Answer. It is my understanding that the OIG keeps the Secretary of
Defense and his senior staff informed, to the extent appropriate, of
audits and investigations through briefings and the dissemination of
reports.
Question. Based on your experience as an Assistant United States
Attorney and former investigative counsel of the House Standards of
Official Conduct (Ethics) Committee, do you believe that the current
systems in place for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness and
conformance by Inspectors General with the requirements of law are
sufficient?
Answer. It is my understanding that the principal mechanism for
assessing compliance by Inspectors General with law and ethical
standards is the Integrity Committee, a body that was established in
1996 by the Chairperson of the President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency. As a
nominee, I do not yet have a sufficient basis to evaluate whether this
mechanism is effective.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it
is appropriate for the DOD IG to consult with officials in the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (or other DOD officials outside the Office
of the Inspector General) before issuing a report regarding the
findings and recommendations in the report?
Answer. It is essential to maintain not only the actual
independence of the Inspector General in accordance with the act's
mandate, but the appearance of independence as well.
With respect to audits and inspections, I believe it is appropriate
to provide officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (and
other appropriate officials outside the Office of the Inspector
General) with an opportunity to review a draft report to ensure that
the report is factually accurate and to identify any areas of
disagreement concerning conclusions, findings, and recommendations.
Whether any changes are made to a report as a result of such a review
remains within the sole discretion of the Inspector General.
With respect to noncriminal investigations such as senior official
investigations and reprisal investigations, prior consultations
generally should occur only if such consultations would not compromise
the Inspector General's independence or the integrity of the ongoing
investigation. In this regard, it should be noted that in section
8(b)(1) of the act, Congress expressly provided that ``the Inspector
General shall be under the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of Defense with respect to audits or investigations, or the
issuance of subpoenas, concerning: (A) sensitive operational plans; (B)
intelligence matters; (C) counterintelligence matters; (D) ongoing
criminal investigations by other administrative units of the Department
of Defense related to national security; or (E) other matters the
disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national
security.'' Given this congressional directive, I believe that the
Inspector General has a statutory obligation to consult with the
Secretary of Defense regarding the findings and recommendations of
investigations of matters specified in section 8(b)(1) prior to issuing
a report concerning such matters.
Except with respect to appropriate communications with other
investigative or law enforcement entities, it would be inappropriate to
discuss criminal investigations with individuals outside the OIG while
such investigations are ongoing.
Question. If you believe that such consultation is appropriate,
what steps, if any, do you believe the Inspector General should take to
keep a record of the consultation and record the results in the text of
the report?
Answer. I believe it is appropriate for the OIG to create and
maintain a record of consultations with any official outside the OIG
regarding findings and recommendations contained in a draft report. If
such consultations result in changes to the findings and
recommendations in the report, the substance of the consultations
should be disclosed in the report together with an explanation by the
Inspector General as to why the changes were made.
qualifications
Question. Section 3 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 provides
that IGs shall be appointed on the basis of their ``demonstrated
ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management
analysis, public administration, or investigations.''
What background and experience do you possess that you believe
qualifies you to perform the duties of the DOD IG?
Answer. I have extensive experience in ethics and public corruption
investigations. In 1992-1993, I served as Senior Associate Minority
Counsel to the Task Force to Investigate Certain Allegations Concerning
the Holding of American Hostages by Iran in 1980 ``October Surprise
Task Force'', a special bipartisan panel of the U.S. House of
Representatives. Subsequently, I served as Associate Independent
Counsel to Joseph E. diGenova in the Investigation Concerning the
Search of William J. Clinton's Passport Files During the 1992
Presidential Election Campaign. From 1996-2000, I served as
Investigative Counsel to the House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct (``House Ethics Committee''), where I conducted several ethics
investigations. In 1997, I played a central role in drafting and
negotiating changes to the ethics rules of the House of Representatives
in my capacity as Assistant to the Special Counsel to the Ethics Reform
Task Force. I also conducted professional misconduct investigations for
the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice
from January to May 2001.
I also have extensive experience in national security affairs. From
1980 to 1984, I served as a military and political analyst in the
Directorate of Intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency. In
1990-1993, I was Deputy Minority Counsel to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2000-2001, I served as
Staff Director and Deputy Chief Counsel to the Judicial Review
Commission on Foreign Asset Control, a congressionally mandated body
that examined U.S. laws governing the imposition of economic sanctions
by the U.S. Department of Treasury. Since March 2003, I have served as
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where I
have specialized in prosecutions of terrorism and other national
security cases.
If confirmed, I would also bring administrative experience to the
position of Inspector General. In addition to the senior positions
noted above, I served as Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General
from May 2001 to February 2003. As Chief of Staff, I coordinated
oversight of the offices and bureaus of the Department of Justice and
helped to oversee responses to the extraordinary challenges that
confronted the Department in the period after the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to become more familiar with statutes
and regulations applicable to government contracting in general and
defense procurement in particular. I also plan to meet with a broad
cross-section of officials and personnel within the Department of
Defense, including members of the Armed Forces overseas, to listen to
their concerns and identify issues that might merit action by the OIG.
Question. Based on your background and experience, are there any
changes that you would recommend with respect to the current
organization or responsibilities of the DOD IG?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to examine how the OIG is organized to
determine if any structural changes in the office are appropriate. I
also plan to examine whether the office is meeting the full range of
its statutory responsibilities within the context of the resources
available. It would be premature to offer any recommendations for
change in these areas, however, until I have an adequate opportunity to
conduct the necessary evaluations.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be
with:
The Secretary of Defense?
Answer. Section 8(c) of the act states that the Inspector General
shall ``be the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense for
matters relating to the prevention and detection of fraud, waste, and
abuse in the programs and operations of the Department . . . .'' In
addition, section 2(3) provides for Inspectors General to ``keep[] the
head of the establishment and Congress fully and currently informed
about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of . . .
programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of
corrective action . . . .''
If confirmed, I will seek to establish a strong and effective
relationship with the Secretary of Defense that enables me to carry out
my statutory duties with the independence required under the act, while
enabling the Secretary to exercise his statutory supervisory authority.
I will consult directly with the Secretary as necessary and
appropriate, particularly with respect to matters governed by section
8(b)(1) of the act. I also expect to continue the current practice of
providing weekly updates on ongoing issues to the Special Assistants
for the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense, meeting
on a monthly basis with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and providing
quarterly briefings to the Under Secretaries on matters warranting
their attention.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense?
Answer. Section 3(a) of the Inspector General Act states that
``[e]ach Inspector General shall report to and be under the general
supervision of the head of the establishment involved or, to the extent
such authority is delegated, the officer next in rank below such
head.'' Department of Defense Directive 5106.01, dated April 13, 2006,
states that `` the Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall
report to and be under the general supervision of the Secretary of
Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. . . .'' (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, if confirmed, I would expect my relationship with the
Deputy Secretary of Defense to mirror my relationship with the
Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief
Financial Officer) (USD(C/CFO)?
Answer. It is my understanding that the USD(C/CFO) is responsible
for financial management within the Department of Defense by
establishing and enforcing requirements, principles, standards,
systems, procedures, and practices necessary to comply with financial
management statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the DOD.
The USD directs financial management requirements, systems, and
functions for all appropriated, nonappropriated, working capital,
revolving, and trust fund activities. In addition, the USD directs
statutory and regulatory financial reporting requirements.
It is my further understanding that the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense is subject to all rules and regulations
established by the USD(C/CFO).
I am advised that the Inspector General advises and counsels the
USD(C/CFO) on areas of concern within the financial management arena to
include acquisition management, financial statement audits, and
contracting issues. To accomplish this, I will continue the acting IG's
current practice of providing quarterly briefings to the USD(C/CFO) on
current audits and investigations that have fiscal implications.
I am also advised that the Inspector General provides the USD(C/
CFO) information to develop and defend the concurrent Program Objective
Memorandum/Budget Estimate Submission to document the OIG's extended
resource requirements to OSD and OMB. In that regard, I would expect to
continue to work with the USD(C/CFO) to formulate the OIG's portion of
the annual President's budget for submission to OSD/OMB, and to request
required resources to conduct the Inspector General's mission.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics?
Answer. The OIG has identified ``acquisition processes and contract
management'' as a major challenge for the Department of Defense. It is
therefore essential for the Inspector General to maintain an effective
working relationship with the Under Secretary for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics. If confirmed, I expect to work particularly
closely with the Under Secretary concerning the allocation of OIG
resources in the acquisition area, and how best to implement audit
recommendations pertaining to acquisition processes.
Question. The General Counsel for the Department of Defense?
Answer. The Office of the General Counsel has extensive legal
expertise and resources that are valuable to the OIG. It is therefore
in the best interests of the DOD IG and the General Counsel to work as
closely as possible without compromising the independence of the
Inspector General or creating the appearance that the Inspector
General's independence has been compromised. If confirmed, I would
expect to work with the General Counsel on proposed legislation and
regulations, ethics issues, and legal issues associated with audit
findings and departmental policies.
According to information provided to me in preparation for my
confirmation hearing, an action memo governing the relationship between
the Inspector General and General Counsel was approved by former Deputy
Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz on September 27, 2004. This action memo,
titled ``Provision of Legal Services to the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense,'' apparently superseded a previous memorandum of
understanding between the Inspector General and the General Counsel
that was executed in 1985 but was terminated in February 2004.
The September 2004 action memo contains the following provisions:
Consistent with DOD Directive 5145.4, the Office of
General Counsel of the Office of Inspector General of the
Department of Defense (OIG/OGC) shall be established as an
element of the Defense Legal Services Agency (DLSA). The Office
of Deputy General Counsel (Inspector General) in the Office of
the DOD General Counsel shall be disestablished.
The legal staff of the Office of the Deputy General
Counsel (Inspector General) will transfer from the Office of
the DOD General Counsel to the OIG/OGC as part of DLSA.
One SES resource, position, and associated funding
will transfer from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to
OIG.
Eight non-SES attorney positions, with associated
funding, will transfer from the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to OIG. The employees encumbering these positions will
move with their positions.
Budgeting, managing of ceiling spaces, personnel
services, and other administrative support for OIG/OGC shall be
the responsibility of the Inspector General. The Inspector
General shall be the appointing authority for OGC/OIG, the
other attorneys, and staff assigned to OIG/OGC.
The selection of the OGC/OIG and other attorneys
assigned to OGC/OIG shall require the approval of the Inspector
General and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
The OGC/OIG and other attorneys in OIG/OGC may not be
transferred, reassigned, provided additional duties,
disciplined or terminated without the approval of the Inspector
General and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
The OGC/OIG shall be a member of the Senior Executive
Service. The rater and senior rater of the OGC/OIG shall be the
Principal Deputy General Counsel and General Counsel of the
Department of Defense, respectively. The Inspector General
shall sign the performance plan and evaluation of the OGC/OIG
as the appointing authority.
The Inspector General shall include the OGC/OIG in the
Senior Executive Service bonus pool for the OIG.
Question. The Director of Operational Tests and Evaluation?
Answer. I am advised that the Inspector General and the Director of
Operational Tests and Evaluation have a common interest in ensuring
that equipment and weapons systems allocated to the warfighter perform
effectively and as planned. If confirmed, I would expect to consult as
appropriate with the Director concerning the initiation of audits in
these areas.
Question. The Inspectors General of the military departments,
defense agencies, and the Joint Staff?
Answer. Section 8(c)(2) of the act states that the DOD IG ``shall .
. . initiate, conduct, and supervise such audits and investigations in
the Department of Defense (including the military department) as the
Inspector General considers appropriate. . . .'' Section 8(c)(9) adds
that the Inspector General ``shall . . . give particular regard to the
activities of the internal audit, inspection, and investigative units
of the military departments with a view toward avoiding duplication and
ensuring effective coordination and cooperation. . .'' In addition
Department of Defense Directive No. 5106.01, dated April 13, 2006,
directs the Inspector General, ``unless precluded by the matter, [to]
notify the Secretaries of the Military Departments concerned before
conducting audits, evaluations, inspections, or investigations of
matters normally under the jurisdiction of the Military Department.''
I am advised that as a matter of practice, the Inspectors General
of the Military Departments, who report directly to their respective
Secretaries, have conducted audits and investigations of matters
particularly germane to the military departments, including
investigations of violent crime occurring in operational theaters. In
contrast, I am advised that the DOD IG traditionally has focused on
more systemic matters that cross Service lines. Department of Defense
Directive No. 5106.01 also provides that ``unless precluded by the
nature of the matter,'' [the DOD IG must] notify the Secretaries of the
Military Departments concerned before conducting audits, evaluations,
inspections, or investigations of matters normally under the
jurisdiction of the Military Departments.''
I am advised that the DOD IG has a close working relationship with
the Inspectors General of the Military Departments. Personnel from the
OIG meet regularly with staff from the Inspectors General of the
Military Departments in order to keep each other advised of planned and
ongoing work, coordinate activities and avoid unnecessary duplication,
and discuss other issues of mutual interest. In addition, Department of
Defense directives governing certain programs in which the Inspectors
General of the Military Departments participate also give the Inspector
General policy and oversight roles with respect to those programs.
These include the Department of Defense Hotline, whistleblower reprisal
investigations, and investigations against senior officials. The
Inspectors General of the Defense Agencies report to their respective
agency heads. However, in areas such as inspections, audits, and the
operations of hotlines, they come under the policymaking authority of
the DOD IG. The Defense Agencies' Inspectors General also serve as the
contact with the Department's Inspector General in facilitating proper
implementation of Inspector General recommendations.
Question. The Criminal Investigative Services of the Military
Departments?
Answer. Under the act, the Inspector General has the authority to
initiate, conduct, and supervise criminal investigations relating to
any and all programs and operations of the Department of Defense. In
addition, the Inspector General is statutorily authorized to develop
policy, monitor and evaluate program performance, and provide guidance
regarding all criminal investigative programs within the Department. As
noted above, however, section 8(c)(9) of the act provides that the
Inspector General ``shall . . . give particular regard to the
activities of the internal audit, inspection, and investigative units
of the military departments with a view toward avoiding duplication and
insuring effective coordination and cooperation. . .'' In addition,
Department of Defense Directive No. 5106.01 provides that ``unless
precluded by the nature of the matter,'' [the Department of Defense
Inspector General must] notify the Secretaries of the Military
Departments concerned before conducting audits, evaluations,
inspections, or investigations of matters normally under the
jurisdiction of the military departments.''
I expect to work closely with each of the Military Criminal
Investigative Organizations (MCIOs) to ensure that investigative
resources are utilized effectively. It is my understanding that the IG
is more heavily involved in investigations that affect major Department
programs or that involve or affect more than one military service. I
also understand that the DOD IG frequently works in close coordination
with one or more of the MCIOs on joint investigations, particularly in
the fraud area.
Question. The audit agencies of the military departments?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to work closely and collegially with
the audit agencies of the military departments to ensure that necessary
audits are conducted without duplication of effort.
Section 4(a) of the act establishes broad jurisdiction of the
Inspector General to conduct audits and investigations within the
Department of Defense, and section 8(c)(2) states that the Inspector
General ``shall . . . initiate, conduct, and supervise such audits and
investigations in the Department of Defense (including the military
departments) as the Inspector General considers appropriate.'' The
audit agencies of the military departments, however, have particular
expertise in a range of matters within the purview of their
departments, and separate resources available to commit to audits of
their departments. In addition, section 6.3.1 of Department of Defense
Directive No. 5106.01 directs the Inspector General, ``unless precluded
by the matter, [to] notify the Secretaries of the Military Departments
concerned before conducting audits, evaluations, inspections, or
investigations of matters normally under the jurisdiction of the
military departments.''
It is my understanding that the audit agencies of the military
departments have worked with the OIG on Hurricane Katrina relief
efforts and other projects. I further understand that the OIG and the
military audit agencies work together to train personnel and oversee
the conduct of peer reviews of the military audit organizations to
ensure that their work is in compliance with Government Auditing
Standards.
Question. The Defense Contract Audit Agency?
Answer. Section 8(c)(6) of the act directs the Inspector General to
``monitor and evaluate the adherence of Department auditors to internal
audit, contract audit, and internal review principles, policies, and
procedures. . .'' In accordance with this directive, it is my
understanding that the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and other
OIG components work collaboratively with Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA) auditors on audits and investigations involving Department of
Defense contractors. I also understand that the Director of the DCAA,
along with other Department Audit Chiefs, meet at least quarterly with
the Inspector General to discuss and coordinate audit activities. If
confirmed, I expect to continue these practices.
Question. The Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council?
Answer. It is my understanding that the DOD IG provides comments to
the Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council on proposed changes to the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement. I also understand
that the Council occasionally requests assistance from the Inspector
General with factfinding on especially complex issues. If confirmed, I
expect to continue these practices.
Question. The Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition
Policy?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Director of Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy is responsible for a large segment
of Department operations and, accordingly, is a major recipient and
user of services and reports provided by the OIG. I am advised that the
Director's involvement has been especially valuable to the Inspector
General in audit planning efforts, particularly in the acquisition
area. If confirmed, I expect to continue the Inspector General's
practice of soliciting the Director's input where appropriate.
Question. The Comptroller General and the Government Accountability
Office?
Answer. The OIG works closely with the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to coordinate planned and ongoing audits and inspections
and avoid duplication of efforts. If confirmed, I expect to continue
these practices.
Department of Defense Directive No. 7650.2, dated July 13, 2000,
directs the DOD IG to: (1) serve as the DOD central liaison with the
Comptroller General on all matters concerning GAO surveys, reviews,
reports, and activities; (2) designate appropriate DOD components to
work with GAO during the conduct of reviews within the Department of
Defense, and to prepare responses to GAO reports when required; (3)
develop and provide guidance, as needed, to facilitate the handling of
GAO surveys and reviews, and to review and respond to GAO reports and
requests for security reviews on GAO reports; (4) facilitate resolution
of disagreements between DOD components concerning the appropriate of
proposed responses to GAO reports; and (5) arrange and facilitate
meetings, as necessary, with representatives of DOD components and/or
the GAO regarding GAO surveys, reports, or other GAO activities within
the Department of Defense.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges and problems
facing the next DOD IG?
Answer. In its semiannual report to Congress, the OIG lists the
most serious management and performance challenges faced by the
Department of Defense based on the findings and recommendations of
audits, inspections, and investigations conducted during the year. The
most recent semiannual report, covering the period of October 31, 2005,
through March 31, 2006, identified the following challenges:
Joint Warfighting and Readiness
Homeland Defense
Human Capitol
Information Technology Management
Acquisition Processes and Contract Management
Financial Management
Health Care
Infrastructure and Environment
In the context of meeting these challenges, the OIG will continue
to provide extensive oversight in support of the global war on
terrorism in the areas of readiness, logistics, force management,
contracting, and financial management. The OIG also will continue its
audit operations related to Hurricane Katrina.
It is difficult as a nominee to identify specific problems I will
confront if confirmed. Based on the information provided to me thus
far, however, I am concerned that existing audit resources may be
insufficient to meet the Inspector General's statutory responsibilities
with respect to defense acquisitions and contract oversight. I am also
concerned that the OIG may lack sufficient resources to conduct
necessary in-theater audit and investigative activity in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges and problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will focus audit, investigative, and
inspection efforts on the challenges identified in the semiannual
report, while working to identify new issues in consultation with
senior Department of Defense officials and Congress. I will also work
with senior Department officials and Congress to determine what
additional resources the OIG needs to fulfill its statutory
responsibilities.
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the DOD IG?
Answer. It is difficult as a nominee to formulate priorities
because I have not had access to the full range of information and
considerations that should inform the setting of priorities. Promoting
efficiency and preventing fraud in defense acquisitions will obviously
be a high priority--as will force protection for the men and women of
our armed services serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will also
aggressively pursue oversight of defense contracts, particularly those
relating to major weapons systems and the war in Iraq. If confirmed, I
look forward to consulting with senior officials of the Department of
Defense and Congress to identify priorities for the OIG.
senior officer investigations
Question. The Office of the DOD IG plays a key role in the
investigation of allegations of misconduct by senior officers and
civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The Committee on Armed
Services has a particular interest in investigations concerning
officers who are subject to Senate confirmation, and relies upon the
DOD IG, as well as the Office of the Secretary of Defense, to ensure
that these investigations are accurate, complete, and accomplished in a
timely manner.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the
investigations relating to senior officials are completed in a timely
manner and that the results of investigations are promptly provided to
this committee?
Answer. I have spent much of my career as a government attorney
promoting the integrity of our institutions of government, including
service as an Investigative Counsel on the House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct. If confirmed, investigations of alleged misconduct
by senior officers and civilian officials of the Department of Defense
will receive the highest priority by the OIG. Misconduct by senior
government officials is a breach of the public trust, and individuals
found to commit such misconduct must be held fully accountable. I will
review operations in the OIG's Directorate for Senior Official
Investigations to ensure that investigations receive the necessary
resources, that investigative actions are thorough and prioritized, and
that these matters are completed in a timely manner. Once such
investigations are completed, I will ensure that their results are
communicated to the committee.
Question. Do you believe that the current allocation of
responsibilities between the DOD IG and the Inspectors General of the
military departments is appropriate to ensure fair and impartial
investigations?
Answer. As a nominee, I do not yet have a precise understanding of
the current allocation of responsibilities between the DOD IG and the
Inspectors General of the military departments. Consequently, I am not
currently in a position to assess whether that allocation is
appropriate. As a general proposition, however, the Inspectors General
of the military departments have a comparative advantage in undertaking
certain kinds of investigations because of their particular expertise
in operational matters germane to their departments.
I am advised that most senior official investigations are currently
conducted by the Service IGs, as monitoring the conduct of
servicemembers is properly the responsibility of the Service
Secretaries (to whom the Service IGs report). I am also advised that
the Service IGs have demonstrated their capability to conduct
independent and unbiased investigations, apply proper standards, and
formulate conclusions based on the evidence in light of those
standards, and that the DOD OIG has found no indication that such
investigations are subject to undue influence or tainted by lack of
independence.
Subject to resource constraints, the DOD IG always retains the
discretion, pursuant to section 8(c)(2) of the act, to conduct audits
and investigations of the military departments if deemed necessary and
appropriate. I am advised that the DOD IG has assumed jurisdiction, for
example, in circumstances where the independence of a Service IG might
be questioned, such as matters where allegations have been made
against: (1) officers senior to the Service IG (4-star rank), (2) heads
of DOD agencies, (3) presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed
appointees, and (4) the Service IGs themselves. I am also advised that
the DOD IG has investigated allegations where the Service IGs have no
or limited jurisdiction, such as those involving senior civilians in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, combatant commands, or Defense
agencies--or allegations that cross Service lines. Finally, I am
advised that the DOD IG is periodically requested to reinvestigate a
Service IG investigation that is allegedly flawed or inadequate.
authorities of the dod ig's office and investigators
Question. In recent years, the DOD IG has sought and obtained
increased authority to issue subpoenas, carry weapons, and make
arrests.
Do you believe that the authorities of the OIG and its agents are
adequate in these areas, or would you recommend further changes in the
law?
Answer. It is my understanding that the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 significantly enhanced the
authorities of Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) special
agents. The act inserted language into chapter 81 of title 10, U.S.C.,
that provides DCIS special agents the authority to execute and serve
any warrant or other process issued under the authority of the United
States, and to make arrests without a warrant for any offense against
the United States committed in the presence of that agent. The act also
gives DCIS jurisdiction over any felony cognizable under the laws of
the United States if the agent has probable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed or is committing the felony.
These authorities are exercised in accordance with guidelines
prescribed by the DOD IG and approved by the Attorney General and other
guidelines as prescribed by the Secretary of Defense or the Attorney
General. With the passage of this act, DCIS special agents received
full statutory law enforcement authority commensurate with that of
agents of other Federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Secret Service.
I also understand that the authority of DCIS special agents to
carry firearms derives from language in chapter 81 of title 10, U.S.C.,
section 1585, which states that ``civilian officers and employees of
the Department of Defense may carry firearms or other appropriate
weapons while assigned investigative duties or such other duties as the
Secretary may prescribe.'' Current DCIS policy requires agents to carry
firearms at all times when in a duty status in the United States, its
territories, or possessions, except where prohibited or where
circumstances make it inappropriate to carry firearms. When off-duty,
special agents can be recalled to law enforcement duties at any time on
short notice. Accordingly, agents are authorized to carry firearms at
all times when off-duty and when in a leave status.
I am currently unaware of any concerns that the authorities
described above are inadequate. If I am confirmed and such concerns are
brought to my attention, I will undertake a review to determine whether
any further change in law may be necessary to enhance the ability of
DCIS agents to perform their mission.
dod financial accounting and audits
Question. The performance of mandatory statutory duties, such as
the performance of financial audits, has consumed a growing share of
the resources of the Inspector General's office, crowding out other
important audit priorities.
What is your view of the relative priority of financial audits, and
the resources that should be devoted to such audits?
Answer. Financial audits will continue to be a high priority
consistent with the President's Management Agenda Initiative, the
Secretary of Defense's top priorities, the Chief Financial Officers Act
of 1990, and the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1994.
If confirmed, I will work with the Department and Congress to ensure
that the appropriate level of resources continues to be dedicated to
financial audits. I will also seek to ensure that resources committed
to financial audits do not come at the expense of other audit
priorities.
Question. Do you believe that resources currently directed to the
audit of financial statements that are generally acknowledged to be
unreliable would better be directed to other objectives?
Answer. Without the benefit of first-hand knowledge of resource
challenges faced by the DOD IG, I am not currently in a position to
determine whether resources would be better directed to other
objectives. I have been advised, however, that the OIG currently
allocates few resources to the audit of financial statements, in
accordance with section 1008 of the National Defense Authorization Act
of 2002. That section states that ``the DOD IG shall only perform the
audit procedures required by generally accepted government auditing
standards consisted with any representations made by management.''
Question. Do you see any need for legislative changes to give the
Inspector General greater flexibility to target audit resources?
Answer. Without the benefit of first-hand knowledge of resource
challenges faced by the DOD IG, I am not currently in a position to
determine whether legislative changes are necessary. If confirmed, I am
prepared to work with the Department and Congress to assess whether
legislation in this area is appropriate.
oversight of acquisition programs
Question. Problems with procurement, acquisition, and the ability
of the Department and the military departments to effectively oversee
acquisition programs have called into question the capability of
existing DOD oversight mechanisms.
Do you believe that the DOD IG and the various Defense auditing and
contracting management activities have the resources needed to conduct
effective oversight over the Department's acquisition programs?
Answer. If confirmed, conducting effective oversight over the
Department's acquisition programs will be among my top priorities as
Inspector General. The men and women of our Armed Forces, and our
Nation's taxpayers, have a right to expect that the funds appropriated
by Congress for defense acquisitions are being utilized with cost-
efficiency and integrity.
Based on the information made available to me thus far, I am
concerned that the audit resources of the OIG have not kept pace with
the growth in contract expenditures for defense acquisitions. I am also
concerned that the current trend, if unchecked, will significantly
increase the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse in acquisition programs.
Therefore, if I am confirmed, it will be vital for the OIG, the
Department, and Congress to work together in a timely way to assess
whether the OIG has adequate resources to conduct this essential
oversight.
Question. Over the last 15 years, the IG has gone from having one
auditor for every $500 million on contract by the DOD to one auditor
for every $2 billion on contract.
Do you believe that the IG has the resources it needs to conduct
effective oversight over the Department's acquisition programs?
Answer. Please see my previous answer.
Question. The DOD IG has played an important role in advising the
DOD and Congress on the sufficiency of management controls in the
Department's acquisition programs and the impact that legislative and
regulatory proposals could have on such management controls.
How do you see the DOD IG's role in this area?
Answer. The DOD IG has an important role in helping the Department
to effectively and efficiently manage acquisition resources dedicated
to the support of the Department's mission, and in accounting for
management of those resources to the taxpayer. Sound management
controls are paramount in ensuring effective and efficient acquisition
programs. If confirmed, I will ensure that the DOD OIG continues its
important advisory role in reporting on the sufficiency of management
controls over acquisition programs and providing comments on related
legislative and regulatory proposals.
human trafficking
Question. The Department of Defense has adopted a ``zero
tolerance'' position against abuses of human trafficking and modified
its policies to ensure that United States military commands and
activities and their personnel are informed about factors contributing
to human trafficking and take preventative measures against behavior
that contributes to this problem. The DOD IG has investigated
allegations of human trafficking in Korea and the Balkans, and, earlier
this year, the DOD IG posted a survey on its Web site designed to
obtain information about potential human trafficking abuses from DOD
personnel.
What is the role of the DOD IG with respect to human trafficking?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Inspector General supports
the Department's ``zero tolerance'' policy against human trafficking by
evaluating programs and compliance, and by investigating allegations of
human trafficking that have a DOD nexus. If confirmed, I will continue
these practices.
Question. What is your understanding of the actions that have been
taken by the DOD OIG to prevent human trafficking abuses and the
current role of the DOD IG in formulating and enforcing the
Department's policies?
Answer. It is my understanding that the OIG has been actively
engaged in efforts to prevent human trafficking, and that the OIG works
closely with other human trafficking ``stakeholders'' within the DOD,
and with other departments such as the Department of State.
On May 31, 2002, several Members of Congress wrote to the Secretary
of Defense to request a ``thorough, global, and extensive''
investigation into the publicized allegation that U.S. military
leadership in Korea had been implicitly condoning sex slavery. In
response, the OIG initiated a Human Trafficking Assessment Project. The
first phase of the project focused on U.S. military forces in Korea. IG
teams visited Korea in December 2002 and March 2003. The second phase
focused on the European theater, specifically Bosnia and Kosovo. An IG
team visited the Balkans in June 2003.
The results of the assessment project indicated that awareness
training, along with leader focus, were important tools in the effort
to combat human trafficking. The specific findings are set forth in OIG
reports published in July and December 2003.
In October 2004, the OIG distributed over 7,000 Trafficking in
Persons (TIP) posters to military and DOD civilian activities
worldwide. Continuing that initiative today, the hotline staff is
prepared to recognize and receive allegations of this multi-faceted
crime against humanity, by telephone, e-mail, facsimile, and U.S. mail.
On November 18, 2005, the OIG announced its ``Evaluation of the
Department of Defense (DOD) Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons.''
The OIG expects to publish the report of this latest evaluation in
August 2006.
In order to maintain its independence, the OIG does not become
involved in the formulation of DOD operational policies. However, the
OIG does play a role in enforcing Department policy through audits,
investigations, and evaluations.
Question. In April 2006, the Commander, U.S. Multinational Forces,
General George Casey, USA, issued an order titled ``Prevention of
Trafficking in Persons in MNF-I,'' aimed at preventing human
trafficking abuses by contractors involving possibly thousands of
foreign workers on U.S. bases in Iraq. Media reports about the problem
of abuses in Iraq among contractors stated that allegations had been
raised as early as 2004 with the DOD IG, but that lengthy delays
occurred before a response.
What is your understanding of the role the DOD IG has played in
investigating human trafficking allegations in Iraq?
Answer. It is my understanding that the OIG has taken several
actions related to allegations of human trafficking in Iraq.
For example, I am advised that on April 14, 2006, the OIG responded
to a request from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness (USD P&R) concerning alleged practices by DOD contractors and
subcontractors in Iraq that had been reported in a series of Chicago
Tribune articles regarding the deaths of 12 Nepalese workers inside
Iraq on August 31, 2004. The allegations concerned involuntary
servitude occurring under the auspices of DOD contractors in Iraq.
I am also advised that the DOD IG made the following
recommendations to the USD P&R, which were provided to Ambassador
Miller at the State Department by Under Secretary Chu on May 18, 2006:
DOD should continue to prosecute military members who
become involved in TIP or TIP-related activities, in accordance
with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
DOD should ensure that all new contracts incorporate
the language of the anti-TIP clause in the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulations (DFAR), once it is approved.
DOD should evaluate rewriting existing contracts to
incorporate the language of the anti-TIP DFAR clause, once it
is approved.
Military Department and Combatant Command Inspectors
General should continue their involvement in DOD efforts to
combat TIP, within the limits of their authority to do so.
I have been advised that delays occurred in the OIG's investigation
of allegations of abuses by contractors in Iraq because the OIG has no
authority to investigate foreign nations or foreign companies inside
the countries that are the source of most of the laborers. To address
that problem, it is my understanding that the OIG has been working with
the Office of the Secretary of Defense to ensure that necessary changes
are incorporated into the DFAR Supplement to provide additional
contractor controls over both contractors and subcontractors.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed as the DOD IG, to
investigate and prevent the incidence of human trafficking abuses in
connection with DOD activities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the OIG investigates all
credible allegations of human trafficking with a DOD nexus. In some
instances, allegations might be referred to the military Services'
investigative organizations, but the DOD IG would monitor the progress
of those Service investigations. To promote compliance with the DOD
``zero tolerance'' policy, I will also periodically evaluate DOD
programs to combat human trafficking in coordination with other
Inspectors General throughout the Department.
oversight of iraqi reconstruction
Question. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
issued a report last year stating that the Coalition Provisional
Authority did not establish or implement sufficient managerial,
financial, and contractual controls to ensure that billions of dollars
in Development Funds for Iraq were used properly. The DOD IG recently
opened a field office in Qatar and has supported the development of
anti-corruptions systems within the Iraqi government.
What is the relationship of the DOD IG to the Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction?
Answer. It is my understanding that the DOD IG has supported the
operations of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and
its predecessor, the Coalition Provisional Authority Inspector General.
In accordance with the IG Act and Public Law 108-106, title 3, section
3001(f)(4), the DOD IG coordinates with the Special Inspector General
for Iraq Reconstruction as well as other oversight community members to
avoid duplicating oversight efforts and to minimize disruption to
military operations. If confirmed, and in keeping with the legal
authorities noted above, I will ensure that the DOD IG continues to
coordinate with the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
as a fellow member of the IG community.
Question. What is your understanding of the accomplishments and
planned participation of the DOD OIG in investigating and preventing
fraud, waste, and abuse of U.S.-provided resources for reconstruction
and other purposes in Iraq?
Answer. It is my understanding that the DOD OIG has, in accordance
with its legislatively mandated mission, conducted audits aimed at
identifying and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse of funds
appropriated to the DOD for its operations in Iraq. The DOD OIG has
also established an office in Qatar as an in-theater base of
operations. The staff in the Qatar office is conducting audits,
inspections, and investigations as required in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Kuwait, and Qatar to support the operational commander. Additionally,
audits are being conducted in the continental United States (CONUS) on
contracts awarded and funds expended in the United States that provide
significant resources to support reconstruction and other purposes in
Iraq.
I am advised that DCIS and its military criminal investigative
counterparts investigate major frauds, corruption, thefts, and other
compromises of DOD assets in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries in
that theater. DCIS agents currently deploy from Europe and CONUS with
investigation partners (e.g., the FBI) into theater to conduct
investigative operations, such as gathering evidence and conducting
interviews, when crimes are reported. However, the bulk of their
investigative activities occur in CONUS where corporate headquarters of
DOD contractors, key evidence, and Department of Justice prosecutorial
support are located. With the increased DOD OIG audit presence in-
theater, I expect that DCIS will be assigning more agents in-theater to
handle a likely increase in referrals of criminal matters.
If confirmed, and in keeping with the IG Act, I will ensure that
the DOD OIG continues to focus oversight efforts to investigate and
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of U.S.-provided resources for
reconstruction and other purposes in Iraq.
Question. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has
jurisdiction over contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, however,
the Special Inspector General does not have jurisdiction over contracts
to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What role do you believe the DOD IG should play in the audit and
oversight of such contracts?
Answer. The DOD OIG has authority to conduct audits of DOD
contracts awarded in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom, and I believe that the OIG should conduct aggressive
oversight of those contracts. If confirmed, I will ensure that the OIG
conduct audits of DOD contracts in support of our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Question. Do you believe that a significant on-the-ground presence
in Iraq is necessary to perform this role?
Answer. Given the critical need to ensure that funds on behalf of
our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are being utilized in a cost-
effective manner--and the volume of contracts awarded for that
purpose--the DOD OIG almost certainly requires a significant on-the-
ground presence in Iraq. Toward that end, I am advised that the DOD OIG
has established an office in Qatar as its in-theater base of operations
for entry into Iraq as well as Afghanistan and Kuwait.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your goals with respect to
prevention of corruption in Iraq?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to support the development of
a strong anti-corruption system within the Iraqi government. It is my
understanding that the DOD OIG assists the Multi-National Security
Training Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) in its efforts with the Iraqi Ministry
of Defense Inspector General and his staff.
For example, I am advised that, in regard to the development of
U.S. and Iraqi anti-corruption initiatives, the OIG has:
Provided a full-time IG advisor to the MNSTC-I in
Baghdad to assist, train, and mentor the Iraqi Ministry of
Defense Inspector General and his staff and support that effort
with a support unit in our Washington, DC, and Qatar offices.
Continues to participate as a member of the Embassy's
Anti-corruption Working Group and facilitate communications,
coordination, and cooperation among coalition and Iraqi
officials to build a self-sustaining Iraqi IG system.
As requested by the Ambassador, Embassy-Baghdad and
the commanders of Multi-National Force-Iraq and MNSTC-I,
provides support and assistance to establish a stable,
professional, and sustainable Iraqi Inspector General System
that is integrated and complementary to the U.S. Embassy's and
MNSTC-I's overall Anti-Corruption Strategy.
Continues to encourage Iraqi efforts to create a
``National Institute for Integrity and Audit'' to educate and
train Iraqi auditors, inspectors, investigators, and government
officials in such areas as principled governance, rule of law,
human rights, and anti-corruption processes.
As required, collaborates with other U.S. Government
agencies and conduct interagency and/or unilateral oversight
activities--audits, inspections and evaluations, and
investigations--that have a DOD nexus.
oversight of medical functions
Question. In recent months, reports of medical cases from military
treatment facilities involving tragic outcomes and allegations of
medical malpractice have raised questions about the adequacy of
existing reporting, investigatory, and readiness systems within the
Defense Health Program and military treatment facilities. The ability
of those outside the military medical system to fairly evaluate
individual cases and overall quality of care is affected by such
factors as the tort claim laws and adversarial litigation against the
United States, reliance on privileges from the release of documents and
information associated with such litigation and separate quality
assurance systems, patient privacy requirements, and concern about the
reputations of individual providers.
Do you have any views about the role the DOD IG might play in
improving visibility into and objective assessments of the quality of
care provided through the military medical system?
Answer. The military health system is critical to our military
members and their families. If confirmed, I will ensure that the DOD
OIG continues to provide the independent review and oversight necessary
of the military health system. Without the benefit yet of first-hand
information, however, I am not currently in a position to offer any
views about specific actions the DOD OIG might take to improve
visibility into, and objective assessments of, the quality of care
provided through the military medical system.
Question. What resources and expertise does the DOD IG currently
have--or lack--to play a more prominent role in evaluating the
performance of health care providers in the Department of Defense?
Answer. Without the benefit of first-hand knowledge of resource
challenges faced by the DOD OIG, I am not currently in a position to
determine whether DOD OIG has adequate resources and expertise to
provide the requisite oversight in this area. If confirmed, I will work
with the Department and Congress to assess the appropriate level of
resources and expertise needed to evaluate the performance of health
care providers in the Department.
intelligence
Question. What is the role of the DOD IG with regard to
intelligence activities within DOD?
Answer. The Inspector General, through the Deputy Inspector General
for Intelligence, has responsibility for oversight of DOD intelligence
activities and components as identified in DOD Directive 5240.1, ``DOD
Intelligence Activities,'' dated April 25, 1988. These include all DOD
components conducting intelligence activities, including the National
Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS), the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Military Department intelligence and
counterintelligence activities, and other intelligence and
counterintelligence organizations, staffs, and offices, or elements
thereof, when used for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence
purposes. Other organizations and components under the Inspector
General's oversight not specifically identified in DOD Directive 5240.1
include the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
(USD(I)), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).
Responsibilities and functions of the Inspector General as outlined
in DOD Directive 5106.1, ``Inspector General of the Department of
Defense (IG, DOD),'' include the responsibility to ``audit, evaluate,
monitor, and review the programs, policies, procedures, and functions
of the DOD Intelligence Community to ensure that intelligence resources
are properly managed.''
The DOD IG performs an oversight and coordination role through the
Joint Intelligence Coordination Working Group (JIOCG). The JIOCG is a
DOD working group chaired by the Deputy Inspector General for
Intelligence and includes representatives from the Service audit
agencies, Military Department Inspectors General, and Defense
Intelligence Agencies Inspectors General. The primary goal of the JIOCG
is to avoid duplication of effort and enhance coordination and
cooperation among Inspectors General and Auditors General inside the
DOD and promote information-sharing among Inspectors General whose
functions include audits, inspections, evaluations, or investigations
of their respective departments and agencies.
Question. What is the relationship of the DOD IG to the Special
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight?
Answer. DOD Directive 5106.1 requires that intelligence-related
actions be coordinated, as appropriate, with the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense (Intelligence Oversight) to determine respective
areas of responsibility in accordance with DOD Directive 5148.11,
``Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight
(ATSD(IO)),'' dated May 21, 2004. (DOD Directive 5148.11 contains
similar language for the ATSD(IO) to coordinate with the Inspector
General, as appropriate.) Department of Defense Directive No. 5148.11
also directs the ASDI(IO) to ``[m]onitor investigations and inspections
by the DOD components [defined to include the DOD Inspector General]
related to intelligence activities, evaluate the findings and, if
appropriate, submit recommendations for corrective actions to the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense.'' I am advised that the
ATSD(IO) is a charter member of the JIOCG, and that the Office of the
Inspector General has a long history of coordination and cooperation
with the ATSD(IO). In a recent case, the Office of the Deputy Inspector
General for Investigations jointly conducted a review with the
ATSD(IO). The Inspector General also provides a quarterly report to the
ATSD(IO) on any significant intelligence activities undertaken.
Question. What is the relationship of the DOD IG to the Inspector
General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence?
Answer. The DOD IG's primary relationship with DNI IG concerns
participation in the Intelligence Community Inspectors General (IC IG)
Forum. The IC IG Forum promotes information-sharing among the IGs of
the departments and agencies of the Intelligence Community whose
functions include audits, inspections/evaluations, or investigations of
their respective departments and agencies. The USD(I) and ATSD(IO) may
attend forum meetings as observers. The IC IG Forum also strives to
avoid duplication of effort and enhance effective coordination and
cooperation among IC IGs. Prior to the creation of the DNI, the IC IG
Forum was co-chaired by the IGs of DOD and the Central Intelligence
Agency. The DNI IG now chairs the IC IG Forum. The DOD IG will host the
next meeting of the IC IG Forum in September 2006.
In addition to the IC IG Forum relationship, the DOD IG
participates in various projects and initiatives undertaken by the DNI
IG. The DNI IG also coordinates with the Office of the Deputy Inspector
General for Intelligence on all ongoing projects relating to DOD
organizations and activities.
Question. What is the role of the DOD IG with respect to detainee
matters?
Answer. According to my reading of the Inspector General Act, the
breadth of the Inspector General's statutory responsibility for
oversight extends to oversight of detainee and interrogation matters.
In that regard, I am advised that the OIG recently issued two draft
reports regarding detainee abuse. In one draft report dated March 1,
2006, the Deputy Inspector General for Policy and Oversight/Assistant
Inspector General for Investigative Policy and Oversight reviewed 50
closed cases investigated by the Military Criminal Investigative
Organizations and provided findings and recommendations. In a second
draft report dated April 25, 2006, the Deputy Inspector General for
Intelligence reviewed 13 senior-level reports and identified systemic
issues regarding operational planning, reporting of detainee abuse
incidents, and interrogation techniques. I am advised that the Office
of Inspector General is in the process of receiving and incorporating
management comments on both reports, and that both reports will be
issued by August 2006.
Question. What is the role of the DOD IG with respect to
interrogation matters?
Answer. Please see my previous answer.
investigation into activities of the office of the under secretary of
defense for policy
Question. The OIG is currently conducting an investigation into the
activities of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
related to pre-war intelligence on Iraq and the purported links between
Iraq and al Qaeda. This investigation is being conducted in response to
requests from the Senate.
If confirmed, will you ensure that this investigation has the
resources it needs, proceeds without hindrance, is conducted in an
independent and unbiased manner, and that the results of the
investigation are provided promptly to Congress?
Answer. I have been advised that this evaluation is being performed
within the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Intelligence, and
that the draft report is expected in November 2006.
If confirmed, I will review the status of this matter and determine
whether it is receiving the necessary resources and is proceeding in an
independent manner without hindrance. When the matter is concluded and
a report has been completed, I will ensure that the report is provided
to Congress.
financial management
Question. In his confirmation hearing in 2001, Secretary Rumsfeld
was challenged to improve financial management practices within DOD and
to succeed, where others could not, in developing systems, policies,
and procedures to monitor financial execution and management. Progress
in this area has been made, and performance has improved, but much
remains to be done.
What is your view of the role of the DOD IG in evaluating and
contributing to improvements made in the Department's financial
management processes?
Answer. The role of the DOD OIG is to serve as a catalyst for
improvements in the Department's financial management processes. That
role should be consistent with the President's Management Agenda
Initiatives, the Department's top priorities, and statutory
requirements. If confirmed, I will ensure that the DOD OIG continues
this vital function.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator John Warner
investigation into the death of waleed khaleed
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Laufman, the committee has received requests
for assistance from media organizations, including the Committee to
Protect Journalists, regarding incidents involving the deaths of
professional journalists in Iraq. These organizations have asserted
that U.S. military forces have unlawfully attacked journalists in
violation of applicable rules of engagement and that incidents
involving journalists have been improperly investigated. The Reuters
news agency has requested a Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector
General (IG) review of the circumstances surrounding the death of its
soundman, Waleed Khaleed, on August 28, 2005, in Baghdad, who was shot
and killed by U.S. Army forces while filming at the scene of an
insurgent attack on Iraqi police. If confirmed as the DOD IG, will you
ensure completion of the DOD IG review of the death of Waleed Khaleed
and conduct a personal review to determine whether appropriate action
was taken?
Mr. Laufman. Based on the attached memorandum of June 30, 2006,
from Acting DOD Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble to the Secretary of
the Army, it is my understanding that the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) did not initiate its own investigation of Mr. Khaleed's
death. Rather, on May 11, 2006, citing ``the policy of the Secretary of
Defense concerning responsibilities for operationally significant
events,'' Mr. Gimble initially referred this matter to U.S. Central
Command ``for review and consideration of appropriate action.''
According to Mr. Gimble's memorandum, ``U.S. Central Command responded
that it is not able to address [this matter] as investigations are
primarily Service functions and the military personnel involved in the
incident are no longer under the command of U.S. Central Command or its
Army Service component.'' Mr. Gimble subsequently referred the matter
to the Secretary of the Army's ``attention for review and action that
the Army deems appropriate.'' I am unaware of any further action
regarding Mr. Khaleed's death by either the Army or the OIG.
If confirmed, I will ensure that investigative action regarding Mr.
Khaleed's death has received the appropriate priority and resources. If
the Army has conducted its own investigation, I will review the Army's
findings to confirm that appropriate investigative action was taken. If
no investigative action has been taken by the Army, I will initiate an
investigation by the OIG.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
ongoing ig investigations
2. Senator Akaka. Mr. Laufman, the DOD's current Acting IG, Thomas
Gimble, declined to launch his own investigation of the National
Security Agency (NSA) electronic surveillance program. According to Mr.
Gimble, as the NSA is already conducting its own oversight
investigation, there is no need for a concurrent investigation by the
DOD IG. What role do you think that the DOD IG should have in the
ongoing investigations of the NSA electronic surveillance program?
Mr. Laufman. It is my understanding that the DOD IG has the
necessary jurisdiction to investigate the NSA electronic surveillance
program, and it is unclear why the DOD IG did not exercise its
jurisdiction at the outset. A responsible assessment of what role, if
any, the DOD IG should now have in ongoing investigations by other
organizations, however, requires information that, as a nominee, I do
not currently have. If I am confirmed and I subsequently learn that
investigations by NSA or other government agencies are pending, I would
seek to determine the scope and progress of such investigations, the
extent to which they are fully independent, and whether it is
practicable at this juncture to establish a role in these
investigations for the DOD IG. Pending the outcome of these inquiries,
I would reserve judgment on what action should be taken by the DOD IG.
______
[The nomination reference of David H. Laufman follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 5, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
David H. Laufman, of Texas, to be Inspector General, Department of
Defense, vice Joseph E. Schmitz, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of David H. Laufman, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of David H. Laufman
David H. Laufman has served since March 2003 as Assistant U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he has specialized
in prosecutions of terrorism and other national security cases. In
2005, Mr. Laufman served as lead counsel in the government's successful
prosecution of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, an American citizen who was
convicted by a jury of providing material support and resources to al
Qaeda, conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States,
conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, conspiracy to destroy aircraft,
and other terrorism offenses. Mr. Laufman also successfully has
prosecuted several other high-profile cases, including United States v.
Khan (the ``Virginia Jihad'' case), United States v. Keyser, United
States v. Biheiri, United States v. Bariek, and United States v. al-
Hamdi.
Prior to joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Laufman served as
Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson at the
Department of Justice (DOJ). In that capacity, Mr. Laufman helped to
coordinate the Department's responses to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, and prepared an extensive audit of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. He also served as DOJ's representative to the
National Security Council Policy Coordinating Committee on Terrorism
Finance, and as Executive Secretary of the Department's National
Security Coordination Council.
Mr. Laufman's experience in national security affairs dates back to
the early 1980s, when he served for more than 4 years as a military and
political analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence at the Central
Intelligence Agency. In 1990-1993, he was Deputy Minority Counsel to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives.
In 2000-2001, he served as Staff Director and Deputy Chief Counsel to
the Judicial Review Commission on Foreign Asset Contro, a
congressionally-mandated body that examined U.S. laws governing the
imposition of economic sanctions by the U.S. Department of the
Treasury.
Mr. Laufman also has extensive experience in ethics and public
corruption investigations. In 1992-1993, he served as Senior Associate
Minority Counsel to the Task Force to Investigate Certain Allegations
Concerning the Holding of American Hostages by Iran in 1980 (``October
Surprise Task Force''), a special bipartisan panel of the U.S. House of
Representatives. Subsequently, he served as Associate Independent
Counsel to Joseph E. diGenova in the Investigation Concerning the
Search of William J. Clinton's Passport Files During the 1992
Presidential Election Campaign. From 1996-2000, Mr. Laufman served as
Investigative Counsel to the House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct (``House Ethics Committee''), where he conducted several ethics
investigations. In 1997, he played a central role in drafting and
negotiating changes to the ethics rules of the House of Representatives
in his capacity as Assistant to the Special Counsel to the Ethics
Reform Task Force. Mr. Laufman also conducted professional misconduct
investigations for the Office of Professional Responsibility at the DOJ
before becoming Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General in May
2001.
In addition to his public service, Mr. Laufman twice has worked in
the private sector. In 1987-1990, he was an Associate at the
Washington, DC, firm of Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, where he
specialized in Federal civil litigation. In 1994-1996, he was a Senior
Associate at the Washington office of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, where
he specialized in white-collar criminal defense.
Mr. Laufman was born in Houston, Texas, where he attended St.
John's School. He received his bachelor's degree in international
relations in 1979 from the University of Pennsylvania, graduating magna
cum laude. He received his law degree in 1987 from Georgetown
University Law Center. Mr. Laufman is married to the former Judith
Susan Lansner, an official with the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
They reside in Vienna, Virginia, with their sons Adam and Michael.
______
[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 David H.
Laufman in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
David H. Laufman.
2. Position to which nominated:
Inspector General, Department of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
June 5, 2006.
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 3, 1958; Houston, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to former Judith Susan Lansner.
7. Names and ages of children:
Adam, 18; Michael, 14.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
St. John's School, Houston, Texas (1964-1976), high school diploma
(1976).
University of Pennsylvania (1976-1979), B.A., International
Relations, magna cum laude with distinction in the major of
International Relations (1979).
Georgetown University Law Center (1984-1987), J.D. (1987).
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 United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria, Virginia (2003 to present).
Chief of Staff, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Department
of Justice, Washington, DC (2001-2003).
Assistant Counsel, Office of Professional Responsibility,
Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2001).
Staff Director and Deputy Chief Counsel, Judicial Review Commission
on Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC (2000-2001).
Assistant to the Special Counsel, Ethics Reform Task Force, U.S.
House of Representatives, Washington, DC (1997).
Investigative Counsel, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC (1996-2000).
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 Independent Counsel (diGenova), Office of the Independent
Counsel, Investigation Concerning the Search of Passport Records of
William Jefferson Clinton During the 1992 Presidential Election
Campaign, Washington, DC (1993-1996).
Senior Associate Minority Counsel, Task Force to Investigate
Certain Allegations Concerning the Holding of American Hostages by Iran
in 1980 (``October Surprise Task Force''), U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC (1992-1993).
Deputy Minority Counsel, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House
of Representatives, Washington, DC (1990-1993).
Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency,
Langley, Virginia (1980-1984).
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Director and Secretary, Laufman's Inc., a Texas corporation (family
business).
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, District of Columbia Bar.
Member, Temple Rodef Shalom.
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.
Political SES appointment by administration of George W. Bush to
position of Chief of Staff, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice (2001-2003).
(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.
Not applicable.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Graduated magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania
(1979) with distinction in the major of international relations.
Appointed Lead Articles Editor for the Georgetown Immigration Law
Journal at the Georgetown University Law Center (1986-1987).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Political Bias in United States Refugee Policy Since the Refugee
Act of 1980, 1 Geo. Imm. L.J. 495 (1986).
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
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.
David H. Laufman.
This 12th day of June, 2006.
[The nomination of David H. Laufman was withdrawn by the
President on December 6, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Sue C. Payton by Chairman
Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions, particularly with respect to the role of the service
acquisition executives?
Answer. I do not see a current need to modify Goldwater-Nichols.
However, if confirmed, I would work with the Secretary of the Air Force
and others on any proposed changes that may be identified that pertain
to acquisition matters. The organizational and management structures
which drive the implementation of Goldwater-Nichols must be
continuously reviewed and may need to adapt to our current environment.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. [No response required]
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect the Secretary to prescribe for
me duties and functions commensurate with the position of Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition for Non-Space. I understand
that the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition serves as
the Air Force's Service Acquisition Executive. In that role, if
confirmed, I would expect to be responsible for all Air Force research,
development, and non-space acquisition activities and provide
direction, guidance, and supervision on all matters pertaining to the
formulation, review, approval, and execution of non-space acquisition
plans, policies, and programs.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. My career has spanned both public and private sectors with
varying levels of responsibility as a test engineer, systems engineer,
systems integrator, and as a manager, director, vice president of
technology and in my current role as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Advanced Systems and Concepts. I have been involved in the proposal
initiation, development, and operation of Department of Defense (DOD)
systems ranging from the most complex, highly sophisticated and
classified space systems, to global information management systems and
small technology development programs--the full-range of the types of
programs under the purview of a service acquisition executive.
I learned some things from these experiences which would be on my
watch list:
The importance of customer involvement in concept of
operations development and all phases of the acquisition
lifecycle.
The importance of requirements definition and
stability and how early prototyping of technology with concepts
of operations, interfacing interoperable systems, and spiral
development can lead to quality programs.
The importance of excellent systems engineering. This
is essential to understanding the requirements and building the
system successfully including managing and operating it
successfully when built.
The importance of producibility, as a specific design
criteria. The cost of production can be decreased if we design
in manufacturing and producibility upfront.
The importance of a lean, competent, demanding, and
empowered program management staff.
The importance of effective change/configuration
management that enables all impacts to the system to be well
understood when any one part of the system changes.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force for Acquisition?
Answer. If confirmed for this very important position, there are
many actions I will take to continually enhance my abilities to perform
this job. This position has been vacant since January 2005 with many
outstanding individuals filling the leadership void. I must immediately
begin to build trusting, working relationships and a detailed knowledge
of my new role. I will review all directives that define the
responsibilities of this position and create the structures,
organizations, and processes necessary for success. Key to this success
is a transparent, open relationship with Congress and if confirmed, I
look forward to this partnership.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be
with: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing a close working
relationship with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics and all his deputies in all acquisition areas
that impact the Air Force and our warfighting customers the combatant
commanders.
Question. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to a close working
relationship with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology especially as we execute Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) direction in such areas as joint air capabilities, joint
mobility, and joint command and control.
Question. The Secretary of the Air Force?
Answer. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force is responsible for
and has the authority necessary to conduct all affairs of the
Department of the Air Force. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing
the solid working relationship of the past as a direct report
responsible to the Secretary for all non-space acquisition, research,
and development.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Air Force?
Answer. Subject to the Secretary of the Air Force's direction and
control, the Under Secretary is authorized to act for and with the
authority of the Secretary of the Air Force on all matters for which
the Secretary is responsible; that is to conduct the affairs of the
Department of the Air Force. The Under Secretary also serves as the DOD
Executive Agent for Space. If confirmed, I look forward to working
closely with the Under Secretary of the Air Force on acquisition
matters, in particular as they relate to assisting the Under
Secretary's role as Executive Agent for Space.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the other Assistant
Secretaries of the Air Force and foster teamwork and information-
sharing in order to carry out the goals and priorities of the
Department of the Air Force and in crosscutting areas where horizontal
integration of Air Force people and resources is required and provides
best value to DOD, the combatant commanders, and the taxpayer.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force?
Answer. The Chief of Staff, in his Department of the Air Force
role, is subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of the Air Force, presides over the air staff, and is a
principal advisor to the Secretary. If confirmed, I would foster a
close working relationship with the Chief of Staff to ensure that
policies and resources are appropriate to meet the needs of the
Department of the Air Force.
Question. The General Counsel of the Air Force?
Answer. The General Counsel (GC) of the Department of the Air Force
is the Department's Chief Legal Officer and it's components. The GC
serves as the chief ethics official. As the chief ethics official the
advice of the GC will be crucial to acquisition matters. If confirmed,
I would look forward to developing a good working relationship with the
GC.
Question. The Service Acquisition Executives of the Army and Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to a close working
relationship with the Service Acquisition Executives of the Army and
the Navy. The 2006 QDR, signed by the Secretary of Defense in February,
defines the direction the DOD must follow to fulfill responsibilities
to the American people. Implementing QDR will demand the use of joint
capability portfolios, reduction of program redundancy, improved joint
interoperability across service centric platforms, and increased joint
research and development (R&D) and acquisition initiatives with new
organizations and processes that cut across traditional stovepipes. As
senior leaders in acquisition in the Department, all three Service
Acquisition Executives must work together to reshape the defense
enterprise.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition?
Answer. One of the major challenges is restoring confidence and
credibility to Air Force acquisition. Additionally, with the Air Force
commitment to provide our combatant commanders with the capabilities to
counter the multiple threats in their areas of responsibilities, the
Air Force must determine the appropriate level of investment and
actions required to fill current capability gaps, maintain air, space
and cyberspace dominance and invest in future science, technology,
research, and development to protect this Nation and our allies from
conventional, asymmetric, irregular, and catastrophic threats. During
these times of increasing personnel costs and potential reductions in
procurement and RDT&E budgets, the Air Force must demonstrate how to
recognize and manage risk and make trade-off decisions, balancing needs
and costs for weapon system programs and other investment priorities.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, it is my intention to evaluate and
aggressively pursue appropriate recommendations of the Defense Science
Board on Management Oversight in Acquisition Organizations and several
studies recently published on DOD acquisition reform. Our operational
forces must adapt to ever-changing threats, therefore the Air Force
needs an agile acquisition structure that is as fast and flexible as
the forces they support. This will require more tightly integrating the
acquisition, technology, and logistics framework: requirements, budget
and acquisition or the [big] ``A'', not just the [little] A, as
mentioned in the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA)
report. The basic underpinning of the plans is integrity in every
endeavor which must be brought into the process at the top, driving the
Air Force acquisition system to manage risks and deliver on schedule,
meeting technical requirements, within cost.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and timelines would
you establish to address these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, there are short-, mid-, and long-range sets
of actions that I believe must be taken to coincident with the budget
cycle. Immediately, trust and integrity will be emphasized with
constant reminders for openness and transparency. For upcoming
milestone decisions between now and ending in fiscal year 2008, we must
make difficult decisions in reprogramming to meet current and future
combatant commander's operational needs.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
for Air Force acquisition, research, and technology?
Answer. If confirmed, restoring credibility to the Air Force
acquisition enterprise through transparency with Air Force leadership,
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Congress, and most of all,
the American people would be my first priority. This includes
streamlining our processes, becoming more efficient, and developing our
acquisition workforce. My goals for research and technology would be to
provide the warfighter with the best technology available while
maintaining our historically significant role in world-class basic
research. This means harvesting research and technology that supports
concepts of operation, increasing the use of prototyping and working
transitions that move technology to the warfighter in a more timely
manner.
quadrennial defense review execution roadmaps
Question. In January 2006, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
commissioned eight QDR Execution Roadmaps, including a DOD
Institutional Reform and Governance panel led by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. This panel is
intended to provide guidance on implementation of new acquisition
policies, procedures, and processes and to explore options for a
``portfolio-based approach'' to defense planning, programming, and
budgeting.
What is your understanding of the issues being considered and
conclusions reached by the DOD Institutional Reform and Governance
Panel to date, and, if confirmed, what role would you expect to play,
if any, in the work of the QDR Execution Roadmaps?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to fully evaluate the DOD
Institutional Reform and Governance Panel as the portfolio based
approach to the capabilities investment is an ongoing process being
explored in test cases in the Department. I fully expect the Air Force
to be a leader in developing QDR roadmaps and implementation plans and
if confirmed this would be one of my priorities.
Question. What is your understanding of the term ``joint
capabilities portfolios,'' as used in the QDR, and, if confirmed, how
would you incorporate joint capabilities portfolios into the Air Force
acquisition process?
Answer. Joint capabilities portfolios enable the Department to look
across the enterprise and to re-orient the Department's processes to
provide the capabilities needed by the combatant commander. If
confirmed, I would work collectively with the military departments and
defense agencies to incorporate joint capabilities portfolios in the
Air Force by placing the Air Force acquisition team as key leaders and
participants in the portfolio reviews to ensure the best value to the
taxpayer and greatest capability to our joint warfighters.
Question. The QDR concluded that the Department is ``encumbered
with a Cold War organization and mentality in many aspects of
Department operations'' and noted that the Department intended to seek
new and more flexible authorities for control of budget, finance,
acquisition, and personnel.
What are your views on these QDR conclusions, and, if confirmed,
what changes, if any, would you seek to make in the Air Force's
policies in the areas listed?
Answer. The Department is exploring ways to implement several DAPA
recommendations and the Air Force should be a part of this exploration.
These solutions could introduce a more stable funding environment
within the acquisition world. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with the Defense Acquisition Executive, the Service Acquisition
Executives (SAEs), and Congress in this area.
streamlining the acquisition process
Question. Within the past year, several major studies (e.g., the
QDR 2006; Beyond Goldwater-Nichols by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies; the DAPA; and Transformation, a Progress
Assessment by the Defense Science Board) have been completed. The need
for reduced program risk and greater stability was a common theme
relating to acquisition procedures in all these reports.
What concerns, if any, do you have regarding the process the Air
Force uses to acquire capabilities to support the needs of the
combatant commanders?
Answer. Requirements and development processes used to meet
combatant commander needs are complex. If confirmed, I look forward to
examining the Air Force's processes and understanding how they best
meet the needs of the combatant commanders. My goal would be to provide
the combatant commanders with capability that is timely, meaningful,
and affordable.
Question. What is your evaluation of the state of Air Force
acquisition programs today?
Answer. I have not reviewed in depth the Air Force program
portfolio at this time, but if confirmed, reviewing Air Force programs
will be one of my highest priorities. In evaluating the current
portfolio I would intend to conduct Air Force acquisition in a
transparent manner, always mindful of the importance of the
congressional oversight role, and with special attention to how
effectively the programs are satisfying combatant commanders' needs and
future capability gaps.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to improve
program stability and reduce program risk?
Answer. By maintaining strict requirements discipline, focusing on
the use of mature technology, empowering program managers, assessing
manufacturing shortfalls and using incentives to reward above average
performance, we can lower the risk of programs at the same time we
reduce the time to fielding. If confirmed, I would focus on these
concepts.
Question. The studies mentioned above make various recommendations
regarding the role of the service acquisition executives and the
combatant commanders in improving military acquisition processes and
outcomes.
What are your views regarding proposals for the establishment of
service acquisition commands that would report to the services' chiefs
of staff and acquisition executives?
Answer. I understand there are studies underway, sponsored by the
Air Force to evaluate options. If, confirmed, I would like to see the
results of those studies before formulating a position.
Question. If implemented, would such proposals, in your judgment,
improve the acquisition process?
Answer. Again, if confirmed, I would like to see the results of
those studies before formulating a position.
Question. What role should combatant commanders play in the
acquisition process?
Answer. The combatant commanders should drive requirements. They
are the commanders supported by the acquisition system and have the
best feel for what their warfighting capability shortfalls are.
Question. What is your evaluation of the recommendation in the DAPA
report that the Department should establish a ``Stable Program Funding
Account,'' a single account appropriated by Congress that would fund
all Acquisition Category I Programs?
Answer. The Department is reviewing this DAPA recommendation to
create a capital budget.
impact of the budget and requirements processes
Question. A recent report by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies concludes that ``many of the ills attributed to
the defense acquisition system are really caused by [the requirements
and resource allocation] processes. Instability in the definition of
requirements, often referred to as `requirements creep,' creates a
moving target for acquisition and procurement personnel as they
struggle to make trade-offs among performance, cost, and schedule.
Similarly, much, if not most, of the instability in acquisition
programs is caused by lack of discipline in the resource allocation
process--that is, funding more acquisition programs than the
procurement budgets can support and the chronic tendency . . . to take
procurement dollars to meet operations and maintenance (O&M) bills.''
Do you agree with this assessment?
Answer. I generally agree. Often budget cuts to procurement
accounts are made without an overall assessment of the risk induced
into programs. In addition, our exuberance to please a customer and
accept additional requirements introduces unnecessary risk to programs.
This is not a simple problem with a single answer. You need to address
all the sources of instability; requirements, budget, technical,
manpower, and other realities that induce instability into programs.
Requirements must be bound in ways that are meaningful to the customer
but do not break the budget. Incremental development techniques should
be employed to make sure the capabilities delivered meet the mark for
the warfighter and new capabilities can be rolled out to satisfy future
needs.
Question. What steps do you believe the Air Force should take to
address this problem?
Answer. We must understand the warfighters' concept of operations,
the user's perspective and the resulting requirements better by getting
users in with developers to work together to ensure that requirements
are realistic and clearly understood on a continuous basis.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in ensuring that
requirements and budget estimates are reasonable?
Answer. If confirmed, I will operate in a collaborative environment
with my requirements and programming counterparts to meet the needs of
the warfighter. One role would be to emphasize more quality prototyping
in the early phases to inform requirements and cost drivers. Key to
this is becoming engaged early in the process to identify issues as
they arise and work together in developing appropriate acquisition and
risk mitigation plans.
commercial item strategies
Question. Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 requires a determination by the Secretary of Defense
and notification to Congress before a major weapon system may be
treated as a commercial item. Section 823 requires a determination by
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics and notification to Congress before the Department may use
``other transaction authority (OTA)'' for a prototype project in excess
of $100 million.
What is your view of the circumstances, if any, in which it would
be appropriate to treat a major weapon system as a commercial item?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be committed to thoroughly reviewing
commercial item considerations during the acquisition planning process
to ensure compliance with established law and policy. It could be
appropriate to treat a major weapon system as a commercial item, if it
clearly meets the criteria established in the definition for a
commercial item set forth in FAR 2.101 (41 U.S.C. 403(12)), and if such
treatment is necessary to meet national security objectives. It is my
perception that this would be an extraordinary circumstance. That being
said, I would anticipate very few major weapon systems would meet these
criteria.
Question. What is your view of the circumstances, if any, in which
it would be appropriate to use ``OTA'' for a prototype project in
excess of $100 million?
Answer. I anticipate that the use of OTAs for prototype projects
over $100 million would be limited. I have used OTAs very successfully
on smaller sized programs.
lead system integrators
Question. Section 805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 requires DOD to report to the congressional defense
committees on concerns related to intellectual property and technical
data rights, conflicts of interest, and contractor performance of
inherently governmental functions arising out of the use of lead system
integrators (LSIs) for the acquisition by DOD of major weapon systems.
What are your views on the appropriate role and responsibilities of
the lead system integrator?
Answer. For 12 years in the private sector, I was a systems
integrator and treated as ``an arm of the government, honest broker,
and system protector.'' Two contributing factors were critical to the
positive impact this system integrator had on mission success:
1. A very strong government contracting officer's technical
representative and government team who led the effort with
vision and superb knowledge of systems engineering and the
importance of configuration management and the baseline
designs.
2. A strong commitment on the part of industry to adhere to
strict and legally binding organizational conflict of interest
(OCI) within a ``fire-walled'' business unit that reported to a
dedicated senior vice president.
From my experience the appropriate role and responsibility of an
LSI is to maintain in-depth, long-term knowledge of the system-of-
systems, and such things as performance timelines, critical path,
interfaces, configuration management, risks and risk mitigators and
schedule drivers.
Question. How would you define the line between those acquisition
responsibilities that are inherently governmental and those that may be
performed by contractors?
Answer. Under no circumstances should an LSI make programmatic
decisions or obligate and disperse funds. An LSI should solely advise
and recommend solutions to the government to problems such as risk
mitigators, schedule alternatives, or potential design flaws at the
system-of-system level.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
contracting mechanisms which maintain adequate safeguards are in place
to ensure that LSI access to sensitive and proprietary information is
not compromised?
Answer. If confirmed, I would look closely at the results of the
study in response to section 805 and I would work closely with all
involved in DOD to ensure proper policies and procedures are in effect.
Question. What policies are in place to ensure that the LSIs do not
misuse sensitive and proprietary information owned by other contractors
and do not unnecessarily limit competition in a manner that would
disadvantage the government?
Answer. I understand that policies are explained in a memorandum
that the acting USD(AT&L) sent to the Service Acquisition Executives
and the Directors of Defense Agencies on July 12, 2004, concerning the
Selection of Contractors for Subsystems and Components. Policies
emphasize reliance upon competition at the prime and subcontract levels
to provide for innovation, flexibility, reduced life cycle costs, and
increased quality.
Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe are needed
to address this issue?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be reviewing this issue and the report
in response to section 805.
acquisition workforce
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force testified in response
to questions about shortfalls in the Air Force tanker lease program and
performance in aircraft acquisition that the Air Force ``paid dearly''
by streamlining its buying processes and shrinking its oversight
workforce. He indicated that the Air Force needs more cost estimators,
testing evaluators, and program managers.
What is your understanding of the problems referred to by General
Moseley and of remedial actions that need to be taken?
Answer. As General Moseley indicated, the Air Force has experienced
a reduction in acquisition workforce capability. If confirmed, I will
work with the SECAF and CSAF to ensure that the Air Force has the right
numbers and mix of acquisition professional government civil service
and military in critical oversight roles, such as program management
and systems engineering. I will also review things the acquisition work
force may be doing that might have little value added and seek to
reduce the complexity of acquisition.
Question. If confirmed, how would you assess the appropriate level
of human capital resources, to include senior level resources, required
to ensure adequate levels of staffing in the Air force acquisition
workforce?
Answer. I am not currently engaged in this issue, but if confirmed
I will make it a priority.
Question. Do you believe that contracting out for essential
acquisition support services contributed to the Air Force's acquisition
workforce problem?
Answer. I am unaware of the specific issues regarding the support
services acquisition mission. If confirmed, I will review this issue. I
believe the key will be to determine what functions and what level of
support should be contracted out and what functions need to be
preserved within the government 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.
Please give your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of
DOD's implementation to date of DAWIA.
Answer. I am not familiar with any metrics that would indicate the
strengths and weaknesses of the implementation of DAWIA. If confirmed,
I plan to review the original intent, metrics, and get a more thorough
understanding of the value added of the intended benefits.
Question. Does DOD's acquisition workforce possess the quality and
training needed to adapt to new acquisition reforms, as well as to
increased workloads and responsibilities?
Answer. As a nominee, I am not aware of any acquisition workforce
training shortfalls. If confirmed, I look forward to understanding and
assessing the impact of increased workloads and responsibilities. Are
there things the acquisition workforce is doing that they can stop
doing? Are there things they are doing that could be done more
effectively? Once those questions are answered, I plan on working
closely with Mr. Kreig (AT&L) and other SAEs to provide the most
effective training possible.
Question. What are your views regarding assertions that the
acquisition workforce is losing its technical and management expertise
and is beginning to rely too much on support contractors, FFRDCs, and,
in some cases, prime contractors for this expertise?
Answer. My view is that this may be somewhat true. Support
contractors including FFRDCs are essential to the acquisition mission.
That being said, the Air Force must always be mindful to retain our
inherently governmental functions.
national security personnel system
Question. If confirmed, how would you anticipate using the
authorities of the National Security Personnel System, including the
authority to hire highly qualified experts, to improve the expertise,
skill, and performance of the Air Force's acquisition workforce?
Answer. If confirmed, I will strongly support utilizing pay,
incentive, and reward systems to link pay to individual and
organizational performance contributions
acquisition technical support
Question. The Comptroller General has testified that the
Department's programs often move forward with unrealistic cost and
schedule estimates, lack clearly defined and stable requirements, use
immature technologies in launching product development, and fail to
solidify design and manufacturing processes at appropriate junctures in
development. The Air Force has begun to use a broader technical
community to identify and manage risk during acquisition programs and
to provide a distinct and separate technical voice at the table during
service acquisition executive and milestone reviews.
What do you consider to be the appropriate role of the technical
community in providing advice and recommendations to program managers
and program executive officers prior to milestone decisions?
Answer. The technical community, headed by the chief engineers at
all levels, must provide realistic assessments of technical risk,
maturity, capability, design, and safety; provide a technical roadmap
for a successful program execution; and ensure that good systems
engineering processes are used throughout concept exploration, design,
evaluation, development, test, production, fielding, and sustainment.
Technical readiness and manufacturing readiness will be key elements
for program approvals at milestone decision points. If confirmed, I
will continue to strengthen the role of the Air Force technical
community as an honest broker for Program Managers and Milestone
Decision Authorities. I am committed to having a technical voice at the
table to advise me on acquisition issues.
Question. Based on your experience as Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts, how early in the development
of an acquisition program should technical risk assessments and life
cycle systems engineering commence?
Answer. Based on my experience with our most successful Advanced
Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs), technical risk assessments
and disciplined systems engineering should be considerations from the
very beginning of the capabilities development process, well ahead of
Milestone A. It is essential that these elements are included in
scoping and conducting early trade studies, even before concepts are
brought forward into Analyses of Alternatives and a selected concept is
eventually matured into an acquisition program.
Question. In your view does the Department have sufficient
personnel and resources to adequately support pre-acquisition systems
engineering and an increased technical role in acquisition strategies?
Answer. In 2003, under the leadership of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the extreme
shortage of systems engineers was recognized and organizational and
training steps were taken to begin to reverse the shortage. If
confirmed, one of my first actions will be to get a full understanding
of the current state of systems engineering in the Air Force and across
the DOD and assess what steps should be taken to strengthen the
function or create incentives to retain this element of the acquisition
workforce.
test and evaluation
Question. Rapid fielding initiatives, spiral development, and the
balance between operational and developmental testing are some of the
many challenges facing the Department's operational test and evaluation
activity. In the fiscal year 2007 budget request, the Air Force reduced
its test and evaluation (T&E) activities by nearly $400 million over
the Future Years Defense Program, relative to these activities as
proposed in the fiscal year 2006 budget request.
What are your views on the importance of accurately projecting
future test facility instrumentation requirements and budgeting for
these needs?
Answer. In my experience, test facilities are a very important
contributor to the ability to field capable, proven weapon systems for
our warfighters. We need to do a good job of protecting the test
capabilities our future systems will require to ensure they are in
place to support thorough testing as part of the acquisition process.
We cannot permit test infrastructure shortfalls to delay acquisition
programs.
Question. The Government Acountability Office (GAO) recently
reported that DOD program managers have incentives to suppress bad news
and continually produce optimistic estimates because doing otherwise
could result in a loss of support and funding and further damage their
programs.
Do you agree with this GAO finding?
Answer. If this finding is true, then I believe there is a
violation of honesty, integrity, and transparency in the acquisition
workforce. If confirmed, I will establish a structure of support for
our program managers, as I have with my current organization that will
encourage them to bring ``bad news'' forward so that problems can be
resolved early in the acquisition process. It is said that ``bad news''
does not improve with age, so the sooner problems are discovered and
addressed the better the outcome.
Question. What are your views on the appropriate point in concept
development of a new acquisition program for incorporation of T&E
planning and integration of testing requirements?
Answer. Based on my experience with the ACTD program and the early
involvement of developmental test and evaluation experts from the Army,
Navy, and Air Force, I am a strong proponent of early engagement with
the test community. I understand that a new Air Force strategy called
``Seamless Verification'' integrates all aspects of testing much
earlier in acquisition programs allowing the acquisition and test
communities to partner more effectively.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should
take to ensure that testing takes place early enough in the program
cycle to identify and fix problems before it becomes prohibitively
time-consuming and expensive to do so?
Answer. As with all improvements, the level of emphasis and high
regard for the process must be communicated by the senior acquisition
leader in the Air Force. If confirmed, I will not only emphasize this
as a guiding principle of excellence in acquisition, I will ensure that
proper support is committed early in the program to resource early
testing and fixing of problems that are identified.
Question. The DAPA report recommended that laws governing
operational testing be modified to add a new ``operationally
acceptable'' test evaluation category and provide fiscal and time
constraints for operational testing.
What is your view of this recommendation?
Answer. I believe those are changes that are worth further study by
DOD.
service contract management
Question. DOD spending on contractor-provided services has
increased by an estimated 50 percent since fiscal year 1995. This has
resulted in more spending each year for the acquisition of services
than for the acquisition of products, including major weapons systems.
Despite this trend, the Department has not updated management processes
and workforce training to account for the increased volume and
complexity of service contracts.
If confirmed, what actions would you take in the Air Force to
address the need for improved management of contractor-provided
services?
Answer. I am not familiar with the increased volume and complexity
of service contracts but if confirmed, I will fully review the current
management of contractor provided services with a view toward
discipline and transparency in these matters.
Question. The GAO and the DOD Inspector General have reported that
DOD has failed to provide adequate resources to monitor contractors'
performance of service contracts. As a result, the Department has no
assurance that contractors have complied with the terms of their
contracts and that the Department has received the best value when
contracting for services.
What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should take to
address this problem?
Answer. I am not familiar with the GAO and DOD IG reports. If
confirmed, I will review these reports along with the recommendations
of the GAO and DOD IG. The Department must be accountable to the
taxpayer for the expenditure of tax dollars. Keeping this in mind, I
would take steps to review the management of Service contracts with
appropriate individuals in SAF/AQ.
Question. If confirmed, what metrics would you use to assess
whether Service contracts are meeting cost, schedule, and performance
goals?
Answer. At the current time, I have not developed a set of metrics
to use in connection with Service contracts. However, this is a key
area in Service contract success and if confirmed, I intend to
undertake this task.
Question. Concerns raised by GAO and the DOD Inspector General
about the Department's management of Services' contracts led to a
requirement in section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002 for DOD to establish a management structure to
oversee Services contracting. Because the Department was slow to
implement this provision, Congress tightened the requirement for a
management structure in section 812 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to implement section 812
and ensure that the Department has an effective management structure in
place for the acquisition of contract services?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review these reports along with the
recommendations of the GAO and DOD IG.
Question. What specific steps, if any, do you believe the
Department should take in calendar years 2006 and 2007 to improve
management of Service contracts?
Answer. I consider this important and will make it a high priority
if confirmed.
Question. At the request of the committee, the GAO has performed
best practices work on how the private sector manages services. GAO
concluded that leading companies have greater visibility and management
over their Services' contracts and conduct so called ``spend analyses''
to find more efficient ways to manage their Service contractors. This
recommendation was incorporated into sections 801 and 802 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and has been
reinforced by subsequent legislation.
What is the status of the Department's efforts to conduct a ``spend
analysis,'' as recommended by GAO and required by statute?
Answer. If confirmed, I will immediately review the status of the
Department's efforts.
Question. What specific improvements in the management of Service
contracts have been made as a result of the Department's efforts to
date?
Answer. I am not currently knowledgeable of improvements in the
management of Services' contracting. If confirmed, I will familiarize
myself with this important issue.
Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe the
Department should take to implement the requirement to conduct periodic
``spend analyses'' for its Service contracts?
Answer. If confirmed and after a complete review, I will identify
any additional steps I believe should be taken.
performance-based service contracts
Question. Section 805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 established specific goals for the increased use of
performance-based Service contracts and competitive awards of task
orders under Service contracts by DOD.
What is your view of the utility performance-based services
contracting and the competitive award of task orders?
Answer. Performance-based Services' contracting looks to be proving
itself out as useful and beneficial. If confirmed, I look forward to
getting involved in PBSA and making it as successful as possible.
Question. What is the status of the Department's efforts to achieve
the goals established in section 805?
Answer. In order to provide status I must have all the facts and
details. I look forward to working with Congress in this area, if
confirmed.
Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe the
Department should take to meet the goals established in section 805?
Answer. Once I have all of the details, I will be in a better
position to discuss any additional steps which might be required.
time and materials contracts
Question. Recent press reports indicate that some contractors may
have charged the government one rate under so-called ``time and
materials'' contracts, while paying subcontractors another,
substantially lower rate. DOD and other Federal agencies have proposed
a change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to address this
practice.
What is your view on this issue and the proposed change to the
Federal Acquisition Regulation?
Answer. It is important that time and material contracts are clear
on the rates to be paid for work accomplished by both prime and
subcontractors. These rates are most effectively established when
contracts are awarded through full and open competition.
interagency contracts
Question. The last decade has seen a proliferation of new types of
government-wide contracts and multi-agency contracts. These contracts,
which permit officials of one agency to make purchases under contracts
entered by other agencies, have provided Federal agencies rapid access
to high-tech commercial products and related services. In too many
cases, however, it appears that neither agency takes responsibility for
making sure that procurement rules are followed and good management
sense is applied. As a result, the DOD Inspector General, the General
Services Administration (GSA) Inspector General, and GAO have
identified a long series of problems with interagency contracts,
including lack of acquisition planning, inadequate competition,
excessive use of time and materials contracts, improper use of expired
funds, inappropriate expenditures, and failure to monitor contractor
performance.
What steps has the Department taken to address problems with
interagency contracts, and how effective do you believe these steps
have been?
Answer. I am aware of some dialogue at the OSD level regarding this
issue but I am not aware of the current actions being taken to address
these problems or their effectiveness. If confirmed, I look forward
learning more and being able to engage at the right levels to resolve
problems as they relate to the Air Force.
Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe are needed?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review these steps with the Air Force
acquisition leads and determine if further steps need to be taken.
award and incentive fee contracts
Question. The GAO recently reported that DOD has failed to link
award and incentive decisions to acquisition outcomes. As a result, GAO
says, ``DOD has paid out an estimated $8 billion in award fees to date
on the contracts in our study population, regardless of outcomes.''
According to GAO, this practice has undermined the effectiveness of
fees as a motivational tool, marginalized their use in holding
contractors accountable for acquisition outcomes, and wasted taxpayer
funds.
What, in your view, are the most effective contractual mechanisms
for providing incentives to reward excellent contractor performance
which are focused on acquisition outcomes?
Answer. To ensure incentives reward excellent contractor
performance, you need to implement contracts using when possible
objective, verifiable criteria that emphasize outcomes for cost,
schedule, and performance.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to improve, or
overhaul if necessary, Air Force contracting decisions, including the
use of award and incentive fee contracts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure Air Force consistency with
policy concerning incentive contracts that was articulated in the
recent Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology)
Policy Memo, Award Fee Contracts (FAR 16, DFARS 215, DFARS 216).
science and technology
Question. If confirmed, you will play an important role in setting
and implementing policy for development and acquisition of Air Force
capabilities to confront new and emerging threats.
Based on your experience in operationalizing innovation, what is
the role and value of science and technology (S&T) programs in meeting
the Department's transformation goals and in confronting irregular,
catastrophic, traditional, and disruptive threats?
Answer. S&T programs must have a primary focus on meeting
transformation goals and confronting irregular, catastrophic,
traditional, and disruptive threats. The S&T investment is our hedge
against future surprise and uncertainty and the investment must be made
with our national security in the forefront.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take with respect to
funding targets and priorities for the Department's long-term research
efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will strengthen our S&T investment by
focusing on research in areas of key interest to our combatant
commanders such as non-lethal weapons, language and cultural tools,
detection and elimination of WMD, improved propulsion, unmanned aerial
vehicles, power and energy to include alternative fuels, net-security,
net-operations and net-warfare, global strike, improved communications
and multi-mode sensors and platforms for persistent surveillance. While
a funding target is a viable goal, within the Department, defining a
viable list of opportunities lost due to limited funds, as we document
successful transitions (ROI) of our R&D investment to warfighter
operations, will strengthen our funding levels.
technology transition
Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the
last few years. Challenges remain, however, in institutionalizing the
transition of new technologies into existing programs of record and
major weapons systems and platforms.
What challenges to transition do you see within the Air Force?
Answer. From my experiences in OSD, I believe it is a cradle-to-
grave process. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the OSD and
Congress to more efficiently transition technology into the hands of
the warfighter.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to enhance the
effectiveness of technology transition efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the business process used to
select transition projects from Air Force labs to acquisition programs,
and how program managers communicate to the research and development
(R&D) community the program needs of our combatant commanders (the
ultimate customer). I will seek to understand the relationships between
the R&D workforce and the program management workforce and the
combatant commands and what incentives exist to drive these entities
together. I will work closely with the Army and Navy Service
Acquisition Executives to move cross-cutting technology into the Air
Force from sister Services and vice versa.
Question. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of the rapid
reaction and quick reaction special projects funds?
Answer. These rapid response programs supplement investment in the
S&T program and are effective in responding to emergent defense needs
by taking advantage of technology breakthroughs in rapidly evolving
technologies. If confirmed, I will continue to support these programs.
Question. Are there DOD ``lessons learned'' through rapid reaction
programs that you believe have applicability to the broader Air Force
acquisition processes?
Answer. The Department's rapid reaction programs have provided a
foundation for bringing together operators, technologists, and our
acquisition community to pursue mission-oriented concepts and
requirements. These programs have allowed us to move certain promising
concepts from R&D to the warfighter more quickly than typically
permitted by normal acquisition and/or budgeting processes.
technical workforce
Question. What are your views on the present sufficiency and
projected vitality of the Air Force's technical workforce?
Answer. With the demographics of an aging workforce, I believe it
is even more important that the Air Force effectively recruit and
retain the necessary scientists and engineers, while staying alert to
any shifts in predicted trends. If confirmed, I look forward to
assessing this important issue.
Question. If confirmed, what efforts would you pursue to respond to
workforce challenges, particularly those involving the need for
technical and highly-skilled experts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will utilize the flexibilities afforded in
programs like the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation
program, the National Defense Education Program, and the Laboratory
Personnel Demonstration Project to increase the Air Force's ability to
hire highly-qualified scientists and engineers.
joint strike fighter
Question. The Department has estimated that it will spend about
$600 billion on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), making it the
Department's most expensive aircraft program. Recent GAO reviews of the
program have noted significant increases in development costs, a
decrease in planned procurement, schedule slips, and lack of sufficient
testing.
What are your views on the appropriate way forward for this
program?
Answer. A way forward for the JSF program is to strike an effective
balance of technical risk, financial resources, and the Services'
operational needs and I am committed to making this happen. If
confirmed, I will work with the JSF stakeholders to reduce cost and
meet and schedule commitments while assessing performance risk as the
Air Force progresses through system development and demonstration into
production.
Question. In recent years, DOD has revised its acquisition policy
to embrace an evolutionary, or incremental, approach in order to
improve program outcomes by maturing technology and delivering
capability in increments. Each increment of an evolutionary acquisition
will have its own decision milestones and baseline--cost, schedule, and
performance requirements.
If confirmed, what acquisition approach would you recommend for the
JSF with respect to an incremental acquisition and reliance on proven
technologies?
Answer. It would be premature for me to recommend a specific
acquisition approach without an in-depth review, however, the
Department should establish clear entry and exit criteria for all
critical program milestones to ensure that required technologies are
adequately matured.
leasing policy
Question. The proposed Air Force tanker lease has raised concerns
about the use of leases to obtain new capital equipment. Opponents of
such leases have argued that this approach, without adequate
justification, shifts to future leaders, today's budget problems.
Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it is
appropriate for the Department to use leases to obtain new capital
equipment?
Answer. Without specific details, it would be premature to say
whether it would be appropriate for the Department to lease, rather
than purchase, new capital equipment. Any such long-term lease of
capital assets would have to be supported by a business case analysis.
Furthermore, the lease would have to be consistent with fiscal and
acquisition law and regulation.
Question. What criteria would you use, if confirmed, to determine
whether to support a major lease of capital equipment by DOD?
Answer. If confirmed, I would consider all of the circumstances
surrounding the particular acquisition at the time. As mentioned above,
any program involving the use of a capital lease by the Department
would also have to comply with applicable fiscal and acquisition law
and regulation.
incremental funding
Question. The administration has requested that Congress approve
incremental funding for the Air Force's F-22 fighter program. The
funding requested in the budget would pay for about 7 aircraft, yet the
Air Force has requested the authority to start production on 20
aircraft. As far as the committee has been able to determine, this is
the only time that an administration has requested incremental funding
of production aircraft since Congress shifted to a policy of full
funding in the early 1950s. Approving this request could set a
precedent by expanding the types of systems that could use incremental
funding.
What are your views on the subject of incremental funding?
Answer. I am aware that the congressional defense committees have
expressed reservations about the Department's initial request for
incremental funding for aircraft production programs. At this juncture,
it is premature for me to express any view, other than to say I will
study the matter in depth, if confirmed.
Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that it would be
appropriate to use incremental funding for production aircraft, if at
all?
Answer. See previous response.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Acquisition?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
manufacturing technologies
1. Senator Reed. Ms. Payton, I know in your past job as the Under
Secretary for Advanced Systems and Concepts you were in charge of
Department of Defense's (DOD) Manufacturing Technology Program and
tried to develop new technologies that could reduce the costs to build
new weapon systems. They also serve to help sustain our domestic
manufacturing base and improve U.S. global economic competitiveness. I
know the Air Force manufacturing technology and research efforts are
under considerable budget pressure. How high a priority do you think
manufacturing technology development and manufacturing research should
play in the Air Force budget?
Ms. Payton. Manufacturing technology is an extremely high priority
with me because I have personally witnessed the huge return on
investment and cost avoidance that can be gained from establishing
designs early in the weapon system acquisition life cycle that allow
for streamlined manufacturing. Manufacturing readiness levels should be
assessed at each milestone decision point and adequate research dollars
invested to improve manufacturing capabilities. It is my intent to
emphasize manufacturing research and development as the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition.
2. Senator Reed. Ms. Payton, do you agree with me that small
amounts invested in these manufacturing programs can result in huge
savings for big Air Force acquisition programs?
Ms. Payton. I strongly agree with you. From the early 1950s to our
current decade, minimal ManTech investments in machine tooling,
integrated circuits, image intensifier tubes and night vision
technology, computer aided manufacturing, composite manufacturing,
lightweight body armor, and our ongoing composites affordability
initiatives have resulted in huge savings across the entire DOD
including the Air Force.
coordination with darpa
3. Senator Reed. Ms. Payton, what is your view about the level of
coordination between Air Force research and acquisition programs and
the programs of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)?
Ms. Payton. I look forward to making improvements in all areas of
coordination within Air Force research and acquisition programs and
building stronger outreach to DARPA. This aligns with my principle of
achieving the best value for the taxpayer dollar and providing the best
possible and affordable capabilities for our men and women in uniform.
4. Senator Reed. Ms. Payton, do you see the need to change this
relationship in any way? If so, in what way?
Ms. Payton. All relationships can be improved and I believe direct
and periodic meetings with the DARPA Director will be very important.
Top-down communications is the first step in leveraging the great
research capabilities of Air Force Research Laboratory and DARPA.
5. Senator Reed. Ms. Payton, what steps will you take to effect
that change?
Ms. Payton. Collaborative reviews between DARPA and AFRL would be
the first step in understanding the investment portfolios followed by
focusing research in research gap areas. The Director of Defense
Research and Engineering and the Defense Science and Technology
Advisory Group are making great efforts in this area and I look forward
to positive results.
______
Question submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
air force acquisition policy
6. Senator Akaka. Ms. Payton, in support of the efforts by the Air
Force to develop more reliable cost estimates, RAND's Project Air Force
assessed a number of ways that risk information could be communicated
to senior decisionmakers and made several recommendations regarding the
Air Force's future acquisition policies. These include offering the
flexibility to use different assessment methods, employing a uniform
communications format, tracking cost estimate accuracy, and
establishing reserves to cover unforeseen costs. What, if any, of these
recommendations do you believe should be integrated into existing
acquisition policy?
Ms. Payton. Early risk mitigation and management is an important
element to controlling cost growth. While I am not familiar with the
RAND recommendations or progress the Air Force may be making
implementing solutions, I will make it a high priority to review and
implement these recommendations as appropriate.
______
[The nomination reference of Sue C. Payton follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 25, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Sue C. Payton, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force, vice Marvin R. Sambur.
______
[The biographical sketch of Sue C. Payton, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Sue C. Payton
Sue C. Payton is the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Advanced
Systems and Concepts). In this role of operationalizing innovation, she
has oversight responsibilities for technology transition programs to
include: Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations, Joint Warfighting
Program, Foreign Comparative Test, Defense Acquisition Challenge,
Technology Transition Initiative, ManTech, Defense Production Act Title
III, and TechLink. Partnering with the military services, defense
agencies, industry, coalition partners, and combatant commands. These
programs provide decisive joint and coalition capabilities in
battlespace awareness, network centric operations, command and control,
focused logistics, force protection, and force application for U.S. and
coalition forces. Prior to taking this position in September 2001, Ms.
Payton was the Vice President, Applied Technology of ImageLinks, Inc.
and the Director of the National Center for Applied Technology,
responsible for the assessment, prototype development, and insertion of
commercial technology for DOD agencies and worldwide field users. These
prototyping efforts included support to NGA, DIA, U.S. Navy, JCS/J2,
USSOCOM, USCENTCOM, AFSOC, USAF Battlelabs, NSA, and NRO to rapidly
bring emerging commercial technology to the warfighter. From 1994 to
1996, Ms. Payton was responsible to the Vice President of Business
Development, Lockheed Martin, for leveraging the latest information
systems technology to meet the program needs of DOD and Intelligence
Community customers. From 1989 to 1994, Ms. Payton was the Senior Site
Systems Integration Manager for Martin Marietta responsible for
resolving complex acquisition and technical issues associated with
systems analysis and trade studies of competing Space and Ground
Architectures, operations concepts, requirements definition, software
test, and transition to operations.
Ms. Payton has extensive experience leading government and industry
partnerships focused on maturing and applying technology, operations
concepts, tactics, techniques, and procedures to solve national
security problems worldwide. She is a member of the Defense Science and
Technology Advisory Group, Eastern Illinois University Alumni
Association and 2004 Alumni Award winner, a Gateway Member of the
Purdue University President's Council, and former board member of Women
in Aerospace. She has served in various capacities with the Open
Geospatial Consortium and the National Correlation Working Group.
Ms. Payton received a Bachelor of Science Degree from Eastern
Illinois University, and a Master of Science in Systems Acquisition
Management/Systems Technology from the University of Southern
California. She is a 1998 graduate of the Goizueta Business School,
Emory University Executive Program.
______
[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 Sue C. Payton
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.)
Sue Carol Payton; Maiden Name: Sue Carol Campbell.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition.
3. Date of nomination:
April 25, 2006.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
September 29, 1950; Champaign, IL.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Gary Eugene Payton.
7. Names and ages of children:
Courtney Ann Callen; 25.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL; 1968-1972; Bachelor of
Science, 1972.
Brevard Community College, Cocoa, FL; 1978-1979.
El Camino College, Torrance, CA; 1982.
University of Southern California, LA, CA; 1983-1985; Master of
Science, 1985.
Nova Southeastern University, Davie, FL; 1994-1997.
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.
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, 3000
Defense Pentagon, Room 3E144, Washington, DC, September 2001 to
Present.
Vice President Advanced Technology, Image Links, Inc., 7700 Boston
Blvd., Springfield, VA, August 2000 to September 2001.
Director National Center for Applied Technology, Lockheed Martin,
7700 Boston Blvd, Springfield, VA, August 1998 to August 2000.
Manager Advanced Technology, Martin Marietta/Lockheed Martin, 3201
Jermantown Road, Virginia, July 1994 to August 1998.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Gateway Member of Purdue University President's Club--Scholarship
Sponsor.
Eastern Illinois University Alumni Association--member.
Women In Aerospace--member.
Women's Golf Association, Springfield Golf and Country Club--
member.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Republican National Committee--Sustaining Member.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
2004--Republican National Committee--$1,500.
2004--Thune for Senate--$200.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Eastern Illinois University Distinguished Alumni Award, 2004.
2006 Defense Certificate of Recognition for Acquisition Innovation:
DPA Title III Radiation Hardened Electronics Team.
DOD Joint Meritorious Unit Award.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Articles:
Nine Technology Insertion Programs That Can Speed Acquisition,
Defense AT&L, January-February 2006, pages 10-13.
Fast-Tracking Innovative Technologies, DOD's ACTD Program Supports
the War on Terrorism, Armed Forces Journal International, April 2002,
pages 28-29.
Maps to Information Superiority, The ISR Journal, 2002, Issue 3,
pages 26-30.
Technological Innovations--The ACTD Program, Joint Forces
Quarterly, Summer 2002, pages 71-76.
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.
DOD Works to Save Lives on Battlefield, Improve Talent Pool.
DOD Women's History Month--A Challenge to the DOD Women Scientist
Award Winners and 300 Students from the Close Up Foundation, 29 March
2006, Washington, DC, Women in Military Service for America Memorial.
Manufacturing Technology Briefing--Orlando, FL, 28 November 2005,
Defense Manufacturing Conference.
Air Armament Symposium--Transitioning Force Application Technology
to the Joint and Coalition Warfighter, Fort Walton Beach, FL, 4 October
2005, NDAI Industrial Associates.
50 States in 5 Days--September 11 Remembrance, Offutt, NE, 10
September 2005, Omaha Chamber of Commerce and The National Foundation
for Women Legislators Annual Conference, 12 September 2005.
Women's History Month 2005--Women in Military Service for America
Memorial, Washington, DC, March 2005.
AIAA Panel Presentation, DOD R&D Investments to Meet DOD Policy
Goals, Charleston, South Carolina, 22 March 2005.
Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Conference Luncheon Speaker, Washington
DC, 15 March 2005.
GEOIntel 2003 Symposium, Geospatial Industrial Base--New Orleans,
LA, 16 October, 2003.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Sue C. Payton.
This 4th day of May, 2006.
[The nomination of Sue C. Payton was reported to the Senate
by Chairman Warner on July 20, 2006, with the recommendation
that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination was confirmed
by the Senate on July 21, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to William H. Tobey by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. The Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation is responsible for leading efforts to: prevent the
spread of materials, technology, and expertise relating to weapons of
mass destruction; detect the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction worldwide; eliminate inventories of surplus fissile
materials usable for nuclear weapons; and provide for international
nuclear safety. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation works closely with its
international and regional partners as well as key Federal agencies to
accomplish its mission. This work also includes drawing upon the unique
and invaluable expertise of the U.S. national laboratories in further
support of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation mission activities.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have diverse experience that bears on the requirements of
the job, including:
Twelve years of Federal service dealing with national
security issues, international negotiations, nonproliferation,
technology research and development programs, and interagency
coordination.
Management of large, complex, and demanding
interagency operations with direct relevance to the job, e.g.
the removal of weapons of mass destruction materials from
Libya.
Experience in international negotiations ranging from
the Nuclear and Space Talks with the Soviet Union, to the U.S.-
Russian Space Cooperation Agreement, to the Six-Party Talks.
Participation in senior national security policy
deliberations during 10 years on the National Security Council
Staff, under three administrations, covering defense and space
policy, nuclear arms control, and nonproliferation issues.
Ten years of private sector experience, including
management of highly trained professionals and a successful
venture capital investment in a high technology start-up firm.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. I am confident that my past experience has prepared me for
the duties of the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation. I would like for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to
be more active in the interagency process at senior levels. I believe
this would both maximize the use of the substantial skills and
resources offered by the office, and bring to bear insights from other
departments and agencies which can improve the effectiveness of
nonproliferation work. I believe this would enhance my ability to
perform the duties of the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate that the Administrator would
instruct and authorize me to carry out fully all of the programs of the
Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to support and implement the
policies of the President. He has not indicated to me that he intends
to prescribe any additional duties other than those enumerated in the
NNSA Act.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the following:
Other Deputies in the NNSA?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with the other
Deputy Administrators at NNSA and the Associate Deputy Administrators
on issues such as budgets, security, counterintelligence, personnel,
and procurement. I intend to support fully the management coordination
mechanisms established by the Administrator.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental
Management?
Answer. Many aspects of the Fissile Materials Disposition program
must be coordinated with the Office of Environmental Management. If
confirmed, I intend to work to continue a cooperative and productive
relationship.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of Energy?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work through the NNSA
Administrator to establish cooperative working relationships with the
other Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Energy (DOE) to ensure
that NNSA and departmental missions are met.
Question. Heads of relevant nonproliferation offices at the
Departments of Defense and State, and the National Security Council.
Answer. As a member of the National Security Council staff, I place
great importance in interagency coordination to achieve coherent and
effective national policy and to maximize the effectiveness of
government programs. I have strong relationships with nonproliferation
policymakers at other agencies and at the National Security Council
and, if confirmed, would work to continue them in my new capacity.
Question. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and offices responsible for customs
and border security.
Answer. I believe that one of the most important lessons learned
from September 11, 2001 is that government agencies must coordinate
their activities fully and effectively and avoid so-called
``stovepipes.'' We must fill gaps, and to the extent prudent, remove
overlaps in responsibilities and authorities. Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) have
important, distinct, and complementary roles. If confirmed, I will work
to maximize the effectiveness of both offices in advancing U.S.
security.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation has established,
substantial, and important missions. Completing those missions requires
cooperation from other nations, particularly Russia. That Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation requires the cooperation of other nations can
present challenges in and of itself. Moreover, as we complete work in
Russia, the President has identified new areas for nonproliferation
work--building on our experience and applying the lessons we have
learned in Russia and elsewhere more broadly.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, my first priority would be to complete the
near-term missions assigned to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, e.g.
the Bratislava Initiatives on nuclear security cooperation, on time. I
would seek to use the substantial leverage provided by the agreement
between President Bush and President Putin to achieve Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation's portion of these initiatives. With respect to new
areas for nonproliferation work, if confirmed, I would intend to work
closely with other departments and agencies to ensure that we have the
best strategy to guide our efforts in new areas and new nations.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. In general I believe that the program is well run, but that
does not mean that it cannot be improved. Strong program management is
important because every dollar saved by better management can be
applied to securing more nuclear material. If confirmed, I will also
seek to continue Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation's improvements in the
rates at which authorized funds are costed and obligated.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and timelines would
you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Associate Administrator
for Management and Administration and Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to ensure continued implementation of a program management system
compatible with the 5-Year Nuclear Security Plan. If confirmed, I will
also work with contractors and program managers to continue to improve
the rates at which funds are costed and obligated.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. I am still listening to and learning from people at DOE, on
Capitol Hill, and in the private sector with expertise and experience
in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation missions. However, if
confirmed, the priorities I have provisionally identified are:
1. Ensure that current Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
missions, e.g. the Bratislava Initiatives, are completed on
time or early.
2. Ensure that program management is as efficient as possible
to enable the office to secure or dispose of as much
proliferation-sensitive material as possible.
3. Ensure that Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs are
guided strategically to address new challenges and
opportunities to prevent proliferation, including new
approaches and work with new countries.
fissile material disposition program
Question. The fissile material disposition program, under which the
United States and Russia each committed to dispose of 34 metric tons of
surplus weapons-grade plutonium, is laudable in intent, but has been
plagued by numerous problems including: (1) a 4-year delay in the
program due to an inability to agree on liability issues for U.S.
contractors. Though an agreement has now been reached, it still awaits
Russian signature and ratification by the Russian Duma; (2)
postponement of construction of the U.S. Mixed-Oxide Nuclear Fuel (MOX)
Fabrication Facility in South Carolina in order to maintain parallelism
in the program due to the impasse over liability; and (3) a December
2005 Department of Energy (DOE) Inspector General report that
criticized the management of the U.S. program and assessed that the
cost of the U.S. MOX program facility will be $3.5 billion-$2.5 billion
more than the original DOE estimate in 2002.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the MOX program is $638.0
million--nearly one-third of the total DOE nonproliferation request,
but now it appears that the Russians are no longer committed to the
program as originally conceived.
What is your understanding of Russia's commitment to disposing of
excess plutonium through the MOX program?
Answer. Russia recently affirmed its commitment to dispose of 34
metric tons of weapons grade plutonium. I am unaware of any desire by
the Russian Federation to withdraw from that agreement.
Question. If these programs remain linked, what is your
understanding of Russia's commitment to disposing of excess plutonium
using technology other than MOX?
Answer. The Russian commitment remains to dispose of plutonium as
nuclear fuel irradiated in reactors. As I understand it, the 2000
agreement allows for any disposition method that the parties agree to
in writing. It is not specific as to the type of fuel or reactors used.
The United States expects Russia to fulfill its commitment and will
work with the Russians to develop a credible plan to do so.
Question. What are the costs, benefits, and risks to the U.S. of
exploring or agreeing to another disposition path with Russia?
Answer. The United States and Russia remain committed to disposing
of their surplus weapon-grade plutonium. The two sides are exploring
possibilities for using Russian advanced reactors instead of light
water reactors. A potential cost of exploring another disposition path
is the delay and additional costs of an important nonproliferation
goal. The risks would depend on what disposition method is used if
other than MOX. The benefit would be the identification of a specific
disposition path and an associated timeframe that both sides will drive
to completion.
Question. What are the advantages and disadvantages, in your view,
of continuing to link the U.S. and Russian programs?
Answer. Plutonium disposition is an important nonproliferation
program for both the United States and Russia. The U.S.-Russian
agreement is an important commitment to achieving the disposition of
the Russian plutonium, regardless of the means of disposition. In
addition, there are a number of other benefits including reducing the
costs for plutonium storage as well as for safeguards, security, and
safety.
Question. If the U.S. and Russia programs remain linked, would it
be preferable, in your judgment, for them to continue to proceed at a
parallel pace, or should they proceed with a specific end date for
disposition, but not at a parallel pace?
Answer. Both parties have agreed that their programs will proceed
in parallel to the extent practicable. We intend to move forward with
the U.S. program and to hold Russia to its commitment to implement its
program.
Question. If the U.S. and Russian programs are delinked, would you
still consider the U.S. disposition program to be a nonproliferation
program, or would it then become a domestic program for disposing of
excess U.S. material that should be considered in the wider context of
DOE nuclear material disposition and cleanup?
Answer. Dispositon of the U.S. plutonium is an important
nonproliferation program because it enables us to hold Russia to its
commitment to dispose of its plutonium and enables the United States to
meet its nonproliferation commitments.
Question. If the U.S. and Russian programs were to be delinked,
would MOX, in your view, be the most cost effective method for
disposing of the excess U.S. material at this stage?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOE is pursuing the MOX program
as an optimal solution to various U.S. objectives--nonproliferation,
reducing storage, safeguards, and security costs, and improving the
safety of nuclear material. If confirmed, I would also seek to use
disposition of U.S. plutonium to continue to insist on the development
and execution of a credible plan for disposition of Russian plutonium,
as provided for in the 2000 agreement.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure the
development and presentation to Congress of a clear path forward for
both the Russian and the U.S. programs before any more funds are put
into these programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that a clear and
credible path for plutonium disposition in the United States and Russia
is presented to Congress and will consult with Congress on the
appropriate way forward.
department of homeland security's domestic nuclear detection office
Question. Last year, a DNDO was established within DHS. This office
was to be a national-level, jointly staffed office within DHS to
strengthen the Nation's ability to detect and prevent attempts to
smuggle nuclear or radiological materials through U.S. ports that could
be used by terrorists in nuclear devices or dirty bombs. The office was
also tasked with coordinating domestic research and development for
detection, identification, and reporting of radiological and nuclear
materials in U.S. ports and at U.S. border crossings. The office
coordinates with other agencies including DOE, the Department of
Defense (DOD), the Department of State (DOS), and the Nuclear
Regulatory Council, that play a role in the development and deployment
of nuclear detectors for use in domestic or overseas programs.
Given that the DOE has historically led U.S. efforts in research
and development of nuclear detection technologies, how have DOE's
mission and programs been affected by the establishment of the DNDO?
Answer. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and DNDO each have
important, distinct, and complementary missions. The Nonproliferation
Research and Development (R&D) program coordinates fully with DNDO, and
in particular the DNDO Office of Transformational Research and
Development, to conduct long-term nuclear detection R&D. It is my
understanding that NNSA and DNDO have worked closely over the past year
to ensure that each organization's R&D programs are distinct, yet
complementary. This has been done both through providing exchange
personnel and technology exchange/sharing.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
DOE has a positive relationship, including a clear delineation of
respective responsibilities, with the DNDO?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to maintain a strong relationship
with senior leadership within DNDO. I will further encourage the
members of my staff to continue to maintain the close working
relationships already in place with their peers at DNDO. The key to a
successful partnership is a common understanding of the roles and
responsibilities of each organization. These responsibilities are
clearly defined within existing congressional language and in NSPD-43/
HSPD-14, which directed the formation of DNDO. I understand that the
progress made within both organizations over the past year can be
directly attributed to the close working relationship that has been
cultivated through both senior-level interactions and daily exchange
through DOE/NNSA staff detailed to DNDO. Maintaining a dialogue with
DNDO will ensure that we continue to fill in any gaps and, to the
extent that is prudent, reduce any overlaps.
Question. What is the relationship, if any, between the DOE
Megaports and Second Line of Defense programs and the DNDO program?
Answer. NNSA and DNDO each have important, distinct, and
complementary roles. Given NNSA's role as the primary agency
responsible for international deployments of radiation detection
equipment, NNSA routinely exchanges information with DNDO to ensure
that its efforts support a comprehensive global nuclear detection
architecture. In particular, NNSA works collaboratively with DNDO and
DOS to identify mechanisms to share overseas alarm data from second
line of defense deployments. In addition, NNSA and DNDO are also
jointly establishing operational requirements to support the
development of future detection systems. NNSA supports DNDO's
operational testing and evaluation program and continues to monitor
DNDO technology, as improvements in nuclear detection equipment will
certainly benefit our international deployment efforts.
border security coordination
Question. Section 3116 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) required the Secretary of
Energy to submit a report, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of State, and, as appropriate, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, on the management of border security programs in the
countries of the former Soviet Union and other countries.
What would you do, if confirmed, to ensure better coordination of
the many and growing U.S. Government programs to enhance border
security in other nations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make this a priority and draw upon my
interagency experience to do so. I would also direct the senior
managers of the Second Line of Defense program to continue to
coordinate closely their work with other related U.S. border security
efforts. I understand that interagency coordination has greatly
improved with the establishment of coordinating committees, such as the
International Nuclear and Radiological Border Security Efforts Sub-PCC
(INRBSE). I am committed to playing a prominent role in interagency
efforts to address critical implementation issues. I understand that
reaching interagency consensus on the best approach to facilitating
enhanced datasharing with our foreign partners is of particular
importance.
doe nonproliferation programs in iraq and libya
Question. DOE launched an initiative in 2004 to provide employment
opportunities for Iraqi scientists, technicians, and engineers who may
have been involved in Iraqi WMD programs. This initiative was intended
to support reconstruction efforts in Iraq and to prevent the
proliferation of WMD expertise to terrorists or proliferant states.
What is the status and progress of this program?
Answer. Since 2003, DOE has funded projects intended to ensure
those experts with WMD-related knowledge do not again become a
proliferation threat. Initial survey work involving over 200 scientists
revealed Iraqi needs in research on public health, water, the
environment, and civil engineering. Currently, DOE is funding six
civilian technical projects that employ WMD scientists. This ongoing
effort, coordinated with DOS, supports the broader U.S. and Iraqi
Government reconstruction efforts. DOE/NA-24 has committed a total of
$3.75 million to this since fiscal year 2004.
Question. How has this program been marketed to Iraqis who may be
eligible to participate?
Answer. DOE/NNSA works primarily through an Arab partner, the Arab
Science and Technology Foundation (ASTF) and Sandia National
Laboratory, which has many regional partnerships with Arab countries,
to reach out to Iraqi scientists. This enables us to focus less on the
U.S. Government connection and instead on the general call for
proposals and engagement opportunities that are present in the work.
Question. How many Iraqi scientists, if any, have been able to take
advantage of this opportunity to put their talents to work on
productive, non-military research activities?
Answer. The projects DOE supports all contribute to civilian
scientific capacity building. Recently, 6 civilian scientific projects
that employ 29 scientists, including 12 with a WMD background, were
funded. They include:
water purification techniques,
the development of new composite material for use in
artificial limbs,
improving the indigenous capability of the Iraqi
pharmaceutical industry,
the improvement of corrosion resistance in steel,
analysis of the level of radionuclides in water and
sediments in the Tigris-Euphrates, and
measurement of natural radiation levels in Western
Iraq.
Such material science and radiation safety projects can be said
specifically to suit scientists with WMD skills and expertise in
nuclear weapons/energy, weapons safety, weapons design, operational
engineers, and explosives.
Question. How are the scientists and their families protected from
reprisals?
Answer. I understand that NNSA is sensitive to the dangers these
scientists face. That danger is also one of the reasons why ASTF
remains the organizational face of this project, thereby creating
distance between the U.S. Government and the individuals involved.
However, it is not just a U.S. Government affiliation that can endanger
scientists, but the very status of former weapon scientists--in
particular, if connected with the current Iraqi government or a
university. That said, it is a testament to the courage and basic
desire of the scientific community to rebuild its country that these
scientists continue to work on civilian scientific projects.
Question. In your view, could this program be expanded should
demand for it increase in the future?
Answer. I understand that starting with the baseline survey in
2004, NNSA has sought to build the foundation for a program that can
grow. Commercialization and support for new projects are both goals for
NNSA in the coming year, although these should remain tied firmly to
the goal of preventing proliferation. As NNSA increases the number of
projects it funds, its understanding of where--and how to engage--
former WMD scientists also increases. This is not an open-ended
program, but will make a significant difference while it continues on
the ground.
Question. What is the status of DOE's efforts to establish a
similar program in Libya?
Answer. In support of the President's intent to recognize Libya's
decision to eliminate its WMD program, NNSA is working with DOS to
engage and redirect WMD scientists and facilities in Libya. The program
encompasses immediate engagement of WMD scientists through the Global
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (GIPP) program and broader
scientific collaboration through the Sister Laboratory program. DOE/
NNSA will apply $2-3 million annually for 3-5 years to engage
scientists and former weapons experts and will draw on the resident
expertise at DOE/NNSA's national laboratories.
NNSA is targeting three primary institutes for its scientist
redirection activities in Libya: the Center for Mechanical Industries
(CMI), the Tajura Renewable Energies and Water Desalination Research
Center (REWDRC), and the National Bureau of Research and Development
(NBRD), which is NNSA's counterpart organization. NNSA has developed
five direct Scientist Engagement projects with those institutes in the
areas of water desalination and purification, groundwater management,
and machine tool use. NNSA also has plans to develop an analytical
laboratory for use in water desalination and purification efforts in
Libya.
The Sister Laboratory program is also working with NBRD and REWDC
in five areas that promote peaceful nuclear collaboration, mainly
focused on radioisotope production; health physics; neutron activation
analysis; environment, safety, and health; and radioactive waste
disposal projects.
global threat reduction initiative
Question. The DOE Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) aims to
identify and secure radiological materials around the world against
diversion for use in radiological dispersion devices.
If confirmed, what priority would you give to this important anti-
terrorism initiative?
Answer. A terrorist attack using a radiological dirty bomb could
cause significant disruptions. I think it is critical that we continue
our efforts at balancing our responses to the numerous threats we face
against the resources we have available.
Question. What strategy, if any, has the DOE developed for
prioritizing its activities under this initiative so that the material
that poses the highest risk is identified and addressed first?
Answer. I understand that the GTRI program has developed and
continues to refine a prioritized strategy for radiological threat
reduction. This strategy takes into consideration the radioactivity
levels of the materials, the proximity of these materials to key U.S.
targets (domestic, U.S. overseas military bases, and key shipping
ports), and the level of threat in the host country. I understand that
the program's priority is to protect the largest radioactive sources
closest to potential U.S. targets.
Question. What is the policy governing work with countries that can
afford to pay for necessary upgrades?
Answer. I believe that countries with the means should not only pay
for protecting radiological materials in their countries but they
should also be encouraged to take a leadership role in protecting
radiological material in their region.
nuclear security cooperation with russia
Question. At the Bratislava Summit in February 2005, Presidents
Bush and Putin agreed on a comprehensive joint action plan for
cooperation in nuclear security, including a plan to complete security
upgrades of Russian nuclear facilities and warhead sites by the end of
2008.
If confirmed, what elements of the Bratislava agreements for which
DOE is responsible do you think should be implemented first?
Answer. All five elements are a vital part of the process launched
at Bratislava, and we are making progress in each of the five areas.
One is not sequentially dependent on another.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure the agreed completion
date is met?
Answer. The Joint Action Plan derives from a document presented to
both Presidents, and it provides specific completion dates for the
upgrade work at each of the agreed upon sites. Although NNSA is
confident that it will conclude these efforts by the end of 2008, if
confirmed, I will closely monitor progress and will work closely with
my Russian counterparts to maintain high-level support for reaching
this goal. The agreed completion date is a priority for both President
Bush and President Putin and is fundamentally in the national interests
of both parties, which is the strongest assurance that the target is
met.
nonproliferation research and development
Question. If confirmed, would you commit to review the
Nonproliferation Research and Development program to ensure that the
requirements for the program are identified, that the program is
meeting the needs of the users, and that the program is fully funded?
Answer. Yes. I believe Nonproliferation Research and Development
makes an important and unique contribution to U.S. national security. A
fundamental duty of the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation includes review of each of the relevant programs to
ensure that they are fulfilling their missions and are appropriately
funded. I fully intend to ensure that this program is meeting the needs
of its end users, and that the research and development program has
clearly defined metrics and outcomes, while maintaining a high-quality,
cutting-edge research program using all resources available to the U.S.
Government. In keeping with the President's request, the fiscal year
2007 funding for this program is at an appropriate level to meet
mission requirements.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Question for the record with answer supplied follows:]
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
disposal of gtcc
1. Senator Akaka. Mr. Tobey, according to a recent National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) report regarding the recovery and
storage of greater than class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive sealed
sources, while the NNSA has done an excellent job of clearing a
nationwide backlog of GTCC, no permanent disposal site has been
designed. What role do you believe that the NNSA should play in
development of a permanent disposal site?
Mr. Tobey. The responsibility for the development of a permanent
disposal site for GTCC low-level radioactive waste gas been assigned by
the Secretary of Energy to the Office of Environmental Management (EM)
because development of disposal capacity is within their mission and
core expertise. It is my understanding that the NNSA will continue to
recover sources that pose a security, health, or safety threat to the
United States, and further that NNSA will work with EM in a supporting
role to provide information and data related to the material to be
disposed of in the developed disposal site. I also understand that
Secretary Bodman expects the Department of Energy as a whole to work
together as a team to carry out its responsibilities for the
development of a permanent disposal facility.
______
[The nomination reference of William H. Tobey follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 11, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
William H. Tobey, of Connecticut, to be Deputy Administrator for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security
Administration, vice Paul Morgan Longsworth, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of William H. Tobey, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of William H. Tobey
William H. Tobey is currently Director of Counterproliferation
Strategy on the National Security Council staff at the White House. His
responsibilities currently include U.S. policy on Iran, North Korea,
and Libya nonproliferation issues and missile defense. He has been a
member of the U.S. delegation to the Six-Party Talks during the last
three rounds of negotiations. Previously, he served as Director of
Defense Policy and Arms Control on the National Security Council staff
from 1986 to 1993. In that capacity, his responsibilities included U.S.
policy on the Strategic Defense initiative and related arms control,
arms control compliance and verification, and the national security
aspects of space policy. Prior to that, he was an advisor to the U.S.
Delegation to the Nuclear and Space Talks with the Soviet Union from
1985-1986, serving on both the START and Defense and Space negotiating
groups. He entered government service in 1984 as a Presidential
Management Intern in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
From 1993 to 2002, Mr. Tobey worked at investment banking and
venture capital firms. His last position in the private sector was head
of institutional convertible securities sales for Wachovia Securities,
Inc., where he had responsibility for managing sales/trading operations
for a top 10 firm in the convertible bond and preferred stock markets.
Mr. Tobey holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Northwestern
University and a Master of Public Policy Degree from Harvard
University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
He and his wife, Elizabeth Tobey, reside in Bethesda, Maryland,
with their daughters Emma and Beatrix.
______
[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 H.
Tobey 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 Hayward Tobey (Jeffrey Hayward Tobey until August 1971).
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation in the
National Nuclear Security Administration at the Department of Energy.
3. Date of nomination:
May 11, 2006.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
August 2, 1959; Decatur, IL.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Elizabeth Ness Tobey.
7. Names and ages of children:
Emma Channer Tobey, age 12.
Beatrix Claire Tobey, age 10.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 9/1982-6/
1984, Master of Public Policy, 6/1984.
Northwestern University, 9/1977-6/1981, Bachelor of Science, 6/
1981.
Glenbrook South High School, 9/1973-6/1977, High School Diploma, 6/
1977.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Director of Counterproliferation Strategy, the National Security
Council, the White House, Washington, DC, August 11, 2002-Present.
Head of Institutional Convertible Securities Sales, Wachovia
Securities, Inc., Old Greenwich, CT, June 2000-2002.
Senior Vice President, Partner, Forum Capital Markets, Old
Greenwich, CT, January 1997-June 2000. (Wachovia Securities acquired
Forum Capital Markets in 2000.)
General Partner, Embryon Venture Capital LLC, Bethesda, MD, March
1996-January 1997.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Summer Intern, Office of Management and Budget, 1983.
Presidential Management Intern, Office of the Secretary of Defense,
September 1984-September 1986, included service at the Pentagon and as
Advisor to the U.S. Delegation to the Nuclear and Space Talks with the
Soviet Union in Geneva, Switzerland.
Director of Defense Policy and Arms Control, the National Security
Council, September 1986-January 1993.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Limited Partner, Founders Financial, L.P.
Limited Partner, JMG Capital, L.P.
(These are investments, also declared on my SF278, in which I have
no role in the management of the partnerships.)
Dean's Alumni Leadership Council, John F. Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Glen View Club, Golf, IL.
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.
Research Assistant, National Republican Senatorial Committee, June
1981-September 1982.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
I have been registered to vote as a Republican over the past 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.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
National Merit Scholarship Finalist.
Presidential Management Internship, 1984-1986.
Outstanding Performance Awards during periods of government
service.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
I wrote an Op-Ed piece published in the Madison, WI, newspaper on
ballistic missile defense in 1986. I do not recall the title.
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 H. Tobey.
This 19th day of May, 2006.
[The nomination of William H. Tobey was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on August 1, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Robert L. Wilkie, Jr., by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions? If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. The 20-year history of successful operations under this
organizational construct has demonstrated its wisdom and effectiveness.
If Congress should pursue adaptations to this construct or if the
Department proposes changes, I would work closely with this committee
and Congress to provide witnesses, briefings, and the necessary
information so Congress can make informed judgments on policy
alternatives.
duties
Question. Section 138 of title 10, U.S.C., and DOD Directive
5142.1, provide that the principal duty of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Legislative Affairs shall be the overall supervision of
legislative affairs of the Department of Defense (DOD). Additionally,
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs is required
to provide advice and assistance concerning congressional aspects of
DOD policies, plans, and programs; to coordinate actions relating to
congressional consideration of the DOD legislative program; and to
coordinate responses to congressional inquiries.
If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs, what would you view as your principal responsibilities to the
Secretary of Defense and to Congress?
Answer. If confirmed, my primary responsibility to the Secretary
would be to keep him informed on congressional actions, requests,
concerns, and initiatives on matters of importance to the Secretary and
DOD.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what other duties do you
expect that Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect Secretary Rumsfeld to assign me the
responsibility of ensuring that the Department's liaison with Congress
is effective, responsive, user and customer friendly, and to ensure the
Department's goals and priorities are properly articulated.
Question. What experience do you have that would qualify you to
perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs?
Answer. I began my professional career on Capitol Hill as Counsel
to Senator Jesse Helms, where I served as the Senator's policy advisor
for Armed Services, Nuclear Energy and Senate Rules and Procedure.
Later, I served as Legislative Director for Congressman David
Funderburk and was assigned to the Committee on International Relations
and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
In 1997, I began service as the Counsel and Advisor on
International Security Affairs to the Senate Majority Leader, the
Honorable Trent Lott. In addition to my regular duties, I was the
principal staffer and editor of the national security section of the
2000 Republican Party Presidential Platform.
From 2003-2005, I served as Special Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs and as a Senior Director on the National
Security Council (NSC). In this capacity I served as a senior policy
advisor to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Dr.
Condoleezza Rice, and to her successor, the Honorable Stephen Hadley.
While at the NSC, I developed strategic planning for the implementation
of the Moscow Treaty, NATO Expansion, the Millennium Challenge Account,
and Iraqi Reconstruction.
Finally, I hold a Juris Doctor degree from Loyola University of the
South (New Orleans), where I received honors in Latin American Law,
International Law, and Legislation. I was also awarded a Masters of Law
in International and Comparative Law from Georgetown University.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be
with:
The Secretary of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will function as the principal assistant to
the Secretary on congressional matters. Under the Secretary's
direction, I will be responsible for coordination of the DOD
legislative program, liaison with Congress, participation of
departmental witnesses in congressional hearings, responses to
congressional inquiries, and DOD support of congressional travel.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I would have a similar relationship with the
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries of
Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Under Secretaries of
Defense and the Assistant Secretaries will be to serve as their
principal advisor regarding legislative liaison and communications with
Congress.
Question. The General Counsel of DOD?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the General Counsel
to ensure responsiveness in matters of congressional interest and to
assist Office of the General Counsel coordination on legislation under
consideration within the Department. I would seek the views and
recommendations of the General Counsel on legal issues.
Question. The Inspector General (IG) of DOD?
Answer. I would exercise no authority or control over the DOD IG.
If confirmed, I would be fully cooperative and supportive of the IG's
mission.
Question. The Chiefs of Legislative Affairs of the military
services?
Answer. If confirmed, I would routinely meet with the chiefs of
legislative affairs of the military services to coordinate the
Department's liaison mission, and ensure responsiveness to this
committee and Congress. By DOD Directive, ultimate responsibility for
supervision of legislative liaison activities throughout the Department
is vested in the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs. I would work closely with the legislative affairs offices of
the military services to foster a climate of cooperation and support.
Question. The Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. If confirmed, I would routinely meet with the legislative
assistant to the chairman to ensure responsiveness to this committee
and Congress.
Question. The defense agencies?
Answer. If confirmed, I would provide overall guidance to the
individual defense agencies with respect to the Department's
legislative issues. I would meet regularly with the legislative
assistants of the defense agencies to ensure they operate consistent
with the Department's initiatives, the Secretary's position, and to
ensure they are responsive to congressional inquiries.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges and problems
confronting the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs?
Answer. The most significant challenge we face is communication. I
would work to ensure that vital information is provided to Congress in
a timely and useful manner. Congress should not be in a position of
reading or hearing about important issues in the media. The second
challenge is providing timely, valuable advice to the Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, and the key principals about congressional issues, concerns,
or requests.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges and problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue the effort begun by my
predecessors to reassert the appropriate oversight of the legislative
affairs function in the Department. I would work to ensure that these
activities associated with our mission are properly organized and
coordinated to meet the title 10 responsibilities extended to this
position. I would continue to advocate organizational and/or procedural
changes to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary where or if required.
legislative liaison offices
Question. Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
defense agencies, and the combatant commands, there are various offices
which have their own congressional liaison personnel.
What is your understanding of actions taken by the Secretary of
Defense and previous Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Legislative
Affairs to limit the numbers of individuals performing legislative
liaison duties?
Answer. The Secretary is committed to ensuring that the mandate in
title 10 assigning the duties of managing the Legislative Program
resides with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs.
Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to
ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs
is the focal point for all of DOD for dealing with Congress?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue the efforts of my
predecessor, on behalf of the Secretary, to ensure that all legislative
functions of the Office of the Secretary of Defense are coordinated and
managed by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs.
Question. Based on your experience, does the fact that there are
two separate offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense
dealing with Congress create problems?
Answer. As with any organizational function that is bifurcated in
such a manner, this arrangement is not optimal. With that said, in my
experience, the Office of Legislative Affairs and the Office of the
Comptroller are committed to working together to support the
Department's mission and goals. Frequent coordination has been the
routine and will continue if I'm confirmed.
Question. Do you believe that the current practice of a separate
liaison between the Appropriations Committees, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, and the budget offices of the military services
should be continued or should all legislative affairs activities be
consolidated under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, and in consultation with the Defense
Oversight Committees, this is something that I would examine and
analyze. I believe that Congress does and should have significant input
on how the Department liaisons with Congress.
liaison with the appropriations committee
Question. The legislative liaison with the Appropriations Committee
is primarily carried out through the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense, Comptroller, not through the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Legislative Affairs.
Do you believe that this arrangement allows you to fulfill your
responsibilities under section 138 of title 10, U.S.C.?
Answer. If confirmed, I would have a cooperative relationship with
both the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the
Appropriations Committees. I would coordinate closely with the
Comptroller's office on all matters and issues of interest to Congress
and would include Comptroller staff in my daily staff meetings. I
believe this arrangement would allow me to carry out the
responsibilities under section 138 of title 10, U.S.C.
untimely legislative proposals
Question. Late submission of legislative proposals by DOD to
Congress for consideration as part of the annual National Defense
Authorization Act has been a chronic problem. Legislative initiatives,
which require substantial review and in many cases, testimony and
discussion at annual posture hearings, are routinely forwarded to
Congress too late for appropriate action.
Based on your experience in the Department, what do you consider to
be the reasons for the inability of DOD to provide Congress with all of
its legislative proposals at the same time as submission of the
President's annual budget?
Answer. Based upon my experience, I believe this problem is due to
poor management and a lack of emphasis. The submission process occurs
too late in the year to meet the timelines of the budget submission and
lacks discipline with regard to what proposals are forwarded for
consideration.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to improve the
Department's performance in providing timely legislative initiatives to
Congress?
Answer. If confirmed, I would immediately address the timeline for
submission of legislative proposals with the General Counsel and the
Office of Legislative Counsel where this function is managed. I would
also address this matter with the Office of Management and Budget.
Starting the process earlier in the year to provide the system adequate
time to evaluate and approve the proposals is part of the solution. I
would make more timely submissions of legislative proposals to Congress
a priority.
responding to questions and information for the record
Question. The failure on the part of departmental witnesses to
timely respond to questions for the record (QFRs) by Senators and
requests for information for the record (IFRs) following hearings is a
problem requiring the attention of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Legislative Affairs.
What is your assessment of the reasons for lengthy delays in
responding to QFRs and IFRs?
Answer. Simply put, we need to pay closer attention to the
timelines of this committee and others of Congress to fulfill our
responsibility to communicate with Congress in a responsive manner.
Question. What actions have been taken, if any, during your service
as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary to respond to this problem?
Answer. During my tenure, we reinvigorated our oversight and are
holding responsible offices within the Department accountable for
timely submission of their answers.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to improve the
Department's performance in providing timely answers to QFRs and IFRs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to reform the entire
legislative operation of the Department to ensure that a system of
timelines is in place for proper response to Congress' request for
information and for Congress' desire to have all legislative proposals
and statements submitted to both houses in a complete and timely
manner.
nominations
Question. If confirmed, what role would you, as Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Legislative Affairs, expect to play in the military and
civilian nomination process?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to play a primary role in
preparing civilian nominations for confirmation, and a primary support
role to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Services in preparing
military nominations for confirmation. In addition, my staff and I will
track nominations closely and ensure the committee is made aware of all
relevant information.
management of detailees
Question. The Department has been trying for almost 10 years to
establish and uniformly enforce rules pertaining to the detailing of
military and civilian employee personnel to the legislative branch.
What is your understanding of the Department's rules, including
necessary approval authority, in responding to requests by
congressional officers for details of military or civilian employees to
the legislative branch?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense has engaged in a broad review of
the role of all military officers currently assigned to non-operational
billets throughout the Department. This includes detailees to Congress.
The Secretary recognizes that it is vital to maintain the link between
Congress and the Defense Department, consistent with applicable law.
The DOD Legislative Fellows Program, while not a detail's program, is
one key aspect of this linkage. This program is also closely monitored
within the Department.
Question. What are your views about the limits, if any, that should
be placed on details of DOD military and civilian employee personnel to
the legislative branch?
Answer. The Secretary has emphasized the need to ensure that as
many officers as possible are sent to operational billets as opposed to
those in the National Capitol Region.
military personnel requirements for the office of the asd (la)
Question. The military departments establish and consistently meet
personnel requirements for their respective legislative liaison
offices, carefully selecting and training military personnel for these
important assignments.
What military personnel requirements, i.e., billets, presently have
been established by service in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Legislative Affairs?
Answer. We have 10 military officers authorized in the office: 4
Air Force, 4 Army, and 2 Navy.
Question. What legislative or congressional experience, if any, and
what qualifications have been required of officers nominated for
assignments in the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs?
Answer. Prior experience in service or joint legislative liaison
billets is preferred. The office also seeks well-rounded officers from
operational and staff billets that have an ability to clearly
communicate Department policy, strategy, and priorities across the
entire spectrum of congressional interests.
Question. In order to fully accomplish the responsibilities as the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, what management
steps, if any, need to be taken to ensure that fully qualified,
military legislative liaison personnel in the right numbers and with
appropriate tour lengths are assigned?
Answer. We must continue to emphasize the importance of
congressional relations in the Department's strategic approach to its
overall agenda. If confirmed, I will work with the Services to ensure
that service in the Office of Legislative Affairs enhances an officer's
career and prepares him/her for duties of increased responsibility.
This fits into the Goldwater-Nichols construct for the joint specialty
officer.
information from the office of the secretary of defense during iraq
floor debate
Question. On the afternoon of June 14, 2006, the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs sent an e-mail
to a number of congressional offices providing more than 75 pages of
information in connection with the debate about certain amendments
regarding ongoing military operations in Iraq during the Senate's
consideration of S. 2766, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007. The information was apparently designed to provide
information for use by Senators who supported the administration's
policy on Iraq. Shortly after the e-mail was sent, it was recalled by
the sender.
What is your understanding of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the preparation of the e-mail, and at whose direction was
the information prepared?
Answer. The Department routinely prepares position papers and
statements of policy for use by Congress. This was an effort by the
Department and NSC.
Question. What role, if any, did you play in the preparation or
dissemination of the information included in the e-mail?
Answer. Members of my staff contributed to preparation of the
material provided to Congress.
Question. Why was the e-mail recalled?
Answer. Addressees on the communicators' distribution list had
changed resulting in several e-mail failure notices.
Question. Do you believe it was appropriate for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs to prepare and
distribute this material?
Answer. Yes.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Legislative Affairs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
congressional report
1. Senator Reed. Mr. Wilkie, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005 included a provision (section 1107) that required
a report to Congress on the implementation and utilization of personnel
authorities in defense laboratories. Although this bill was signed into
law by the President on October 28, 2004, and the law requires the
report to be submitted no later than December 1, 2005--Congress has
still not received this report. If confirmed, will you check into the
status of this report and report back to the committee on its status,
why it is late, and its expected delivery date?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
legislative operations reform
2. Senator Akaka. Mr. Wilkie, in your written responses to the
advanced questions submitted by the Armed Services Committee, you
stated that, in order to respond to congressional requests in a more
timely manner, you have and will continue to reform legislative
operations. What specific reforms have you already put in place to
ensure that responses to deadlines are met? Also, in what ways, if at
all, can this lag in response time be attributed to an inadequate
number of personnel in the Office of Legislative Affairs?
Mr. Wilkie. While performing as Acting Assistant Secretary of
Defense, I have initiated a process to review the Department's
responsiveness to congressional correspondence and to inform senior
leadership. In my view, this is not attributable to the number of
personnel in my office, but rather on our overall focus on answering
the mail. If confirmed, I will continue to pursue responsiveness and
transparency.
______
[The nomination reference of Robert L. Wilkie, Jr.,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 26, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Robert L. Wilkie, Jr., of North Carolina, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Defense, vice Daniel R. Stanley.
______
[The biographical sketch of Robert L. Wilkie, Jr., which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Robert L. Wilkie, Jr.
The Honorable Robert Wilkie is the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Legislative Affairs (Acting). The son of an Army Artillery
Commander, he spent his youth at Fort Bragg. He attended the
Fayetteville (NC) City Schools. He graduated with honors from Wake
Forest University. He received his Juris Doctor degree from Loyola
University of the South (New Orleans), where he received honors in
Latin American Law, International Law, and Legislation. He was also
awarded a Masters of Law in International and Comparative Law from
Georgetown University.
He began his professional career on Capitol Hill as Counsel to
Senator Jesse Helms, where he was the Senator's policy advisor for
Armed Services, Nuclear Energy and Senate Rules and Procedure. He later
served as Legislative Director for Congressman David Funderburk where
he was assigned to the Committee on International Relations and the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
In 1997, he began service as the Counsel and Advisor on
International Security Affairs to the Senate Majority Leader, the
Honorable Trent Lott. In addition to his regular duties, he served on
the staff of the 1992 and 1996 Republican National Conventions and was
the principal staffer and editor of the national security section of
the 2000 Republican Party Presidential Platform.
From 2003-2005, Mr. Wilkie was Special Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs and a Senior Director of the National
Security Council. In this capacity he served as a senior policy advisor
to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Dr.
Condoleezza Rice, and to her successor, The Honorable Stephen Hadley.
While at the National Security Council, Mr. Wilkie developed strategic
planning for the implementation of the Moscow Treaty, NATO Expansion,
the Millennium Challenge Account, and Iraqi Reconstruction. .
Mr. Wilkie is an intelligence officer in the United States Navy
Reserve. An honor graduate of the Reserve Intelligence Officer's Basic
Course, he is currently a Division Officer in the Maritime Threat
Targeting Department at the Office of Naval Intelligence. He was named
the Office of Naval Intelligence Junior Intelligence Officer (Reserve)
of the year in 2004. He previously served with Atlantic Intelligence
Command, Joint Forces Intelligence Command, and Naval Special Warfare
Group Two. He is a graduate of the College of Naval Command and Staff
and in 2002 received a Masters in Strategic Studies from the United
States Army War College. He is also a graduate of the Joint Forces
Staff College.
His articles have been published in The Naval War College Review,
Parameters, and Proceedings. He contributed a chapter on European
Defense to the recently published ``Strategy for Empire: U.S. Regional
Security Policy in the Post-Cold War Era.''
Mr. Wilkie is married to the former Julia Bullard of Fayetteville,
North Carolina. They have two small children: Adam, age 6; and Megan,
age 4.
______
[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 Robert L.
Wilkie, Jr., in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Robert L. Wilkie, Jr.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
June 26, 2006.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
August 6, 1962; Frankfurt, West Germany (father was 1st LT in U.S.
Army, 3rd Armor Division).
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Julia Bullard.
7. Names and ages of children:
Adam S. Wilkie, age 6.
Megan C. Wilkie, age 5.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Reid Ross High School, Fayetteville, NC, 1977-1980.
Tulane University, New Orleans, 1980-1982 (No Degree).
Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, 1982-1985, B.A., Cum
Laude.
Loyola University School of Law, New Orleans, 1985-1988, J.D.
Georgetown University Law School, Washington, DC, 1989-1992, LLM,
International Law.
U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA, 2000-2002, M.S.S.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
2/2006-Present, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative
Affairs), Department of Defense.
9/2005-Present, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Legislative Affairs), Department of Defense.
2003-2005, Special Assistant to the President, National Security
Council.
1997-2003, Counsel, Office of the Senate Majority Leader (Trent
Lott).
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
N/A
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
N/A.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
The Naval Institute.
U.S. Army War College Alumni Association.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
Candidate for Republican Nomination for Congress (NC-7) 1996.
Director, North Carolina Republican Party, 1996-1997.
(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.
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.
Tulane Scholarship, 1980.
Lyskow Lewis Appellate Advocacy Scholarship, 1987-1988.
American Jurisprudence Awards in Latin American Law, Legislation
and International Law.
Bustamante Award of the Society of Jesus for Excellence in
International Law, 1987.
Moot Court Board, 1987-1988.
Honor Graduate Navy Intelligence Officers Basic Course.
Office of Naval Intelligence Officer of the Year (Reserve), 2004-
2005.
Navy Achievement Medal.
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Navy 2001--Back to the Future, Naval War College Review, Spring
2000.
Balancing Star Wars and Muddy Boots, Proceedings, October 2000.
Fortress Europe: European Defense and the Future of the North
Atlantic Alliance, Parameters, Winter 2002-2003.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
N/A.
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.
Robert L. Wilkie.
This 10th day of July, 2006.
[The nomination of Robert L. Wilkie was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on August 1, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on September 29, 2006.]
NOMINATION OF LT. GEN. JAMES T. CONWAY, USMC, FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE
GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John
Warner (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Talent,
Thune, and Levin.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Ambrose R. Hock,
professional staff member; Derek J. Maurer, professional staff
member; David M. Morriss, counsel; Stanley R. O'Connor, Jr.,
professional staff member; Sean G. Stackley, 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;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling,
minority counsel; and Michael J. McCord, professional staff
member.
Staff assistant present: Pendred K. Wilson.
Committee members' assistants present: Ann Loomis,
assistant to Senator Warner; Marshall A. Salter, assistant to
Senator McCain; and Stuart C. Mallory, assistant to Senator
Thune.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. I'm advised that Senator Levin will soon
be with us, so we'll start this very important hearing.
Every one of us who have been privileged--and I underline
the word ``privileged''--to wear marine green are very pleased
to have before us today the President's nominee to be
Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, succeeding
General Hagee, who's had a very distinguished career. Having
gotten to know you quite well through the years, I am confident
that you will find your place in the history of commandants and
stand as tall as any of them, in terms of your accomplishments
and leadership for the wonderful men and women of the United
States Marine Corps.
I will forego the balance of my statement for a moment, and
invite our distinguished colleague from Missouri, the chairman
of the Seapower Subcommittee, landlocked State though it may
be----[Laughter.]
You handle your responsibilities very well.
Senator Talent. We're hopeful someday getting the Navy to
steam up the Mississippi, Mr. Chairman, maybe turn St. Louis
into a blue-water port. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Didn't Grant do that at one time?
[Laughter.]
Senator Talent. I think he maybe steamed down and up at the
same time. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Yes, that's my recollection. [Laughter.]
Senator Talent. Mr. Chairman, it's with great pleasure that
I introduce a fellow Missourian to the committee. He certainly
needs no introduction to this committee, but I reintroduce him,
might be the better way of putting it. I also want to welcome
him and his wife, Annette, and their son, Scott, and his wife,
Tara, to the committee today.
Lieutenant General Conway grew up in St. Louis, Mr.
Chairman. He played football, baseball, and basketball at
Roosevelt High School. As the General and I were discussing
yesterday, if you're from St. Louis, where you went to high
school is a big deal, so, you have to mention that in any
introduction. However, he went on to graduate from Southeast
Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau, a great
institution, where he met his wife, Annette.
The General comes from a tradition of service, and he is
now the leader of a true Marine Corps family. His father was a
World War II veteran who was wounded three times. His sons,
Brandon and Scott, are Marine Corps officers, and his daughter
is married to a marine.
The General served two combat tours in Iraq as the 1st
Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) commander. He led his marines
to Baghdad, and he returned a little over a year later to
support the new democracy there.
He brings, Mr. Chairman, a wealth of knowledge and
experience to this new post which he has gleaned from his 36-
plus years in the Marine Corps. His service includes a 13-month
deployment off the coast of Beirut in the early 1980s, an 8-
month deployment as a battalion commander in Operation Desert
Storm, command of the Marine Corps Officers Training in
Quantico, President of the Marine Corps University, and all the
way up through his current job as Director of Operations, or J-
3, on the Joint Staff.
He has a lot of challenges in front him, Mr. Chairman. We
all are familiar with those. I have a great deal of confidence
in him. I'm very hopeful that the committee will quickly vote
to confirm him, and the Senate will do, as well, so he can get
to this new post. It's certainly a pleasure for me to welcome
General Conway, a great Missourian who's going to go on and do
even greater things for his country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. Again, I commend you
for your work on this committee, and particularly the Seapower
Subcommittee, of which the United States Marine Corps is a part
of our Marine Corps team.
Senator Talent. Mr. Chairman, we share a special interest
in the Navy, don't we? Yours, a little bit longer-standing than
mine.
Chairman Warner. I was going to put into the record--I
think it's important for me to establish that my serial number
is 050488----[Laughter.]
Chairman Warner.--date of rank, June 1949. That's before
most of the people in this room were born. But, anyway, I'm
proud to still be here, and I tell you, I've said it before, I
would not be in the United States Senate today had it not been
for what the men and women of the Armed Forces did for me, not
what I did, maybe, for them, in training me in both the Navy
and the Marine Corps, and I'm everlastingly grateful. Together
with my good friend Senator Levin and colleagues on this
committee, we try to do our very best for the current
generation of men and women in the United States Services. That
is our duty and our responsibility. We owe them no less.
This morning, Senator Levin and I had breakfast with the
Secretary of Defense, and we started that breakfast by saying
that we all recognize in the executive branch and the
legislative branch, that never before in the history of this
country have we ever had a finer group of men and women in
uniform than America has today in its Armed Forces. The Marine
Corps is an integral part of that structure. I am confident
that you will be confirmed, and that you will--I believe it's
in November--take over the leadership of that Corps.
We welcome everybody. I wanted to talk a little bit about
another facet of your distinguished career, and that relates to
your wonderful family, and most particularly your wife. We did
a careful bit of research, because the military today is very
much a family-oriented organization. All branches of the
Services, and the families play such a pivotal and important
role. But a word or two about Annette Conway, what she has done
for the men and women of the Armed Forces: she has been a
volunteer for the United Service Organization (USO) and the
Armed Services Young Men's Christian Association; presently
serves on the board of directors of the Injured Marine Semper
Fi Fund, which was founded on May 18, 2004, by a small group of
concerned Marine Corps spouses to provide financial grants and
other assistance to marines, to sailors, and to families of
those injured serving our Nation. The Injured Marine Semper Fi
Fund has assisted in over 1,400 cases, and given more than $2.7
million in grants to our wounded heroes and their families. How
fortunate you are, General, to have had this extraordinary
individual as your partner for life.
A word to your sons. I've always been very proud of my
father, who was a medical doctor and served in the trenches in
World War I as a young Army captain caring for the wounded. He,
indeed, was an inspiration to me throughout my life. I'll never
forget one time. We were in here confirming a chief of staff of
the United States Air Force, and I recollected to him that when
I was Secretary of the Navy, his father was chief of staff of
the United States Air Force, and I asked him, ``As a First
Lieutenant, how did you manage that relationship?'' He
unhesitatingly responded to the committee. He said, ``Every
morning I got up, I tried to determine where the old man was,
and then tried to position myself on the other side of the
world.'' [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. So, good luck to the two sons and the son-
in-law. [Laughter.]
General Conway was commissioned in 1970 as an infantry
officer, and has had an extraordinary career commanding marines
in recruiting, training, and educational capacities and in
operational assignments at the company, battalion, division,
and expeditionary force levels. You've served through all the
branches from the bottom to the very top, served as an
operation officer for the 31st Marine Amphibious Unit, which
served off the coast of Lebanon just prior to the suicide
attacks on the marine barracks of October 23, 1983. You and I,
in our discussion this week, paused a moment to think about
that incident. John Tower was chairman of the Committee of the
Armed Services then, and I remember he corralled me, and we
saddled up and arrived just over 48 hours after that tragedy. I
can still see those barracks, a heap of rubble, smoke still
coming up, and operations going on to make sure there was no
one still alive. We'll not witness that chapter again, but
we'll not forget it.
General Conway commanded the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines in
1990 in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, assumed
command of the 1st Marine Division in 2000, and of the 1st
Marine Expeditionary Force in November 2002, commanded the 1st
MEF during two combat tours in Iraq, and currently serves as
the Director of Operations, J-3, of the Joint Staff.
General, you have been recognized for your leadership from
the time that you were a company officer all the way through
these distinguished assignments. You will assume this office,
if confirmed, as an individual who has had the experience
needed to meet this complex world which we face today.
If I could just make one other observation, and that is, I
do have recollections of World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and
today, and I have never seen, in the history of the United
States, a more complex, a more challenging set of problems than
faces the Commander in Chief, our President, and his team of
leaders in uniform and out of uniform. We're fortunate that you
and your family are willing to step up and take on another 4
years of service as a part of that team.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me add my thanks to General Conway and to his family.
Your comments about his family are right on target, Mr.
Chairman. They are shared by every member of this committee. We
understand the role of the families in making it possible for
people like General Conway to serve our country. We are as
grateful to them as we are to you, and that is mighty grateful.
I want to say, up front, that I believe that General Conway
is an excellent choice to lead the U.S. Marine Corps. I am
impressed by his military record, but I'm even more impressed
by his ability to think critically and with great insight about
the challenges facing the Marine Corps and this Nation. I
particularly appreciate his candor and willingness to tell it
like it is. I believe that trait has served him, the Marine
Corps, and this Nation well in the past, and will be even more
important in the future.
General Conway is one of our most experienced combat
commanders. He commanded the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
during the major combat operations in Iraq, and then
subsequently returned with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit to
begin to deal with the burgeoning insurgency. He understands
the tactics required to conduct full-spectrum warfare. He
understands how those tactics need to be adjusted to deal with
the complexities of a counterinsurgency campaign. His advice
and counsel in that regard have been, and will continue to be,
invaluable. I, for one, expect to tap into that advice and
counsel frequently.
Our marines have served magnificently in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other trouble spots around the globe. They have never
failed us, and I know that they never will.
However, the Marine Corps is under increasing stress
maintaining a significant portion of its force structure in
Iraq over the last 3 years. There is stress on the marines,
themselves, who have served multiple combat tours, and there is
stress on equipment, which has been used extensively in very
harsh conditions.
The marines went to war with units that were not optimally-
equipped or organized for a long counterinsurgency effort. Unit
equipment lists had to be adjusted to add more radios, machine
guns, night-vision devices, and armored trucks, including up-
armored Humvees, to lightly equip marine units to allow them to
operate over extended distances for a long ground campaign. To
do so, pre-positioned stocks were stripped, and marine units
outside of Iraq were raided for equipment to supply units in
theater.
While the Marine Corps is taking steps to fix those
problems, unit readiness rates have fallen, particularly for
those units which have rotated out of Iraq, but which don't
have enough equipment on which to train for their next
rotation.
I am very concerned about the consequences, should those
units be required for contingencies outside of Iraq. The Marine
Corps has been requesting supplemental funding to meet its
requirements for reset and the costs of war, but I believe
there is quite justifiable angst in the Marine Corps that the
supplemental funding will not keep pace with its needs,
especially as the war drags on and equipment is used up.
I share those concerns. I look forward to General Conway's
testimony on the extent of the readiness challenges facing the
Marine Corps, his assessment of the level of readiness and the
risk incurred because of that level of readiness, and what must
be done to raise Marine Corps readiness to acceptable levels.
The President has said that as Iraqi security forces stand
up, we will stand down. The training and equipping of those
Iraqi security forces is nearly complete. General Dempsey, who
is responsible for that training and equipping, has said that
the Iraqi army should be fully-manned and trained by the end of
this year. General Casey, commander of our forces in Iraq, has
said, on more than one occasion, that he believes that there
will be fairly substantial U.S. troop reductions in Iraq this
year. Given his experience in Iraq, I am very interested in
hearing General Conway's perspective on the general situation
in Iraq, on the strategy and tactics of the U.S. forces, and
what he foresees for the future.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I very warmly welcome General Conway
and his family. He is a highly-experienced and dedicated
officer, and he will make a magnificent commandant.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, we thank you. That is a
very fine statement that you've delivered on behalf of this
distinguished nominee. I personally appreciate it.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. I don't have any statement, Mr. Chairman,
except to say that obviously this is a highly qualified and
outstanding member of the United States Marine Corps, and I'm
pleased to have him continue to serve. I, like Senator Levin,
have some questions, and will seize this opportunity to ask
some questions about his view of the situation in Iraq. I'm
sure he will respond with his usual candor.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Therefore, I'll proceed with the matters of routine for all
nominees, and then, Senator McCain, I'll yield to you first for
questions, because I'm going to stay throughout the whole
hearing.
We've asked the General, as we ask all of our nominees, a
series of advance policy questions. You've responded to those
questions. Without objection, I'll make the questions and
responses a part of the record.
May I thank Charlie Abell, Rick DeBobes, and other staff
who, when I returned from the Pentagon the other day and
decided we'd go forward, it's through their very able work that
we are going forward here today.
I also have certain standard questions we ask of every
nominee who appears before the committee. So, General, if you'd
please respond to each of these questions:
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest?
General Conway. Yes, sir, I have.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
General Conway. No, sir, I have not.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record, in the hearings before the
Congress of the United States?
General Conway. Yes, sir, I will.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
General Conway. Yes, sir, I will.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
possible reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
General Conway. Yes, sir, they will.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify, upon request, before this committee?
General Conway. Yes, sir, I do.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views--
I repeat, your personal, professional views when asked before
this committee to do so, even if those views differ from those
of your superiors in the administration?
General Conway. Yes, sir, I do.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee of
Congress or to consult with the committee regarding the basis
for any good-faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
General Conway. Yes, sir, I will.
Chairman Warner. General, the floor is yours for such
statement as you may wish to make.
General Conway. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JAMES T. CONWAY, USMC, NOMINEE FOR
APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDANT OF THE
MARINE CORPS
General Conway. Thank you for your gracious comments, both
Mr. Chairman and Senator Levin, regarding my family.
Senator Warner, Senator Levin, Senator McCain, thank you. I
am humbled and honored to be nominated to serve as the 34th
Commandant of the Marine Corps. I fully appreciate the enormity
of the challenges that lie before our Nation and the Marine
Corps' critical role in helping to meet those challenges.
My duties as the J-3, as well as leading your marines in
combat, have offered a unique opportunity to view the
remarkable flexibility and responsiveness that forward-deployed
marines bring both to warfighting and to crisis response. Even
while having so many marines deployed in harm's way in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the Marine Corps has still answered every call--
humanitarian assistance in Indonesia, in the Philippines;
peacekeeping operations in Haiti; hurricane relief at home, on
the Gulf Coast; and the ongoing noncombatant evacuation
operations in Lebanon, to mention just a few.
If confirmed, I will strive to ensure our Nation continues
to have a Marine Corps that is capable and ready, both to win
this generation's war on terrorism and to settle the inevitable
crisis for which the Nation calls upon her Corps of Marines.
America deserves nothing less.
I will remain committed to one of our preeminent
legislatively mandated missions to be most ready when the
Nation is least ready. Your Marine Corps remains steadfast,
but, to continue to do so, we will need your assistance. The
immediate task before us demands a stubborn commitment to the
reconstitution of our current force, and modernization to keep
it strong.
Clearly, the individual marine is the centerpiece for our
future. In my 36 years of service, I have never failed to be
inspired by the selfless sacrifice of our young men and women.
I have seen some of our Nation's finest perform so very
unselfishly in ways that I would not have thought possible.
They remain committed to the best ideals our country stands
for, while asking almost nothing in return. To these stalwart
marines we owe everything, the best in training, the best in
leadership, and the best equipment. I want to express my thanks
to each of you for your continued support for these valiant
young men and women.
Finally, if confirmed, I look forward to working with you
to meet the challenges ahead. While your role is constitutional
oversight, my role, when I come before you, will be to always
tell the truth, only the truth. I pledge that you will always
have my honest assessment of what is required to maintain the
health of our Marine Corps and the security of our great
Nation.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, Senator McCain, thank you,
again, for the opportunity to come before this committee, and I
look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, General.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, General. Thank you for, again,
your outstanding service.
For the record, describe your duties in the Iraq war.
General Conway. Sir, I was the 1st MEF commander. That's
the Marine Expeditionary Force, constituted of about 60,000
marines and about 25,000 British forces, before we crossed the
line of departure. We were part of the 3rd Army. 5th Corps was
our Army counterpart, and the main attack during the movement
to Baghdad. Following securing Baghdad, and ultimately Tikrit,
sir, we were then directed to move to the southern provinces,
where we had moved through originally, to assume reconstruction
responsibilities for a period of about 5\1/2\ or 6 months
before we redeployed. The second time was about 5 months later.
We came home in November. I redeployed in February, again as
the MEF commander, this time in command of about 25,000 marines
in the al Anbar province out west. For that period of time,
about 7 months before I was relieved by Lieutenant General
Sattler, we went about trying to secure that area and assist
the people in recovering their country.
Senator McCain. Was that during the battle of Fallujah?
General Conway. Sir, we had what we term now the first
battle of Fallujah while I was in command, the second time in
the al Anbar province. The larger battle of Fallujah actually
occurred in November, and, again, I had the change of command
in Fallujah, on 13 September of that same year.
Senator McCain. I know a lot of books have been written
already, General Conway, like Cobra II, Assassin's Gate, and
others, that are sort of a depiction of the conduct of the war.
I know that many of these issues are important to you, given
the people under you who have sacrificed. Do you agree with the
general assessment that we didn't have enough troops to secure
Iraq after our initial victory?
General Conway. Sir, we had sufficient troops to conduct
the movement and win the Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) aspect
of it quickly. Our intent, at that point, was to capitalize on
the Iraqi army. It was, we felt, the most respected institution
in the country, and my personal view at the time was that, as
we would be able to stand up these Iraqi army units, we wanted
to put them in the lead as rapidly as we could. So, I felt,
initially, that there were enough U.S. forces committed to be
able to accomplish that.
When the Iraqi army was not returned to duty, there was a
requirement on the part of my ground command element commander,
Major General Mattis, at that point, to move units about to be
able to amass this combat power to accomplish certain things.
In that regard, we did not have enough troops to fully cover
the areas for which we were responsible.
Senator McCain. At one point, a decision was made, you may
not have been there at the time--basically to deBaathification.
No one who had been a member of the Baathist party would be
allowed to serve in the military. Do you recall that decision?
General Conway. Yes, sir. I recall it.
Senator McCain. I think it was made by Ambassador Bremer.
It's unfair for me to ask you whether you think that was the
right decision or not. I'm trying not to cause you difficulty,
because I know you wear the uniform, and I know you carry out
orders. Maybe you would tell me, in a positive fashion, if it's
possible--what could we have done better? I think we accept the
situation is very difficult right now, as we speak, great
problems within Baghdad. Apparently, we're going to have to
move troops, probably marines, from the al Anbar province into
Baghdad, even when we know that Fallujah and Ramadi,
particularly, are still not under control. What could we have
done better, in your view, General Conway? Maybe put a positive
spin on it so that I don't cause you difficulties.
General Conway. Sir, I can only give you my personal
impression and the discussions I had with my commanders. We
felt that there were people who were Baathists, who were
compelled to be Baathists because of Saddam's reign of terror.
Nevertheless, those people occupied key positions in the
government and in the infrastructure that ran the country. When
we weren't able to maximize on the capacities of those people,
I think we probably suffered some, and we had to try to conduct
makeshift mitigations, those manner of things.
We felt that if there were Baathists with blood on their
hands in any form or fashion, that those people needed to be
rooted out and held accountable to the Iraqi people, and that
we perhaps could have been more discerning as to ``who was
who.''
In terms of the army, once again, a similar scenario. There
were army units, which, I think, were very brutal with their
own people. Where an army commander had been judged to do those
types of things, he should not be brought back to any position
of responsibility, but we felt that had the army been brought
back, we would have been able to capitalize on that immensely
and take advantage, again, of this inherent respect that the
Iraqis still maintained for their army over the decades.
Senator McCain. The initial training of the Iraqi army was
not successful, correct?
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. So, we had to go back and start a more
intensive and more thorough type of training operation. We lost
a lot of time during that period. Would you agree that the
situation now, to a significant degree, given the political
environment here in the United States, is, to some degree, up
to the Iraqi Government and military as to whether they can
function or not?
General Conway. Sir, I think that's exactly right. Since
June 2004, Iraq has been a sovereign nation, and every effort
on the part of those forces assigned to Iraq has been to
postulate that with the Iraqis and cause them to resume normal
functioning and control of their country as soon as that could
possibly be made to happen.
Senator McCain. Let me just ask one more question, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Go ahead.
Senator McCain. I'm concerned that we may be making the
mistake that we made during the Vietnam conflict, and that is
lowering recruiting standards. I think all of us agree, in
retrospect, in viewing the Vietnam war, that we took people
into the Marine Corps and the Army that we should not have.
They didn't meet certain minimum standards, and we waived
certain standards. That's just a matter of record. Are we doing
that again, General?
General Conway. Sir, I can only speak for the United States
Marine Corps, and I can give you a categoric response that we
are not. My eldest son, who is a Marine major and is not here
this morning, is the commanding officer of a Marine Corps
Recruiting Station in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. I have a
direct source of information, of course, through him.
Even without that, I can tell you that our recruiting goals
are being met, our retention goals are being met, and in no way
are we reducing the standards that we have always held for
marines coming on Active service.
Senator McCain. We don't have waivers that would lower
standards?
General Conway. Sir, there are X number of waivers each
year that are given to what we would call CAT IV marines, those
that can't necessarily pass a given test. But those waivers
have not been increased, let's say, since this global war on
terrorism has begun. There's always been X number for young,
motivated men and women who, obviously, we think will make good
marines, but have not, at that point, completed all of the
standards.
[Additional, clarifying information provided for the record
follows:]
I would like to clarify my statement that ``there are X number of
waivers.'' Our CAT IV waivers are, by Marine Corps policy, less than 1
percent of our total accessions. This standard was established in 1999
and reiterated in our Marine Corps Accession Strategy in 2005 and we
have not deviated from that policy.
I would also like to take this opportunity to put waivers in
context. A more telling indicator of our long-term commitment to
sustaining quality accessions is that our first-term expiration of
active service (EAS) attrition--that is, marines who leave the Marine
Corps prior to the expiration of their contracted enlistment--has
decreased by 17 percent in the past 4 years. That means the individuals
we are recruiting and training are proving that our faith in their
capability is not misplaced; they have proven to be the quality marines
that our commanders in the field need.
I strongly believe that the individual marine is the centerpiece
for our future and I will continue to monitor this issue to ensure we
do not lower our standards in order to ``get the numbers.'' Recruiting
and retaining the right people in the Marine Corps is one of my highest
priorities. I pledge to keep you informed if ever my review of this
matter indicates that the quality of our recruits are not providing us
with the Corps America needs to ensure her security. But as I said, I
think our rate of first-term non-EAS attrition is telling me that we
are making marines that America deserves.
Senator McCain. Are you concerned about retention in the
Marine Reserve?
General Conway. Sir, we have to be concerned about all of
it. We have to keep our eyes on it and watch the trends.
Senator McCain. Are the numbers indicating that there's
reason for concern?
General Conway. Sir, at this point, we're keeping our
numbers up. Our retention is still good, but as this global war
continues and we do rely upon the Reserves, we'll have to watch
to make sure that their needs are met.
Senator McCain. Do you see signs of problems?
General Conway. Not at this point, sir.
Senator McCain. I thank you, and thank you for your
service. Congratulations to your family.
General Conway. Thank you.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Levin?
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On the point that Senator McCain began with, there were
many of us that were concerned about the total disbanding of
the Iraqi army. The ones, as you point out, that had blood on
their hands should not have been returned, but the bulk of the
army did not have blood on their hands. Do you know whether or
not our uniformed military leaders were consulted on that
decision, or was that basically a decision made by civilian
leaders?
General Conway. I'm sorry, Senator Levin, I do not know.
I'm afraid my site picture was pretty narrow at that point in
Iraq.
Senator Levin. But it is your judgment that if the Iraqi
army could have been reconstituted, that that would have been a
major plus, in terms of security, and that we had, in fact, to
some extent, in the planning, counted on that.
General Conway. Yes, sir, that was the original plan, as we
understood it, as we discussed phase 4 while still in Kuwait,
at Camp Doha. Again, it was our expectation and anticipation
that that was intended to be the case.
To answer the second part of your question, I do think it
was possible. When we were given a policy to pay former members
of the Iraqi army, we had to go through some very sophisticated
planning, in terms of how we were going to manage the numbers
in various locations. So, they did appear from all over the
country, really, for those opportunities.
Senator Levin. The President assured the American people
and the Iraqis that as Iraqi security forces stand up, our
forces would stand down. Give us your judgment as to whether or
not that policy should be effectuated and as to whether or not,
for that and perhaps other reasons, we should follow through
with what General Casey has said he expected would happen,
which would be troop reductions beginning by the end of this
year.
General Conway. Sir, I think it's a sound policy. If you
look at General Casey's lines of operation, security is
paramount among them. When security is achieved, we think that
the other lines of operation will be much more plausible and be
able to take shape. The growth of the Iraqi army, in
particular--to some lesser degree, the Iraqi police--is
constant. The equipment is trailing the training a little bit
and putting those folks in the field, but I still think that,
under Iraqi security forces, we will be able to eventually
effect a downsizing of our forces.
I personally believe that you have Iraqis who have started
to look at us as occupiers and are resisting us, in some
instances; whereas, they would not resist an Iraqi force doing
precisely the same thing. I also think that General Casey
believes that, as he's discussed the opportunity to draw down.
So, I think that the strategy is sound, sir, and will be
effected in time.
Senator Levin. In terms of the message to Iraqis--as to the
importance of their taking over responsibility, is it important
that they understand that our presence is not open-ended and
unlimited, and that they have the responsibility, as they get
trained, to take over the major bulk of the responsibility?
General Conway. Sir, I think it's absolutely critical that
they understand that. There is a strategic communications
effort afoot on the part of the insurgents that would tell the
people of Iraq that we are truly occupiers. We're there to
steal their wealth and consume their oil. In that regard, I
think we have to counter that message with an eventual
reduction of forces, in proof of the fact that we're only going
to stay there until such time as the Iraqi Government can self-
govern and secure their own country.
Senator Levin. General Casey has stated, on a number of
occasions, that he expects that there will be a reduction of
U.S. forces in Iraq in 2006, and he said that recently at a
Pentagon press conference. Do you believe that will happen?
General Conway. Sir, I do believe it will happen. Right
now, we're experiencing sectarian violence, on a level since
the bombing of the Samarra Mosque, that we have not seen in the
country. Baghdad, in particular, seems to be a center of
activity. I think he has to solve that problem first. That's a
new and different problem from what we have seen in months
before, but I think he will need to address that. The new prime
minister, Maliki, has a number of programs that I think he is
trying to put into place to strengthen his government and quell
the insurgency, in large measure. I think a number of those
efforts, in tandem, will have some results by the end of the
year.
Senator Levin. Is it important, in terms of persuading and
pressuring the Iraqis to reach political compromises, that they
accept the idea that our commitment is not open-ended?
General Conway. Yes, sir. I think if you study
insurgencies, you'll see that it's been that type of effort
over time. The negotiation, if you will, the ability for people
to come together--that has been more effective, really, than
the kinetic activities of trying to put those insurgencies
down.
Senator Levin. What do you mean by ``kinetic activities''?
General Conway. Well, sir, armed force.
Senator Levin. On readiness issues, can you give us your
assessment of the ability of the Marine Corps to keep their
units ready, given the tremendous effort and stress that has
been placed on the Corps? What's the state of readiness in the
Marine Corps?
General Conway. Senator Levin, the state of readiness of
the forces in Iraq are topnotch, what we would call C1. They're
fully ready for the missions that they're assigned. That does
come at some cost, however. We have opted to leave the
equipment for those units in Iraq, and maintain the maintenance
on all of that gear through means of forward-deployed depots,
keeping the mechanics and the spare parts flowing so that the
vehicles are quickly repaired. The impact that has on the rest
of the Marine Corps is what has us concerned, at this point.
The readiness of the remainder of the equipment, ground, and
particularly aviation, is suffering, and, as a result, our
readiness ratings for the remainder of the force are not what
we would ordinarily show.
Senator Levin. What needs to be done, in your opinion?
General Conway. I think General Hagee has commented that we
need to be able to recapitalize that equipment, to ``reset,'' I
think is the term that's being used. Principally, at this
point, it's being conducted through supplemental funding. There
is an annual cost of war that is required, certainly, but there
is an additional cost of maintaining this equipment--in some
cases, replacing that equipment--that is significant. I know
that General Hagee submitted a request for $11.7 billion,
initially. He received along the lines of about $5.1 billion
against that. The leftover, plus another $5-billion-plus, puts
the Marine Corps' bill, at this point, in excess, again, of $11
billion, just to be able to recap this equipment and give us
all the Marine Corps that we think we need to have.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
General, this committee will eventually examine in detail
the allegations and the findings with respect to several
incidents in Iraq involving marines. I don't wish to discuss
what you may know about the specifics of the report, but in the
hopes that I can take your nomination before the Senate, I'd
like to be able to say that you have represented to the
committee, to the extent you have knowledge of those reports,
you, personally and professionally, are in no way involved.
Would that be correct?
General Conway. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
On the question of Iraq, you draw on a great deal of
experience from your two successive tours of duty, and now in
your current position following the daily operations there. I
think every hearing of this committee, we pause for a moment,
to reflect on the enormity of the sacrifice of over 2,500 who
have lost their lives, the tens of thousands, 22-some-odd-
thousand, wounded, and the sacrifices of the families.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. As you pointed out, Prime Minister Maliki
and his new government are striving to establish sovereignty,
control, and accept the full responsibility of sovereignty of
the Nation of Iraq so that this country can have its own self-
sustaining democracy and take its place in the world.
Things have not gone as well as we'd hoped there in the
last 30 or 40 days. In my understanding, the incidents, as you
record those, have gone up appreciably in the last 30 days, am
I not correct in that?
General Conway. Can I ask what you mean by ``incidents,''
precisely, sir?
Chairman Warner. I mean conflicts, sectarian violence,
insurgency.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Unfortunately, a great deal of criminality
that's taking place. The Iraqis are suffering a loss of roughly
on the average of 100 citizens a day, is that correct?
General Conway. That is correct.
Chairman Warner. There has been an appreciable increase in
the last 30 or so days. You are nodding in assent that it has.
To the extent you can share with the committee here in open
session.
General Conway. Yes, sir. If you chart the attacks, they
are on an increasing scale.
Chairman Warner. This brings me to the responsibilities of
our Nation, as a strong supporter of Israel and hopefully, in
the capacity of our traditional role of the United States of an
honest broker, to work on that situation--and I'm not about to
discuss the various options before us. I think the Secretary of
State has handled herself very well. The President has spoken
very clearly. Yesterday I was privileged, on three occasions,
to be in the presence of Prime Minister Maliki.
As a matter of fact, I want the record to reflect that I
was extremely impressed in the manner in which he spoke at Fort
Belvoir, in a very informal way, to a gathering of about 300
uniformed personnel--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines--and he
spoke from the heart about his gratefulness to the people of
this Nation; in particular, as he said, the brothers and
sisters of our military who have lost their lives, and the
families who have paid the price, and those who are continuing
to support the Iraqi security forces in their effort to achieve
a secure situation in that country. He did so in a very
heartfelt way, with the President, who likewise spoke and
expressed the gratitude of our Nation to the men and women in
uniform. It was a very moving experience. Then, I might add,
just for those who are interested, there were 25 tables of
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and the President and
the Prime Minister stopped at every table, took pictures, and
spoke to the individuals. It wasn't one of these hurry-up
photo-ops. It was a very sincere appreciation by the people of
Iraq, through their prime minister, for the contributions of
this country.
But, back to the conflict between Israel and Lebanon, and,
to an extent, the Palestinian situation, the heat, the
bitterness, the acrimony that is flowing out of that. My
concern is that, in the Muslim world, it could be transmitted
up to the Iraq area of responsibility (AOR) and, indeed,
possibly put our uniformed people at greater risk. All I have
said, and I repeat saying this, that it's a responsibility of
our Nation as we fulfill our mission trying to help bring about
a sustainable cease-fire of that conflict. We take those steps,
being mindful of the investment of over 3 years that we've had
in Iraq, the progress that we're slowly making, in my judgment,
but also the extremely delicate situation that exists today and
tomorrow and in the foreseeable future. Do you share those
views?
General Conway. Sir, I do. I can only say, I think, in open
session, that we are seeing reports, comments made in Iraq that
reflect the opinion of what's--in effect--an Arab opinion on
what's taking place in Israel and south Lebanon, and they're
not encouraging. These people feel an alliance with the
Hezbollah, and it's disconcerting. We have not yet seen
indication of additional action in the wake of those comments,
but certainly there is great knowledge of what's taking place
there, and great sympathy for both the Lebanese people and the
Hezbollah.
Chairman Warner. Yes. I thank you for that recognition. As
you continue as the chief watch officer for the military, let
us make sure that those who are trying to work out solutions in
the Israel/Lebanon area of operations are not unmindful of the
consequences that can flow to our forces in that AOR, because
they're all linked together.
General Conway. They are, sir.
Chairman Warner. I'm not here to try and sort out exactly
what the government, or the individuals in the Government of
Iraq, have said on this matter, but I'm more concerned with the
people in the streets and the press and a lot of other things
that are bringing influence on those individuals who could do
harm to our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that
are in that battle, and, indeed, their coalition partners.
Improvised explosive devices (IED)--you experienced the
serious situation with regard to those weapons. I think the
President and the Secretary of Defense are taking measures with
the creation of General Meigs' outfit that succeeds another, I
thought, rather effective outfit, but it was just enlarged and
brought up to a higher level, through rank, of attention in the
Department, and those are positive steps. For the members of
this committee, General Meigs will soon be briefing this
committee, as he does regularly. As I watched the evolution of
the various organizations tasked with the responsibility for
IEDs in the Department, I hope that I carefully left a message
that the Marine Corps was doing a very important segment of
that work on IEDs, somewhat independent, as it should be, from
the Department of Defense, but, at the same time, contributing
all of their findings, results, and recommendations to the
Department. I would hope that you could assure the committee,
as Commandant, that you will put a watchful eye on that, and
that that contribution by the Marine Corps, particularly down
in Quantico, can continue.
General Conway. Absolutely, sir. If you calculate the
percentage of casualties that occur day-in and day-out in Iraq,
easily 70 percent of them are still attributable to IEDs. We
have a very adaptive enemy. So, it is absolutely our first
priority.
Where appropriate, and in that the United States Army,
United States Marine Corps, are in the same location,
essentially, with the same mission, facing the same threat, we
do ally our efforts with them immensely, but, at the same time,
I don't think you can have too many people looking at this
problem from too many perspectives. We do differ sometimes in
our approach to testing, and the people that we talk to who may
have new concepts or new ideas. I think, in answer, you're
exactly right, that is helpful, and certainly we share
everything that we find, as the Army is doing, to try to
overcome the problem.
Chairman Warner. Will you assure the committee that you
will continue to allocate such resources as is needed by the
Marine component of the work going on, on IEDs?
General Conway. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Good. I'll resume my questions, but I'll
now turn to our colleague, Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, General, for your extraordinary service to our
country. Please extend our appreciation to the troops who serve
under you. I congratulate you on this nomination. Your combat
credentials and your overall career biography are more than
enough information to give me a comfort level with the
nomination, and hopefully a speedy confirmation. What I also
would like to note for the record that stands out is the people
who have served under you, in their descriptions of you as an
enlisted marine's general. I think that's a great compliment
and, I think, a great tribute to the qualities of character
that you bring to the job, and the fact that you always put the
best interests of the troops first, and, obviously, the mission
first. Those are great statements about your character, and
those are echoed by a lot of people who have served with you,
and under you. So, when it comes to your command philosophy and
the way you go about conducting your job and the leadership
that you provide for our country and for our troops, it's very
commendable. I just want to acknowledge that, as well.
I have a statement, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have included
in the record.
Chairman Warner. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thune follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Thune
General Conway, your combat credentials and overall impressive
career biography gives me more than enough information to allow me the
opportunity to make a comprehensive decision regarding your
confirmation. However, what I find most extraordinary about your
service to this great Nation is the leadership style in which you have
commanded the marines under your care. I've found numerous accounts of
marines describing you as an ``enlisted marine's general'' in your
dedication to the keystones of successful leadership including your
objectiveness in decisionmaking, communicating with your marines,
humility, and leading from the front in both training and in war, to
name just a few. An incident that stands out to me was your candor
regarding the decision to have your 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
invade the city of Fallujah in early April 2004 as a response to the
brutal killings of four U.S. civilian contractors, and then
subsequently be ordered to halt attacks just days later. While you were
following orders from your superiors, you were documented as voicing
concerns over what you perceived as first a very hasty decision and
then later extracting prematurely before achieving victory. In the
aftermath unfortunately it is not irrational to say your assessments
were valid ones. However it shows that your concerns for the overall
success of the mission and the protection of our young men and women
who are willing to give up their lives to defend our freedom remains
paramount in your command philosophy. That mentality, I believe, is
what will serve you best should you be confirmed to this position.
Senator Thune. As we undertake what are a lot of challenges
around the planet right now, and many of which have been
touched on already this morning, I want to discuss a couple of
things. I was over there on my most recent trip to Iraq,
probably about 4 months ago, with Senator McCain and some other
Members of Congress and Governors, and we talked about the
progress that is being made. Obviously it has been three steps
forward, two steps back, but one of the things that we felt
good about, and I think is important, in terms of the criteria
for our ability to succeed there, as well as our ability to
begin bringing some of our troops home, is getting the Iraqi
security forces up and trained and prepared to take on more
responsibilities there. At that time, when we were there, about
75 percent of the battlespace, about 75 percent of the
missions, were being performed either independently with Iraqis
or with them in the lead and our troops supporting them. I'm
wondering if that's still a fairly accurate characterization.
Is that improving? What is it and where are we, relative to
that benchmark, that was shared with us last time we were
there?
General Conway. Sure, I think that is about right, without
having benefit of a map to show you. I don't recall any
battlespace being turned over to Iraqi main-force units in the
last 30 days or so, so I think your information is still
current.
Senator Thune. Good. Do you still feel, overall, that there
is progress being made, that we continue to see them being more
and more up to the task?
General Conway. Yes, sir, I do. I've not met the man, but
I'm encouraged by what is reported to be the strength of
character of the new prime minister. He is facing, of course, a
difficult startup period, but he does not seem especially
deterred by the difficulty. He wants to ram through his
programs, and he's demanding results from his ministers, who
have, likewise, been elected to their position--selected, in
some cases; but, in others, elected to the positions. So, there
is an air of confidence for the long-term. We're certainly in a
tough fight right now. This sectarian violence thing has to be
stopped.
Senator Thune. Right.
General Conway. But I am confident, in the long-term.
Senator Thune. It seems to me, at least, that the sectarian
violence part of this goes back to the bombing of the Samarra
shrine. That whole component of this fight had really heated up
at that time, and it continues, to this day. I was very
impressed, as was the chairman, with the statements that were
made by the new prime minister, and the very forceful, strong,
decisive way, I think, of the approach that he's taking to
getting the government up and running and making it successful.
That, of course, is the other criteria by which, I think, we
can measure our success there, and that is, one, the capability
of security forces, and, two, the stability and longevity of
the government, and its ability to bring some sort of national
unity, so that you don't have all this sectarianism going on.
The message that we tried to deliver when we were over there
last time, is that it's really important that they focus on
that and that they get the various factions pulling in the same
direction. I hope we can make progress on that. His comments
were certainly encouraging.
I want to come back to one other point that the chairman
mentioned earlier; I have been up to Walter Reed several times,
as have most of my colleagues, I think. You talked about the
casualties, and we talked about the injuries that our troops
are sustaining there, most of which are attributable to IEDs. I
know that this is a public session, and you're probably limited
to what you can say, but I'm always interested in hearing what
steps we are taking to address that situation. As you noted, we
have a very adaptive enemy. It seems as soon as we figure out
how they're detonating these things and develop
countermeasures, they then come up with a new way of doing it.
That has to be just the top priority in terms of our focus
right now, one of the most critical things that we can look at
and figure out solutions to. I know you probably can't get into
the weeds here in great detail, but I would be interested in
your additional comments?
General Conway. Sure.
Senator Thune. General observations about steps that we are
taking to address what is the most lethal weapon, I think, that
our enemy has at their disposal.
Chairman Warner. Senator, may I ask your indulgence for a
moment? I have to appear, momentarily, before the Commerce
Committee, right down the hall. Would you continue to chair
this hearing? If there comes a point in time when you've
completed your work, would you put the hearing in recess, and
then I'll be right back to resume additional matters that I
wish to cover.
Thank you.
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, so I should not adjourn, but
recess?
Chairman Warner. That's correct.
Senator Thune [presiding]. All right. Very well.
General Conway. Sir, I think your analysis is spot-on. We
do have a very adaptive enemy. I think it is safe to say, in
open session, that he evolves his tactics as we present our
defensive measures. In some cases, it's cyclical. What we see
right now is a threat that is pretty much pressure-plate
initiated. He's attacking the undersides of our vehicles,
because he gets more value from the explosive that is applied.
We are attacking that capability, from a number of
different approaches. Even when I was there--and this was in
more of its rudimentary stages--we tried to look at, ``What is
the weak link? Where is it that we can attack to be most
successful?'' The British would tell us that you look for the
bombmakers, for the people with the technical expertise, and go
after them. We have done that. Unfortunately, Iraq still
remains, in great part, an arsenal, or an armory, with regard
to ordnance that is available. So, we don't think that supply--
or that link is necessarily one that we can be as successful in
countering.
Our training efforts are immense, in terms of the time
spent just recognizing IEDs, looking for the indicators,
looking for the patterns of life, if you will, that might
indicate that there's an explosive device in the area. Our
success with jammers has been intermittent, but we continue to
work that, as an inherent capability, to, if not destroy the
device, certainly render it ineffective as our vehicles pass.
Again, they're not effective against every device, but, given
the right frequency and the right overrides, they can be quite
effective.
So, we're approaching the problem through a number of
means. We don't expect, necessarily, that we are going to find
a silver bullet. We don't think that somewhere in a garage
there's a guy with pens in his pocket and fuzzy hair and thick
glasses who's going to come and render us a solution. But that
doesn't mean that we don't keep trying, and we never should
stop trying, until we have found a way to completely defeat
these things.
Senator Thune. I appreciate your commitment to that end. I
just can't think of anything, in terms of protecting our
troops, more important, and I know that they are constantly
evolving, in terms of their technologies and the things that
our enemies are doing. I just think we have to focus like a
laser on how we protect people in the field. If it's a resource
issue, I hope you will make clear to us, as a committee, and to
Congress, what your needs are so that we can take the
appropriate steps to help you best combat what, again, is a
very serious and lethal capability the enemy has, and one that
I know it is not easy to be able to solve. In any case, it's a
question I try and pose as folks come in front of this
committee, just to get some insights about how we can do a
better job, and how we can better serve you, in terms of
resources.
General Conway. Sir, I would take the opportunity to say
that, from our perspective inside the Department of Defense, we
appreciate your recognition of this being the significant
problem that it is. It appears to us that you have very well
resourced those people that are attempting to overcome it.
Senator Thune. I appreciate your answers. Again, thank you.
I just can't tell you how much we appreciate what you're doing
for the country and your service. So, thank you for that.
I think the Senator from Michigan is back. The chairman is
gone, Senator, so if you had another round of questions, feel
free.
Senator Levin. I just have a few. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, on the question of Marine Corps end strength, the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) proposed to stabilize the
Marine Corps' end strength at 175,000 Active and 39,000 Reserve
component personnel by fiscal year 2011. General Hagee,
however, has stated he is not sure the Active-Duty Marine Corps
end strength should be reduced below 180,000 marines, and he
said that he planned to conduct a capabilities assessment to
re-examine the issue.
Has that assessment been completed, do you know? Or do you
know what the status of it is?
General Conway. Yes, Senator Levin, it has been completed.
There was a group of about probably 40 officers who convened
down at Quantico for a period of about 3 months, who gave a
series of reports back to General Hagee and his three-star
generals in the area. I think that what the assessment group
has essentially validated for the Commandant is what he now
says, that he believes that we need a Marine Corps of about
180,000 in order to be able to continue to engage in this long
war on terrorism.
Senator Levin. Do you know if it will be presented within
the next month or so, to Congress or to the Secretary?
General Conway. Sir, I'm sorry, I do not know the answer to
that. I have not had that specific conversation with General
Hagee.
Senator Levin. All right. In terms of approximately 180,000
being the correct end strength, in the best judgment of that
study, should that end strength be built into the permanent
budget, or should it be left, in part, up to a supplemental
budget?
General Conway. Sir, we think it needs to be in the Marine
Corps budget, as such. Personnel are expensive. Once we bring
those people on, we bring them on for 4 years. The Marine Corps
would not be able, with its budget such as it is, to absorb
those costs for personnel, were the supplementals not there.
So, for purposes of planning, for purposes of long-range
understanding of what our capabilities are going to be, I think
we would much prefer to see it in the top line, as opposed to
presented in a supplemental.
Senator Levin. Gotcha. On a question of relocation of some
of our marines to Guam from Japan, there has been a recent
agreement with the Government of Japan to relocate 8,000
marines from Okinawa to Guam. I'm wondering what your reaction
is to that and whether or not that will have a negative impact
on the ability of the marines to support Pacific Command's
requirements for providing presence and security cooperation in
Asia.
General Conway. Sir, the most important part first. We
think that it will not impact on our ability to provide to the
combatant commander what he has to have for marine forces in
the Pacific. This same capabilities assessment group was asked
by the Commandant to examine how best to deploy those forces
once we commence moves off of both Okinawa and portions of
mainland Japan. What we would like to see, as a Marine Corps,
is a determination as to the ultimate disposition of these
forces, more along the lines of the operational requirements,
the administrative and logistics sets, that may have initially
driven the discussion. That's where we are. It's still fairly
early in the negotiation process, both with our Government and
the Japanese Government, but we hope to effect that with that
proposition.
Senator Levin. Thank you. I think it was the chairman who,
as I had to leave, was asking a question relative to the
Haditha investigations, and you may have already answered this.
Do we have any idea when those investigations will be
completed? If you've already answered it, I can----
General Conway. I have not answered it, sir, and I will
give you the information to the best of my knowledge. There
were two investigations, of course, I think you're aware. The
15-6, the Army version of the preliminary investigation that
was ordered by General Chiarelli, has been completed. General
Chiarelli has a copy. He's passed his recommendations on to
General Casey, and, at this point, General Casey and General
Abizaid are reviewing the investigation. Similarly, the
ultimate convening authority, if you will, will be the Marine
component commander, Lieutenant General Sattler, 1MEF commander
at Camp Pendleton right now. He also has a copy, and is
reviewing it, at present.
The other investigation, the NCIS investigation, has not
been completed, but I am told it is nearing completion.
That is as much as I can give you, sir, towards an answer
to your question as to when you'll see both those things.
Senator Levin. Thank you, General.
I was just going to ask Senator Warner's staff whether he
was on his way back. I have completed my questions, and I was
just going to thank the General, but now you can thank him.
Chairman Warner [presiding]. Thank you very much. I
appreciate the opportunity to resume presiding again. I thank
you and Senator Thune. I thought Senator Thune's questions,
together with yours, have been very much on point.
General, one of the most remarkable chapters of our
military history--if I may say, as a person who's been
privileged to watch a half a century of our military history--
occurred in this conflict in Iraq, the successive conflicts,
and that's the role of the National Guard and the Reserve
component of all of our Services. Those individuals willingly
responded to orders to leave their jobs, their homes, their
families, and take their places alongside the Regular Forces
and quickly get up to speed professionally. There have been a
remarkable number of incidents of their personal bravery and
professional achievements at all levels in this conflict, not
only on the battlefield, but in the aviation components and all
types of things, and aboard ships. I don't like to talk about
my inconsequential career, but I served in the Reserves in the
Marine Corps, and volunteered to come up to duty in the Korean
War, and served in Korea. When that was concluded, I had no
obligation to stay in the Reserves, but I did it, and many of
my colleagues who served with me in Korea, when we returned
home, they, likewise, stayed in the Reserves, because we felt
that we--although my tour was fairly limited--had a valuable
contribution to make to our Reserve components. I stayed in
some 10 or 12 years.
Tell us about the Reserves in the Marine Corps and what you
plan to do. I just hope that you share my tremendous respect
for what they have done through the years, and that the Corps,
under your leadership, will continue what it's doing today, and
perhaps enhance and, if necessary, if you so desire, enlarge
the Reserve component of the Marine Corps.
General Conway. Sir, first of all, I completely agree with
your salute to the Reserves and the Guard. I would add, before
I address the Marine Corps aspect of it, that in some regards
it's absolutely amazing that the Army can go about a
transformation of sorts, a modularization, if you will, of its
brigades at a time when there's a serious war taking place. In
the place of the Active Force units, the Army has gone to
Reserve and the National Guard Forces, and they've just done
marvelous work, as you say. So, hats off to those folks, and
they really have stepped up when their country needed them
most.
Sir, without being parochial with regard to the Marine
Reserves, I do think that ours is truly a model system. We call
it the Total Force, and we mean that in every sense of the
word, with regard to equipment, with regard to the expectations
that they will be there when we need them most. They have just
never let us down. Now, there's an investment that goes with
that. We have Active-Duty people, some of our best lieutenant
colonels, command screened, who are out there as the inspector/
instructor. He's in charge of a number of young company-grade
officers. Some of our best company commanders go out and work
with the Reserves on a routine basis to make sure that they're
able to maintain and apply those standards, should the country
need.
We're extremely proud of who they are and what they do. It
comes at a cost, but we are more than willing, I think, because
of the capability that's added, to accept those costs and
continue to make them a real combat addition.
Chairman Warner. Do you think that you need some expansion
of the size of the Corps' component?
General Conway. Sir, I'll be honest, I have not sat down to
look at that in close quarters.
Chairman Warner. You have 39,600, currently, men and women
in the Marine Corps Reserve. As you sit down to look at it,
hopefully you will have the benefit of the Commission on the
National Guard and Reserves, headed by a fellow marine, General
Arnold Punaro, who will be working on recommendations. So, I
hope that you take to heart what recommendations they come up
with, and would have no reluctance to come before this
committee if you need such authority to make modifications.
General Conway. Absolutely, sir. I would make two comments,
sir. One is that I think we have a smaller percentage of
Reserves, if you compare the ratio Marine to Army.
Chairman Warner. Yes, I am aware.
General Conway. So, that should compel us to ask if that
percentage is right.
The second part, though, I think would have to look at the
determination as to whether or not, for the long war, we would
see reaccessing the Reserves in order to apply their
capabilities once again. That would help us to determine
whether or not we want to expand the size of the Reserve Force.
Chairman Warner. All right. Let's turn our attention to
those who have survived the wounding in these current combat
operations and who are now trying, together with the love and
affection, hopefully, of their families, to rehabilitate
themselves. I think it was 2 or 3 years ago, I put in an
initiative to encourage the Department of Defense to make
possible every one of those individuals could stay in, assuming
he or she so desired, and that the wounds that they sustained
would not severely limit their ability to perform valued
services. I hope that you will continue to foster that program.
General Conway. Absolutely, sir. That has been the
Commandant's directive, and it's a wonderful program. I intend
to continue it, certainly, if confirmed.
Chairman Warner. The committee has been concerned that the
other programs and coordinated efforts of the Services,
including the ``Marine For Life'' Program, anticipate problems
and seek out the severely wounded soldiers, sailors, and airmen
that need assistance, the funding levels and so forth. Will you
examine that to make sure that that is adequate?
General Conway. Yes, sir. We have, at present, grant blocks
of money available to those who have been wounded, based upon
the nature of their wounds. We have some tremendous private
organizations who work hard--not least, the Semper Fi Fund--to
be a help to the families. But there also, I think, is a
national responsibility to continue to ensure that our wounded
are provided for.
Chairman Warner. Mrs. Conway, will you commit to the
committee that if he doesn't measure up, you will step forward,
is that correct? [Laughter.]
Mrs. Conway. I absolutely will, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. Let the record
reflect that clear and concise response. [Laughter.]
General Conway. She means that.
Chairman Warner. On the QDR, according to the QDR 2006, the
Department is focusing on bringing the needed capabilities to
the Joint Force more rapidly by fashioning a more effective
acquisition system and associated set of processes. One of the
QDR recommendations is to integrate the combatant commanders
more fully into the acquisition process. Now, that acquisition,
at the moment, is shared by the military departments, and the
Department of Defense, and we're looking at how the combatant
commanders can have a stronger voice. Do you have any views on
that?
General Conway. Sir, we have recently had a senior
executive conference within the Department, that the Secretary
chaired, to talk somewhat about that issue as it relates to the
requirements of the combatant commanders on the global war on
terrorism. We are looking at adjustments to our contemporary
programs as to how their requirements can be better understood
and met by the title 10 responsibilities of the military
departments. So, I would say yes, sir, I think that is ongoing.
Of course, the Service Secretaries and Service Chiefs still
bear the responsibility for the ``organize, train, and equip''
functioning as directed by title 10, but those that we provide
forces for, we have to understand clearly what their needs are
and be able to provide.
Chairman Warner. The Riverine Force. I happen to have very
high regard for those capabilities. When I was Secretary of the
Navy, I visited Vietnam on occasion, and went down and saw
those operations. I commended the Department of the Navy for
bringing back the concept, and recently working it into their
force structure. The 2005 QDR included the Navy's decision to
field new capability in support of Riverine operations, and, in
January 2006, the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) was
established to stand up this capability.
What is the impact of this new Navy capability and
organization on the Corps' operations and requirements?
General Conway. Sir, we think it's going to be extremely
helpful. I salute Admiral Mullen and all that he's done with
the NECC. He has set aside 40,000 or 50,000 of his Navy
personnel to assist in this global war on terrorism, and
they're taking on a number of additional roles that, in some
cases in the past, soldiers and marines have had to accomplish,
that now frees them to go do something else. An important part
of that is the Riverine capability. If you listen to the
intelligence analysts and hear what they have to say, in terms
of where the trouble spots in the globe will continue to be,
there are a lot of rivers, a lot of deltas. We think that
Riverine Forces, properly manned and equipped, can, and will,
be very effective in employment.
Chairman Warner. I point out--and I regret I don't have
that statistic at my fingertips--the population of the world
that live within 200 miles of either a major waterway or an
ocean. Isn't that correct? It's a very high percentage.
General Conway. Yes, sir, it's huge.
Chairman Warner. Can you represent to this committee that,
if confirmed as Commandant, if there are any issues of roles
and missions of the Corps and the Navy on this--the new
Riverine Force, that is--that you'll come before the committee,
and hopefully we can work out the problem?
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I'd much prefer to do it that way, rather
than let it fester down in the sinews of the organization.
General Conway. I understand, sir.
Chairman Warner. Could you describe the command structure
that you would envision for integrating overlapping areas of
responsibility between the Navy and the Marine Corps in the
execution of a Riverine operation?
General Conway. Sir, it would vary, of course, with each
situation on the ground. If I were told that I had a Navy
Riverine Force coming to join me for operations, if they had a
parent command in the area, then I would see if the
relationship needed to be tactical command of those that were
assigned to me, with operational command remaining with that
parent headquarters, so they could provide them with the
sustenance and the things that they would need that are organic
to the Force. We have had that relationship work superbly in
many other areas where you have this crossover or overlap. It
is now analogous to what we call ``supporting/supported.'' I
would be the supported commander, and the supporting
commander--i.e., the Riverine Force commander, would be
providing assets to me to accomplish the mission.
Chairman Warner. All right. In your answers to the advance
questions, you state your interest in the long-term health
effects of combat operations and tempo, and in the sufficiency
of medical care provided. Operational stress has intensified in
the war on terror, and is manifest in mental health problems
among military members and their families. While resilience
continues to be the hallmark of our military members--in other
words, they bring themselves back to reality, and salute again
and march off--some may need help, and more help than we
envision at this time. What is your assessment of the adequacy
of mental health screening and assistance programs for our
marines today?
General Conway. Mr. Chairman, it's a disturbing trend to
see the number of folks who are increasingly either discharged
or treated for mental issues. Trend lines, again, are slightly
up, compared to what they have been in previous years. I think
it's an area that we have to be prepared to take a look at. I
think that diagnosis is key. We are sustaining both what's
traditionally called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in
people who have seen a great deal at a very young age. We also
are sustaining, actually, physical brain injuries through a lot
of the concussions and the effects of the IEDs. We're just now
learning what the relationship to those two types of injuries
are. We need to pay close attention to it. We need, I think, to
push the medical field to become more expert at the treatment
and the resolution of those problems that our young people
face.
I really think that it's important, at the command level
and at every subordinate level, that people understand that we
will treat the mind just as certainly as we treat a body wound
to get our marines and sailors back into shape. It is no
embarrassment. There should be no stigma associated with the
fact that you're having problems from something you have done
or experienced or seen in a combat zone.
Chairman Warner. That's very encouraging, General, because
it's a part of our medical science that has somehow not
received, in years past, the needed support. I find within our
military today, a recognition that this is just as serious as
that open wound that someone, fortunately, can survive from
with modern medical technology. So, that is encouraging.
The Corps is moving to a new operational concept called
``distributed operations.'' The concept involves changing the
way infantry battalions operate, providing specialized training
for many of the marines in those battalions, and increased
amounts of equipment. How will this new concept affect the
Marine Corps warfighting capability? How will the support
requirements for new equipment affect the Marine Corps budget?
The other question I would have is that, as the Army goes to a
changed configuration away from the division and the regiment
concept of years past, and when the Corps, as we are doing
today, is interoperable with Army units, how will the
modifications in the Army affect your ability, with today's
Corps, to work?
General Conway. I understand, sir. A number of questions
there, sir. Let me see if I can take them on.
First of all, we see distributed operations as a logical
extension of maneuver warfare. What we saw in Operation Iraqi
Freedom is that the accuracy of our fire support systems is
such that there's tremendous combat power held in the hands of
a very few people. That was the case both in Iraq, as well as
in Afghanistan. It is our thinking that we can certainly cover
a huge amount of terrain, with conditions and the situation on
the ground permitting, with smaller units, in distributed
fashion, having access to this kind of firepower. So, it is a
tool in the kitbag of the commander. There will be times, I
suspect, where the situation won't suit that, but,
nevertheless, a battalion, or any size Marine unit really, that
has more equipment, better communications, or more capability
vested in the training of our smaller units, means a better
Marine Corps.
Will it be expensive? Yes, sir. There was a price tag
associated with that, but we think, in the end, again, the
value of what it provides to us, potentially with deploying
even a smaller force to accomplish the same objectives, makes
it appealing.
In terms of how we would conduct that function with the
Army, I don't see a conflict. We see that the Army is moving
more to brigade-size formations, as opposed to, say, the 3rd
Infantry Division (ID) that we fought alongside of in Operation
Iraqi Freedom. We think that's not problematic. If anything,
these individual brigades have as much, or more, combat power
than what we saw in the brigades of the old 3rd ID.
That our units would be able to operate alongside them, or
even integrated with them, in terms of bringing aboard that
additional firepower, meshing the communications, those are
things now that we have taken note of since OIF. Our
communications capability needs to be much better netted than
it was as late as 2003. Those problems are being addressed
actively by Joint Forces Command, by the Joint Staff, and we
think that, when that's all settled, that we will still be able
to mesh very nicely with Army brigades and Marine battalions
operating in a distributed manner.
Chairman Warner. Compare the MEF, which has been a concept
of the Marines now for well over a decade or more--I can't
recall the origin of that--with the Army brigade today, from
the standpoint of the components, the structure, and the
command-and-control.
General Conway. Sir, it's probably more appropriate to
compare the MEF--and its origins were the Marine Amphibious
Force (MAF), going all the way back to Vietnam days--with an
Army corps. Probably the biggest difference rests in two or
three areas. First of all, we bring our own logistics with us.
A MEF has 60 days of inherent or organic sustainability that it
can employ before we ever have to tie into theater-level
resources. So, it is truly an expeditionary capability, a
package, if you will, that can go virtually anywhere and
immediately get into action. The Army buildup and the logistics
and all that type of thing are operated quite differently at
the corps level. That, I think, is one distinction.
Chairman Warner. But a corps is several divisions linked
together. In terms of total numbers, that would be much larger,
I presume, than a MEF.
General Conway. Sir, an Army division is about 20,000. A
corps is somewhere between two and, let's say, five divisions.
Chairman Warner. Right.
General Conway. I think it has the command-and-control
capacity to command that large a force. We had 90,000 in our
MEF when we crossed the line of departure.
Chairman Warner. Did you really?
General Conway. We have the command-and-control to manage
it, as well.
Chairman Warner. Although the structures are different, we
can operate together in the same battlespaces and make it work.
General Conway. Yes, sir, we did.
Two other things I would highlight, sir, to maybe finish
the answer to your question. One, the organic air that the MEF
commander owns is absolutely amazing. It is such a capability,
especially given the open desert terrain, where we fought
Operation Iraqi Freedom, but I would say virtually in any
campaign where you intend to use air. On any given day, I had
accessible to me 300 sorties of fixed-wing and Cobra air that I
could put against any target. That is an amazing capability
when you're fighting the deep fight, trying to soften things up
for your division.
The other difference I think that is compelling in this
global-war concept on terrorism is the number of infantry that
is brought about by a Marine division versus what exists now in
an Army division. We have almost as many boots on the ground,
if you will, in a Marine regiment as you find in an Army
division. I'm not making a negative comparison here. I'm just
saying, where you have to be able to dismount troops and go
accomplish something in a village or even in an entire
province, what the Marine Corps can bring to bear with regard
to those individual troops going about their business is, I
think, significant and, in some ways, remarkable.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, you had a question.
Senator Levin. Just one additional question. There has been
a recent series of articles criticizing strategy and tactics of
our forces in Iraq as sometimes being too heavy-handed and
alienating the civilian population, and perhaps fueling the
insurgency, as a result. You had some real experience. I know
you have done a lot of thinking about that subject, and I
wonder whether you would share both with us.
General Conway. Sir, I think you have to be extremely aware
of a culture when you are going to operate in any foreign
country, and whether it's phase 0 all the way through phase 3
combat operations. The thing that I think that we need to be
extremely conscious of is an individuals' pride. If you look at
an Iraqi, let's say, a farmer who lives in a mud hut, and he
has six children and a wife, he may look as though he is as
poor as any man on the face of the Earth, but I'll guarantee
you, that man has a source of pride in his country, in what
Iraq has meant to world history, and we need to be very
understanding of that, and we need to avoid stepping on it.
Even though the early security forces may have been very low
quality by our standards, we can't appear to, in any way, be
talking down to them if we expect them to step up and do the
job.
I think we have to be very careful with regard to
unintended consequences when we have the accidents that we had,
where large numbers of Iraqis were killed in and around
Fallujah, and families approaching entry control point
checkpoints, those types of things. Any population would have a
long memory for those kinds of things, and, although it may
have been done by a previous unit, you're going to bear the
effects of it. So, I just think that we have to very much train
our troops and understand the culture we're about to deal with,
speak the language as much as we possibly can so we can gather
the subtleties, and then not trample on their pride, or their
sense of civic awareness, as we engage.
Senator Levin. Thank you, General.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin.
The Detainee Treatment Act of 2006 was a product of the
work of this committee--most notably, Senator McCain, Senator
Levin, and the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, and
myself. I think the four of us were very active in this. That
established the Army Field Manual 34-52, as the standard for
interrogation techniques, and also prohibits cruel and inhuman,
degrading treatment of prisoners. It's a landmark piece of
legislation. We're still awaiting--and that's not the question
to you--the promulgation of the most recent Army Field Manual.
I think it's somewhat perplexing that it's taken so long, but,
anyway, that's not the question I put to you, because that's
not in your lane. But how do you, as Commandant, intend to
implement and ensure compliance with the provisions of the law
and the new Army Field Manual once it's promulgated?
General Conway. Sir, we have, in our experiences in Iraq,
been very conscious of how we treat detainees. It gets back to
Senator Levin's question, in terms of how you deal with the
population. If you are going to have detainees--and I suppose
that is a consequence of attempting to root out an insurgency--
I think that you have to go right by the numbers in terms of
how you deal with these people, because what you don't want to
create is an insurgent who didn't have those intentions before.
Marines have routinely attempted to put our proper people,
corrections people, mature staff noncommissioned officers
(NCOs) and officers, in charge of those facilities. We conduct
frequent inspections. We invite any number of people that want
to come and take a look to make sure that we are meeting
standards in those manner of things. There's an internal issue
there, where you want to make sure that interrogators and the
detainee handlers are doing their jobs simultaneously so that
there's a two-man rule there, and that there are no excessive
treatments in either category. Just transparency, sir, with
regard to families coming in. Any visitors that want to come
tend to help those things police themselves. We need to
continue to do that.
Chairman Warner. Will you commit to the committee here that
as you assume your role, if confirmed, that you put in place
some control measures? In other words, no matter how much
training, somebody has to watch to make sure it's being
implemented. Also, do not hesitate to come back to the
committee if you feel that certain aspects of this are
inhibiting the ability of your units to perform their missions
in combat to obtain that very valuable realtime intelligence
which is needed to perform our operations, and perform it with
minimal harm to our own warfighters. I think this is an ongoing
problem, and we don't intend to assign a lawyer to every
platoon to follow through what they're doing and read the
Miranda rights to the enemy and all of those sort of things on
the battlefield. This is a new chapter, but a necessary
chapter--I don't mean to, in any way, belittle it--a new
chapter in military life, in military responsibility and
operations. It's certainly far different than anything that I
ever witnessed in my somewhat modest and limited observation of
those engaged in combat operations, but that's going to be your
task.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. That's what this country stands for. The
image of the country in the eyes of the world is something that
every marine wants to take pride in, because he and his
forebears have contributed to credibility and the effectiveness
of this Nation as a leader in the world in so many ways.
So, we have your assurance on that.
General Conway. Mr. Chairman, you do. You are correct in
your earlier statement that as J-3 operations, detainee
resolution has not been one of my responsibilities, but it
certainly, if confirmed, will become that. I certainly will
need to examine it more closely and determine if it's something
that we can live with. If not, I would be more than willing--in
fact, I would see it necessary to come back before this
committee.
Chairman Warner. Always remember Harry Truman, that little
sign on this desk, ``The buck stops here.''
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. You ought to get one of those and put it
on your desk. He was a great soldier and, I think, a great
President.
General Conway. I agree, sir.
Chairman Warner. You are a Joint Speciality Officer (JSO).
You exemplify that. DOD and the Joint Staff have developed the
Strategic Plan for Joint Officer Management and brought forward
legislative changes to the current system by which an officer
qualifies to become a JSO. This legislation would bring more
flexibility to the process of awarding credit for joint tours
of duty of varying lengths and giving greater discretion to the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to identify, fully, joint-
qualified officers. What is the assessment that you have of the
need for change in this area? Do you think that individual
officers who have served well in joint capacities are getting
the credit and recognition under the present system that they
should receive?
General Conway. Sir, once again, I will be very honest and
say I have not looked at this in detail. I can give you my
impressions, having been in joint billets now a number of
times, and currently in a joint billet, and even having heard
the chairman and his immediate staff talk about it. I do think
that it would be helpful were we to have some greater level of
flexibility offered to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to
award, if you will, recognition for joint service. There are
some billets for which that just seem to make sense, and we
scratch our heads as to why that person, with his day-to-day
contact, would not be awarded a joint job.
I do think that it's a marvelous concept to try to enforce
the fact that jointness occur. Jointness, sir, is a way of
doing business today. There are still some mechanics that have
to be solved, but every officer that's been around the other
Services knows that there's synergy in that. That's the way
that we have to be able to fight and work on a daily basis.
I do think that there's legislation in place to ensure that
the importance of joint duty is recognized. Every time I see a
promotion list, it has associated with it the numbers of joint
officers and their selection rate, in comparison to the service
headquarters selection rate. What I have seen over time now,
and I experienced this as a colonel's monitor years ago, is
that you send your best and brightest to joint duty to make
sure that you don't get your knuckles rapped if your
percentages should come back less than expected.
Chairman Warner. That's a very good response, and if I may
say, with a degree of immodesty, I think we've had a very good
hearing. I hope you share that, my distinguished colleague.
Senator Levin. I do, indeed.
Chairman Warner. We have explored, indepth, a wide range of
issues, and I compliment you on your responses. As Senator
Levin said, we'll get the facts, and nothing but the facts, and
the truthful facts. That, you have provided, and given us also
your views and opinions.
So, we wish you and your family well.
This record will remain open until close of business today,
should other members, who, for various reasons, are unable to
attend the hearing wish to put questions to you.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. As soon as our two chiefs of staff
indicate that the record has been completed, Senator Levin and
I hopefully will bring this nomination to the full committee
for a vote early next week, and then, subsequently, to the
floor for what I believe will be a well-recognized and well-
earned confirmation by the United States Senate.
Anything that you have to close on now?
Senator Levin. Thank you. Thank you, General and family.
General Conway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator
Levin, for the opportunity.
Chairman Warner. Thank you to all in attendance. This
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. James T. Conway,
USMC, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities
and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These
reforms have also vastly improved cooperation between the Services and
the combatant commanders, among other things, in joint training and
education and in the execution of military operations.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. Not as the act specifically applies to the Military
Departments; however, in the broader interagency context there are
changes that could improve U.S. response to world events.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. The complexities of the global war on terror have
demonstrated the need for broader participation and closer coordination
by other Federal departments in order to effectively harness all
elements of national power. Specifically, we need to continue to make
progress in achieving greater efficiencies and effectiveness through
the streamlining of interagency coordination, reducing duplication of
effort across the Departments and accelerating the decisionmaking
cycle.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commandant of the Marine Corps?
Answer. The duties of the Commandant of the Marine Corps are
primarily spelled out in title 10, section 5043, which I won't repeat.
Fundamentally, the duties and responsibilities are to prepare the
Marine Corps to fight and win the Nation's wars. Also, they are to
advise the President, the National Security Council, the Secretary of
Defense, and Secretary of the Navy on military matters. The Commandant
executes these responsibilities as a member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
One of the most important institutional responsibilities borne by
the Commandant is the responsibility to lead our marines. Leadership in
this context means continuously adapting the doctrine by which the
Marine Corps will fight, and ensuring that this doctrine is converted
into the training, tactics, and equipment to be used in executing our
missions across the full spectrum of conflict and in support of
humanitarian and other missions, as the President directs. The job of
the Commandant is to ensure that the marines are ready. My unwritten
responsibility, if confirmed, is to keep Congress, in its
constitutional oversight role, informed of the truth.
Question. What background and experience, including joint duty
assignments, do you possess that you believe qualifies you to perform
these duties?
Answer. I have had the good fortune to serve in key service billets
and joint assignments within the Department of Defense. I have
commanded marines at virtually every level from platoon to Marine
Expeditionary Force and in educating and training marines at every
level. As a general officer, I have served as both the Deputy Director
of Operations J-3 for Combating Terrorism and in my current billet as
the Director for Operations, J-3. Both of these billets along with my
recent responsibilities as a Division and MEF commander in combat have
given me great insight into what combatant commands (COCOMs) require
from the Marine Corps. My current responsibilities have provided me a
unique opportunity to understand the challenges facing all the Service
Chiefs today as they strive to meet their title 10 responsibilities in
support of the combatant commanders.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Commandant of
the Marine Corps?
Answer. No, I believe that with your continued assistance, the
advice of my fellow Joint Chiefs, the continued exceptional performance
of our marines and the strong support of my family, I have the
abilities to perform the duties that will be expected of me, if
confirmed.
major challenges and priorities
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Commandant of the Marine Corps?
Answer. The major challenges confronting the next Commandant of the
Marine Corps center on organizing, training, equipping, and manning
units deploying in support of combatant commanders in the long war and
transforming the force for the future. I believe the following specific
issues will be important for the next Commandant to address:
We are a Nation at war and our highest priority will remain our
focus on the long war. At the same time we will seek to balance these
priorities with our efforts to reset the force so that your marines
remain most ready when the Nation is least ready.
As a former MEF Commander and Director for Operations during
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), I am cognizant of the wear and tear we
have put on our gear. We need to be honest with ourselves and the
taxpayer on what it will take to properly reestablish our readiness. We
must ensure that our material requirements are validated and resourced
in order to ``reset'' the force for both near- and long-term readiness.
This will require rigorous reexamination of basic unit requirements in
view of OIF, and disciplined assessments of material degradation from
several years of employment under arduous climatic conditions and high-
usage rates. I intend to be a very prudent steward of the resources
entrusted to me, as marines have always been, and intend to manage
these resources so that we maximize the capabilities that we make
available to the combatant commanders.
I will be working with my naval partner, the Chief of Naval
Operations, to design and build tomorrow's fleet. My expectation is
that the next 2 decades will place a premium on flexible and mobile
sea-based maneuver. In a world of uncertainty, we should exploit the
global commons and maneuver at sea for advantage ashore.
As we go forward it is critical to continue our improvements to our
training and education in the Marine Corps. We have made changes to our
Professional Military Education that have improved the educational
experience for our finest asset, the individual marine. The challenge
for the way ahead is to adapt and stay ahead of our adversaries through
continual assessment and implementation of our lessons learned from our
current engagements. If confirmed, I will sustain the numerous
initiatives in place to advance the training and education so that our
marines are tactically cunning, culturally savvy, disciplined warriors
who are led by mentally agile commanders.
You have a fantastic Marine Corps and you are rightfully proud of
them. The challenge will be continuing to attract, recruit, sustain,
and retain quality marines. I am especially interested in the long-term
effects of our combat Deployment Tempo (DEPTEMPO) and in the
sufficiency of medical care provided to our marines, particularly those
recovering from injuries received in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)
and OIF. While our attention is naturally drawn to preparing for
operations far away, we must ensure we provide for the families of our
marines while they are away and upon their return.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. I have only just begun to look at these issues in
preparation for the confirmation hearing. While I am most concerned
with readiness, I will continue to seek counsel from Congress, visit my
general officers, the combatant commanders, and work with my sergeant's
major to develop plans to address these issues. If confirmed, I will
set my agenda and disseminate my vision during the initial days of
assuming duties as the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues that must be addressed by the Commandant of the
Marine Corps?
Answer. If confirmed as Commandant of the Marine Corps, my first
priorities will be to make sure marines are well-trained, well-
equipped, and well-led. The underlying foundation is our marines and
their families--to them we owe the best in training, leadership, and
equipment. We will continue to train and educate to sustain a lean and
agile Service ready to fight the global war on terrorism and ready to
adapt to change in future environments. The lynchpin to this continued
readiness for our Nation is a commitment to reconstitution of our force
and an acceptable pace of modernization.
role of the marine corps in the global war on terrorism
Question. The main focus of the United States military has been on
the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Marine Corps has had a major
role in OIF and OEF.
What do you see as the Marine Corps' role in the continuing global
war on terrorism?
Answer. We will continue to be engaged in Iraq so long as it is a
counterinsurgency. The Marine Corps remains committed to balancing an
increase in irregular warfare capabilities with maintaining essential
conventional warfighting capabilities. We believe this is necessary to
identify the right mix of capabilities that support the global war on
terror while maintaining our ability to respond to any contingency. We
have established and are fielding the Marine Special Operations Command
as an integral component of USSOCOM. Additionally, the Marine Corps is
reprioritizing and improving our irregular warfare capabilities to
better support SOCOM and other COCOM plans for the global war on
terror. By accepting and managing risk in traditional capabilities, we
will increase our SOF-like and irregular capabilities and capacities
while still maintaining our ability to respond to major war plans.
Additionally, our forward-deployed posture represents a unique
capability to respond to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief,
assist other countries, and thwart terrorism through non-kinetic
measures. It also supports theater security cooperation enabling us to
build partner capacity to fight terrorism.
Question. What role do you envision for the Marine Corps in
homeland security and homeland defense?
Answer. It is important to emphasize that defense of the homeland
begins not on our shores, but on far shores as part of a collaborative
interagency defense-in-depth. As a Total Force in readiness, this is
and will continue to be the Marine Corps' primary contribution to
homeland defense.
When and if directed by the President or Secretary of Defense, the
Marine Corps uses its Active-Duty and Reserve Forces to rapidly respond
to a threat in the homeland, whether the threat is from nature, such as
a hurricane, or from terrorists. Marine Forces North is our lead
component dealing with homeland defense and as such regularly
participates in homeland defense exercises across the country. These
marines bring the same esprit, hard work, and dedication to mission
accomplishment and that our forward deployed forces bring to the fight
overseas.
Question. If confirmed, do you plan any major changes to Marine
Corps warfighting doctrine?
Answer. Major changes--no, I do not. There will likely be
evolutionary changes associated with lessons learned in the global war
on terror. Our warfighting doctrine is well-crafted and timely. New
realities in the post-September 11 world have given cause to examine
this doctrine and supporting documentation.
marine forces special operations command
Question. Marine Corps Forces, Special Operations Command (MARSOC),
is a new subordinate command to the USSOCOM that was established
earlier this year.
What is your assessment of the progress made in establishing
MARSOC, and what do you consider to be the principal issues that must
be addressed to make it fully operational?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act for jointness and Department of
Defense efforts at transformation have resulted in a Marine component
of MARSOC. As noted, MARSOC was created earlier this year and will
achieve full operational capability in fiscal year 2008. There are
several issues we need to work through such as deployment and
employment relationships, the impact of a tour in MARSOC on a marine's
career pattern, and how the Corps is best able to use their operational
experience when they return from MARSOC to conventional Marine Corps
Forces.
effects of deployments on readiness
Question. What is your assessment of the current state of readiness
of the Marine Corps?
Answer. We have ensured that all deployed forces are at the highest
readiness levels. All units are trained, manned, and equipped to
accomplish their assigned missions. Our marines in harm's way have the
equipment and resources they need to fight and win.
Over 2,100 Marine leaders are filling transition teams, manning
joint headquarters, and providing critical capabilities to forward
deployed units. Despite this, our manpower readiness remains high and
morale remains strong. Overall, the current operations tempo (OPTEMPO)
has not been detrimental to readiness at this point, however this is
something that we will need to continue to examine in order to
determine its impact over the course of the long war.
Training levels are also high, particularly for units deploying to
OIF. One of the great strengths of the Marine Corps has been the
ability to rapidly garner lessons learned overseas and insert changes
into our training plans and exercises. This flexibility has allowed us
to stay at a high level of readiness for training. One area that does
bear a close watch is the lack of training opportunities for our non-
deploying units due to shortages in manpower and equipment. Overall,
our current equipment readiness is good among the units deployed to
Iraq; a testament to the young men and women who are taking care of
their gear in severe conditions. However, I am concerned about long-
term readiness. The long war's harsh environmental conditions, higher
than normal utilization rates, increased wear, and attrition will
require the accelerated repair and replacement of ground and aviation
equipment. In addition, depot maintenance repair requirements for our
equipment will continue past the end of hostilities.
For our non-deployed forces, replacing combat losses, fielding
transition team requirements, and lower supply/maintenance priorities
degrade their readiness.
If confirmed, my priorities will be to reset the force and to
support modernization.
Question. In your judgment, are combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan adversely affecting the readiness or retention of marines
on Active-Duty and in the Reserve component?
Answer. In terms of retention, absolutely not. As evidenced with
our most recent statistics on recruiting and retention, this country's
young people continue to demonstrate a willingness to join the Marine
Corps and serve in the Nation's defense. During past fiscal years, the
Marine Corps has attained its accession goals and anticipates
continuing this achievement for the foreseeable future. That said, if
the current DEPTEMPO remains high, we could see long-term consequences.
If confirmed, I will examine the long-term effect that combat DEPTEMPO
has on a career.
Question. If confirmed, what will be your priorities for
maintaining readiness in the near-term, while modernizing the Corps to
ensure readiness in the out-years?
Answer. Current readiness, particularly for our deployed forces
has, by law, always been the focus of the Marine Corps. Our long-term
readiness however is dependent upon resetting and modernizing the
force; I will seek additional funding to defray the cost of the war
expenses that threaten to eat away at Marine Corps readiness and
modernization planning for the future.
recruiting and retention
Question. What do you consider to be the key to the Marine Corps'
success in recruiting the highest caliber American youth for service
and retaining the best personnel for leadership responsibilities?
Answer. There will always be great American youth who want to
accept the challenge to be a United States marine. In order to operate
and succeed in potentially volatile times, marines must be physically
fit, morally strong, intelligent, and comfortable with high technology.
Recruiting quality youth ultimately translates into high performance,
reduced attrition, increased retention, and improved readiness for the
operating forces.
Recruiting is the lifeblood of our Corps, and it is the foundation
for the Marine Corps to ``Make Marines, Win Battles, and Create Quality
Citizens.'' As such, the Corps recognizes the importance of assigning
the best marines to fulfill this vital role in maintaining its
operating forces. Therefore, the Marine Corps sends Headquarters
Recruiter Screening Teams throughout the force to ensure the most
qualified marines are selected for recruiting duty. The Marine Corps
conducts an annual selection board to select Majors to command
Recruiting Stations to ensure our best officers are assigned to
recruiting duty.
The Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC) serves as the conduit
that provides the Corps with a steady flow of quality enlisted and
officer accessions. During fiscal year 2005, the MCRC succeeded in
achieving its accession mission, ensuring the Marine Corps met its
appropriate end strength. Unique in this process is the command
relationship between the recruitment and initial training of these
young men and women. The commanding general of each recruiting region
is also responsible for the initial recruit training or ``boot camp.''
Therefore, each commanding general is responsible for the recruitment
and initial training has direct influence on the quality of young men
and women arriving at boot camp. Additionally, each recruiter is
evaluated on his applicant's success at boot camp. Quality of
individuals is stressed at all levels throughout the process of
transforming marines. This results in young marines who are committed
to fulfilling a promise to their Nation--that they be ready to fight
and win when she calls.
Question. What steps do you feel should be taken to ensure that
current operational requirements and tempo do not adversely impact the
overall readiness, recruiting and retention, and morale of the Marine
Corps?
Answer. As stated earlier, I am also concerned with the possibility
of long-term effects of combat DEPTEMPO on career progression.
Optimally, we would like to achieve a sustainable deployment ratio,
employ our Reserves as envisioned, and better manage the personnel
tempo of those marines in high demand-low density MOSs. General Hagee
has stated the USMC will require about 180,000 marines. If confirmed, I
will address this challenge. To ensure the Nation retains a viable,
capable Marine Corps and avoid hollowing our force, endstrength changes
require a considerable, concomitant investment--in manpower accounts,
for infrastructure, and equipping the force.
quality of life
Question. What do you consider to be the most essential elements
supporting the quality of military life for marines and their families,
and if confirmed, what would be your goals in this regard?
Answer. Quality of life means ensuring marines are well-trained,
well-equipped, and well-led, so when we ask them to fight, they can
win--and return home to their families. If I am confirmed, this will be
my number one priority.
Individually, marines define quality of life as sufficient
financial compensation, a reasonable OPTEMPO, health care, housing,
infrastructure/installation management, and community services. This
means that while our marines are deployed, we will take care of their
families as if they are our own. When our marines return to their home
stations, we will do our best to ensure that their needs are met, and
the wide range of community services that we provide are well-tailored
to support the requirements of the marines and their families.
Question. Have you recently visited the regimental level enclaves
at Camp Pendleton?
Answer. Not since I was the commanding general of 1st Marine
Division in 2002.
Question. Does the single unaccompanied Marine Corps housing there
meet your standards for an appropriate quality of life?
Answer. Absolutely not. Our marines expect better; they deserve
better. Historically, in providing for our marine families, we were
forced into a situation that we could not concurrently provide for our
single marines. As division commander, I visited all of those
regimental camps and I found that single, unaccompanied Marine Corps
housing at Camp Pendleton did not meet my standards for an appropriate
quality of life. The Marine Corps is currently committed to resolve all
remaining bachelor housing deficiencies by fiscal year 2012, under a
program initiated by the Commandant. If confirmed, I intend to carry
out General Hagee's commitment.
recapitalization
Question. The Marine Corps intends to concurrently recapitalize
several of its front line systems. The MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft,
the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and the Joint Strike Fighter are
all scheduled to be in production at the same time.
Do you believe that these production plans are realistic in light
of the demands on resources imposed by maintaining current readiness?
Answer. We have no other choice. The dual requirements of
modernizing the force for the long war while sustaining combat
operations in support of the global war on terror does strain the
limited resources available to the Marine Corps. We could not
accomplish both these tasks without the responsive effort of Congress.
The Corps has been very careful to ensure that we have clearly
identified our requirements and that we field only those capabilities
necessary for our Nation's defense. Through the efforts of marines,
industry, and Congress, we have an achievable long-term plan to provide
better trained and equipped marines for the long war.
army and marine corps capabilities
Question. What are your views regarding the joint development and
acquisition of Army and Marine Corps equipment?
Answer. I fully support the joint development and acquisition of
Army and Marine Corps equipment. Our two Services share a great deal in
common with regard to tactics, and the operational environment.
Further, insofar as the global war on terrorism is concerned, we fight
the same enemy side-by-side, on the same ground. We often find that we
share common requirements. When that occurs, joint development and
acquisition are clearly warranted; it reduces costs and ensures
compatibility. I would add a cautionary note, however: under some
circumstances there are differences in roles and missions that drive
differences in requirements. These provide the Nation with the broad
spectrum of capabilities it requires.
Question. Do you believe the Joint Staff should have a role in
synchronizing Army and Marine Corps requirements and service programs?
Answer. Both Joint Forces Command and the Joint Staff are in a
position to assist the Army and Marine Corps in identifying
opportunities to exploit commonality in our requirements, and to
facilitate cooperative development of systems. Joint Staff oversight of
requirements definition maximizes the interoperability that is critical
to battlefield success, and ensures requirements for those Service
unique capabilities are met.
Question. What programs would you consider to be candidates for
joint program development for the Army and Marine Corps?
Answer. Where the Army and Marine Corps find commonality in
missions, tactics, and operational environments, there will be
opportunities for joint program development. The global war on
terrorism provides many examples. Army and Marine Corps forces in Iraq
and Afghanistan face the same threat, under the same conditions, and
are accomplishing the same mission. Accordingly, the two Services
require similar mobility capabilities. As we seek a replacement for the
aging fleet of High Mobility, Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles, the Army
and Marine Corps should pursue a common replacement, such as the Joint
Light Tactical Vehicle. Similarly, because the Army and Marine Corps
have the same requirements in force protection, comprehensive vehicle
survivability measures are sound candidates for joint development.
Other areas include command and control systems, some infantry weapons,
and artillery systems. Our goal is to continue to achieve the same
resounding success the Army and Marine Corps realized with the joint
development of the 155mm howitzer.
sea basing
Question. The Sea Base has long been envisioned as an element of
the Department of the Navy's Sea Power 21 concept and has emerged in
this future years defense program as one of the centerpieces of the
future force.
If confirmed, how will you ensure that the Sea Base concept of
operations is fully integrated with the Marine Corps operational
requirements?
Answer. The Marine Corps uses a concept based requirements system,
in which our baseline requirements are derived from a family of
warfighting concepts. We have adopted the Joint Seabasing Concept as
one of our own, and it appears within our most recently published
volume of Service concepts. At our Marine Corps Combat Development
Command, we have established a Seabasing Integration Division that is
organized and manned specifically for the purpose of ensuring that the
actions we take to implement the tenets of the Joint Seabasing Concept
are fully integrated with our other requirements. We vet each
requirement for its applicability to seabasing to ensure that our
equipment and our organizational structure are designed to facilitate
seabased operations.
Question. What are the Marine Corps' greatest challenges in
projecting power from the Sea Base in support of operations ashore?
Answer. Our single greatest challenge is the availability of
sufficient amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships to enable the
strategic deployment and operational employment of a credible and
sustainable seabased force. We work closely with our Navy counterparts
to address the design and resourcing of these ships, which provide our
Nation with proven capabilities in forward presence and forcible entry.
joint forces command
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate role for the U.S.
Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) with respect to Marine Corps
experimentation, acquisition, and exercise planning and execution?
Answer. The greatest impact that the USJFCOM can have is through
its influence on joint standards and harmonization. With respect to
acquisition programs, while we do not want to sacrifice what are truly
unique contributions to national security in the name of jointness, it
is important that we rigorously consider alternatives. USJFCOM can
serve as a catalyst for this consideration through its experimentation
efforts. It is appropriate for USJFCOM to work in partnership with the
regional combatant commanders to coordinate and synchronize of
worldwide joint exercises, provide joint training models and scenarios,
and establish joint training tasks, conditions, and standards.
naval surface fire support
Question. The DD(X) program was initiated to fill the capability
gap for naval surface fire support. The original requirement for 24 to
32 DD(X) ships, each with two 155mm Advanced Gun Systems, was reduced
to 12 ships, and then to 10 ships in prior years and has been further
reduced to 7 ships in the proposed fiscal year 2007 budget.
In your view, does this significant reduction in the number of
DD(X) destroyers meet the Marine Corps' requirement for Naval Surface
Fire Support?
Answer. Our operational lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan
emphasizes the value of volume and precision fires. We have 230 years
of naval interest in this area and know that the transformational
technology the Navy is developing will make NSFS relevant and vital to
our concepts for conducting Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare in the
future.
Given the current fiscal environment, there is additional risk due
to the reduction in planned DD(X)s procurement; this results in some
unaddressed targets and increased time to accomplish the mission during
a forcible entry scenario.
joint acquisition programs
Question. What are your views regarding joint acquisition programs,
such as the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) and the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF)?
Answer. The Marine Corps fully supports more joint development
where common capability gaps exist. The end result of a joint program
office is to achieve commonality and affordability. Services
participating in joint programs leverage off each others strengths to
ensure that the program delivers an affordable solution to a joint
requirement.
The JSF program is an excellent example of a joint program
fulfilling the joint common solution. With the USAF and the USN, the
JSF program is based on delivering three variants of aircraft that will
still allow each Service to fill its particular mission set, but
strives to maintain affordability of the program with commonality. The
JSF Program Office maintains personnel from all Services and also
includes an additional eight countries who are interested in procuring
the JSF, allowing each Service to work on common solutions yet still
meet their specific mission requirements for the aircraft.
Another example of a successful joint program office is the V-22.
Additionally, the Marine Corps is partnering with the Air Force on the
C-130J.
JTRS may be a classic example of a single program that is
challenged by both technology and the attempt to provide all of the
capabilities desired by all Services. In this case, both requirements
and technology need to be properly synchronized.
Question. Do you see utility in encouraging the Services to conduct
more joint development, especially in the area of helicopters and
unmanned systems?
Answer. Yes, there is utility and cost savings inherent in the
joint development. In the area of unmanned aircraft system development
opportunity exists to jointly develop common capability sets. Service
specific requirements most often require unique attributes of the air
vehicle: speed, range, stealth characteristics, payload capacity,
launch and recovery method, etc. but command and control methods and
payload capabilities are often ``commodity capabilities'' that lend to
joint development.
For helicopters, there is utility in collaboration on aircraft
subsystems, aircrew safety/survivability, aircraft safety/
survivability, avionics for situational awareness and communication
devices. We must continue this process for the long-term and explore a
joint follow-on aircraft development. However, the unique nature of
ship-board operations is a prevailing characteristic that marines must
address and operationalize in our procurement processes.
Question. If so, what enforcement mechanisms would you recommend to
implement more joint program acquisition?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to study the specifics of
joint program acquisition in enough detail to provide an acceptable
answer to the committee.
service in iraq
Question. During your prior combat tours of duty in Iraq, were
there any incidents within your command of detainee abuse or
allegations of abuse of civilians like those at Haditha and Hamandiya?
If so, please explain the circumstances and the describe the actions
that you took in response to these incidents?
Answer. My prior tours in Iraq presented, in some ways, a uniquely
different set of circumstances. OIF Part I was the more traditional
combat mission. So the interface and interaction with the civilians was
fundamentally different than that found in Iraq today. However, there
was the expectation then, as there is today, that marines will comply
with our core values and that we protect those on the battlefield that
we should protect and that we will not harm those that come under our
control.
We did have some substantiated cases of detainee abuse, but there
were very few of those. There were cases that included actions such as
assault (the assault in one case was severe enough that the detainee
subsequently died), destruction of property, and mistreatment of
detainees. The marines involved were held accountable at a variety of
different disciplinary forums--some were court-martialed and others
received non-judicial punishment. In sum, if a marine went beyond the
bounds of acceptable behavior they were held accountable.
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, sir.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes, sir.
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 Commandant of the Marine
Corps?
Answer. Yes, sir.
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, sir.
______
[Question for the record with answer supplied follows:]
Question Submitted by Senator John Thune
changes to the marine corps
1. Senator Thune. General Conway, as Commandant of the Marine
Corps, you would obviously have enormous responsibility in attending to
the organization and readiness of the Marine Corps and for advising the
President. Given your reputation as an officer who is consistently
objective, honest, and dedicated to the success of the mission, in
conjunction with your extensive combat experience, what are some
changes, if any, that you would propose the Marine Corps make?
General Conway. There are many issues that I am studying as I
prepare to assume the duties and responsibilities of Commandant of the
Marine Corps. My goal will be to provide our Nation that which she has
come to expect for the past 230 years: marines, trained, educated,
equipped; ready and determined to prevail over whatever challenges lay
ahead all the while being prudent stewards of the country's resources.
Any changes will be designed to hone the unique air-ground-
logistics capabilities inherent in all Marine air-ground task forces
(MAGTFs). The ability of your marines to operate and win in complex
environments depends on their ability to expertly coalesce all the
combat power of an air-ground logistics force. The unique ability of
marines to operate as a MAGTF provides our Nation with capabilities
much greater than the sum of its parts--true in all sizes of the MAGTF
from Marine Expeditionary Unit to Marine Expeditionary Force and
equally true throughout the spectrum of warfare from humanitarian
assistance to major combat operations. This unique ability will
continue to be forged through intense training throughout our Marines'
military service, from boot camp to battlefield, and at every level,
from squad-level drills to MATGF staff planning.
Furthermore, with the additive advantages of the right technologies
and equipment, our core competencies of warfighting excellence will
continue to provide certainty in execution whenever our country calls.
Of course, continued improvement in training, equipping, and
organization would be negligible if the force we have today is not
properly and rapidly reconstituted and reset. Providing America a
credible force--fully manned and equipped--is imperative. My plans will
focus on ensuring that our Nation will continue to have a Corps of
Marines, trained, manned, and equipped-ready to answer her call.
I look forward to discussing these issues and solutions to these
challenges with you in the future. I am confident that with your
support, our Marine Corps will remain our Nation's force in readiness.
______
[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. James T. Conway,
USMC, follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 14, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment as Commandant of the
Marine Corps, and appointment to the grade indicated while assigned to
a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, United
States Code, sections 5043 and 601:
To be General
Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, USMC, 2270.
______
[The biographical sketch of Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, USMC,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Resume of Service Career of Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, USMC
Date of Rank: 2 Dec. 2002.
Date of Birth: 26 Dec. 1947.
Date Commissioned: 1 Nov. 1970.
MRD: 1 Jul. 2009.
Education/Qualifications:
Southeast Missouri State University, BS, 1969.
The Basic School, 1971.
Marine Corps Command and Staff College, 1983.
Air War College, 1989.
CAPSTONE, 1998.
Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course, 1998.
Infantry Officer.
Joint Specialty Officer.
Language(s): None.
Commands:
Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force (Lieutenant
General: Nov. 2002-Sept. 2004).
Deputy Commander, U.S Marine Forces Central Command (Major General:
Aug. 2002-Nov. 2002).
Commanding General, 1st Marine Division (Major General: Aug. 2000-
July 2002).
President, Marine Corps University (Brigadier General: Oct. 1998-
July 2000).
Commanding Officer, The Basic School (Colonel: Apr. 1993-June
1996).
Commanding Officer, 3d Battalion, 2d Marines, 2d Marine Division
(Lieutenant Colonel: Jan. 1990-July 1991).
Joint Assignments:
Deputy Director, J-3 (NMCC-3; J-34), Joint Staff (Brigadier
General: June 1996-Sept. 1998).
Senior Aide to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Lieutenant
Colonel: Sept. 1985-0ct. 1987).
Service Staff Assignments:
Head, Promotions Branch; Head, Officer Assignments Branch
(Lieutenant Colonel/Colonel: July 1991-Apr. 1993).
Operations Officer, G-3, 2d Marine Division (Lieutenant Colonel:
May 1989-Jan. 1990).
Head, Current Operations Branch, Plans, PP&O Department (Lieutenant
Colonel: Oct. 1987-June 1988).
Significant Combat Experience:
Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force (Operation Iraqi
Freedom I).
Commanding Officer, 3d Battalion, 2d Marines (Operations Desert
Shield/Storm).
Operations Officer, 31st Marine Amphibious Unit (Beirut).
______
[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
T. Conway, 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 T. Conway.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
3. Date of nomination:
June 9, 2006.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
December 26, 1947; Walnut Ridge, Arkansas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Annette Louise Drury Conway.
7. Names and ages of children:
Brandon, age 34; Scott, age 32; and Samantha, age 28.
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.
Sigma Phi Epsilon SE Missouri State University; President.
Inter Fraternity Council SE Missouri State University; President.
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.
Scholarship; Southeast Missouri State University.
Seminar XXI, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Harvard Executive Leadership Series, 1999.
Southeast Missouri State University Alumni of the Year, 2004.
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.
Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, USMC.
This 6th day of June, 2006.
[The nomination of Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, USMC, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Warner on August 1, 2006,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on August 2, 2006.]
NOMINATIONS OF GEN BANTZ J. CRADDOCK, USA, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO BE
GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND; VADM JAMES G.
STAVRIDIS, USN, FOR APPOINTMENT TO BE ADMIRAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S.
SOUTHERN COMMAND; NELSON M. FORD TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER; AND RONALD J. JAMES TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe,
Talent, Cornyn, Levin, and Reed.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: William M. Caniano,
professional staff member; Regina A. Dubey, professional staff
member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff member; Sandra E.
Luff, professional staff member; Derek J. Maurer, professional
staff member; Elaine A. McCusker, professional staff member;
David M. Morriss, counsel; Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff
member; Sean G. Stackley, professional staff member; Scott W.
Stucky, general counsel; Kristine L. Svinicki, professional
staff member; Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member; and
Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff
member; Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff member; Gerald J.
Leeling, minority counsel; Peter K. Levine, minority counsel;
and Michael J. McCord, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: David G. Collins and Jessica L.
Kingston.
Committee members' assistants present: Russell J.
Thomasson, assistant to Senator Cornyn; Bob Taylor and Stuart
C. Mallory, assistants to Senator Thune; Mieke Y. Eoyang,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to
Senator Lieberman; 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, everyone.
We're pleased that we have four distinguished nominees
before the committee this morning.
On our first panel, we have General John Craddock, United
States Army, who has been nominated to be Commander, United
States European Command (EUCOM), and Vice Admiral James
Stavridis, U.S. Navy, who has been nominated to be Commander,
United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM).
On our second panel, we'll consider two civilian
nominations: Nelson Ford, who has been nominated to be
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and
Comptroller, and Ronald James, who has been nominated to be the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs.
We welcome our nominees, and we welcome their families.
I now ask General Craddock and Admiral Stavridis to
introduce their guests. But, first, Senator Levin, do you have
comments before we continue?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Let me ask that my full statement be
inserted into the record and I will simply join you in
welcoming our four well-qualified nominees. We welcome their
families. I join you in saying, as we always do, how indebted
we are to the families of our nominees, because they, indeed,
sacrifice a great deal to make it possible for the nominees to
perform their duties. We appreciate their willingness, as well
as our nominees' willingness, to continue in public service and
to support that service.
Chairman Warner. I very much associate myself with that. I
usually wait until after they're introduced, and then I'm able
to speak to them, but we'll go right ahead.
General, won't you introduce your family?
General Craddock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first
like to introduce my wife, Linda, who is the best soldier in
the Craddock family, by far. She and I have soldiered on
several great adventures over the last 35 years in support of
the Army and in support of our Nation's Armed Forces. She takes
care of soldiers and families, and now, in the joint world, our
servicemembers and their families, and does it magnificently.
So, I'm glad she's here with us today.
Also, I'd like to introduce a dear friend and neighbor from
Coral Gables, Ana Navarro. We have established a wonderful
friendship since my assignment down to U.S. SOUTHCOM in the
Miami area, and I'm certainly glad--and Linda's glad--that
she's here with us today.
I have two members, here on the front row, from the
SOUTHCOM legislative affairs staff that probably are no
stranger to most folks here, Kim Lowry and Paula Penson. I
think they have done a magnificent job preparing us for today's
event.
So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Admiral Stavridis?
Admiral Stavridis. Thank you very much, Senator Warner.
I have my own small delegation here today. Senior member,
my mom, Shirley Stavridis. She was the wife of my dad, a
retired Marine colonel, who's passed away, but I hope is with
us in spirit today. Also, my wife, Laura, who's been with me
throughout my entire Navy career, and been the keeper of the
home fires on the 12 operational deployments I've made in 30
years in the Navy. I'm very proud of her, and I'm proud she
could be here with us today. Also, my two daughters, Christina,
who's a senior at the University of Virginia, where they call
them ``fourth-years.'' She's going to graduate, and hopes to
come up and work here in Washington somewhere when she finishes
in school. So, we're all trying to talk her out of that, but
she'll probably end up coming anyway. My other daughter, Julia,
who's 15, and she's a sophomore at Bishop O'Connell High
School, in Arlington, Virginia. We have two good friends here,
Greg and Diane Lengyel. Greg's an Air Force colonel and is
doing a fellowship over at Brookings, and thought he might come
over here and see what a Senate hearing looks like. Lastly,
Lieutenant Colonel Skip Sherrell, from the Joint Staff, who has
been very helpful this week in enabling me to come and pay some
calls on all the distinguished Senators.
Thank you very much, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Admiral.
I welcome all the families. As my colleague Senator Levin
said, we recognize that we don't get to these seats, with these
ranks, unless there's been a strong and full partnership with
the family members throughout those long careers. Both of these
gentlemen have been recognized by the President of the United
States for their extraordinary professional capabilities. In
these two men, subject to the confirmation by the Senate, the
President and the Nation reposes a very heavy responsibility,
not only as it relates to the men and women in uniform under
their command, and the many civilians that are also associated,
but entrusted them to keep the freedom that we enjoy here at
home, and the credibility of the United States in the eyes of
the world beyond our shores.
I particularly enjoyed visiting with your mother. I
reminisced about how cold it was in Korea, and she
corroborated. Your father, her husband, had the same problem I
had when we got back home. Thank you for that. That's very
reassuring.
General Craddock, you currently serve as Commander of the
U.S. SOUTHCOM, a position you have held since November 2004.
You are an armor officer, by specialty; quite the distinguished
career, with various operational assignments and units in the
3rd Armored Division, the 24th Infantry Division, was battalion
commander during Operation Desert Storm, awarded the Silver
Star, and the ``Big Red One,'' the 1st Infantry Division, which
you commanded from 2000 to 2002. You served previously on the
Joint Staff as the Assistant Deputy Director of Strategy and
Policy and as Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense. That's a very distinguished career.
Admiral, you currently serve as the Senior Military
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense. You, too, have had an
exceptional and distinguished military career: commanding
officer of the U.S.S. Barry, the second in that class of ships,
the DDG-52s, from 1993 to 1995; subsequently commanded
Destroyer Squadron 21, and on it goes with a number of ships.
But we also talked a great deal about mutual friends that you
have in the Navy, and particularly Admiral Mack, who is
Superintendent of the Naval Academy, and what a profound
influence he had on you.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. The committee has asked our nominees to
answer a series of advanced policy questions. They've responded
to those questions. Without objection, I will make the
questions a part of the record.
I also have certain standard questions we ask of each
nominee who appears before the committee, and I'll now propound
those questions and ask if you will respond accordingly.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
General Craddock. No, sir.
Admiral Stavridis. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record in hearings?
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
reprisal for their testimony in the briefings?
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify, upon request, before this committee?
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views,
if asked by this committee to do so, even if those views differ
or are inconsistent with the administration then in office?
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communications, in a
timely manner, when requested by a duly constituted committee
of Congress, or to consult with the committee regarding the
basis for any good-faith delay or denial in providing such
documents?
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I'd like now to ask if either of the
nominees has a statement.
STATEMENT OF GEN BANTZ J. CRADDOCK, USA, NOMINEE FOR
REAPPOINTMENT TO BE GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S. EUROPEAN
COMMAND
General Craddock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a
short opening statement, if I may.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and
distinguished members of the committee, it is, indeed, a
privilege to appear here before you today as the nominee for
the positions of command of the United States European Command
and as the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.
I am, indeed, honored and humbled by the nomination from
the Secretary of Defense and from the President, to take
command of these historic and, I believe, relevant and
important commands.
I'd like to note that I began my military career in Europe,
arriving, my first assignment to Germany, in 1972. Since that
time, Linda and I have spent some 14 years in Germany over five
different tours, where we have seen, upclose and personal, the
transformation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
from a focus on collective defense to one of collective
security. We've experienced the dramatic drawdown of the United
States forces in the EUCOM, a transformation, I believe,
essential to fit the conditions of the changed security
environment today.
I believe the challenges are many, and I believe the
opportunities are great. I must say, I am, indeed, fortunate to
be sitting here today with a good friend, my partner. We shared
a cubicle in the Pentagon in the J-5 office in 1996. We worked
together there as action officers, and we have stayed friends
since. He is a superb naval officer, and I know he will serve
with distinction.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. I think that's a nice personal
touch.
Admiral?
STATEMENT OF VADM JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, USN, NOMINEE FOR
APPOINTMENT TO BE ADMIRAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S. SOUTHERN
COMMAND
Admiral Stavridis. Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and
distinguished members of the committee, let me echo John
Craddock's words and simply say it's an honor and it's a
privilege to be asked to appear here today and to be considered
for a position at U.S. SOUTHCOM.
I do want to thank the committee for taking the time to do
this hearing. I know you have immense pressing responsibilities
at this particular time, and I appreciate that very much.
If confirmed, I just, as an overview, want to assure you
that this job will receive my full energy and attention every
moment that I bring to work.
I'd like to also say thank you to John Craddock for those
nice words. It's been a long hike. If you had told the two of
us, in 1995, back in the Pentagon, that we'd be appearing here,
I think we both would have laughed uproariously, and headed out
for a beer somewhere. John, it's good to be here with you
today.
Thank you very much. Thanks, Jim.
Chairman Warner. I'd like to invite my colleagues--Senator
McCain, do you have a word or two?
Senator McCain. No, sir. I appreciate the very outstanding
service that both of these fine officers have performed in
behalf of our Nation. I do note that both of them have served
as the Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense. I
wonder if that's the pathway to success these days in
Washington.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. I have no statements, Mr. Chairman, other
than I'm looking forward to getting these two fine gentlemen
confirmed.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Cornyn?
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
opportunity. I'll defer until it comes time to ask a few
questions.
But thank you both for being here. Congratulations to you
and your families.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
General Craddock, I'd like to start with Afghanistan, your
perspectives. Preceding you in this office was General Jones,
who is well known to this committee, who has a level of respect
that--among all members, on both sides of the aisle--has done a
remarkable job in his capacity. I recall, in my visits, and I'm
sure colleagues had similar visits, because whenever, as a
rule, Members of the Senate, I know--perhaps the House, also--
who were traveling in Europe, he'd often make himself
available, travel sometimes considerable distance to visit with
the congressional delegations and to give his perspective on
the whole area of responsibility (AOR) in which he served. I
recall his early thoughts about getting NATO involved in
Afghanistan after the U.S. had done the initial basic
operations over there, with the assistance of some others. Now,
that situation has not gone as the world had expected--most
particularly, this country and those allies who have been with
us. But NATO has stepped in with a measure of courage, putting
to the side, in many instances, the national caveats that are
of great concern to NATO commanders. I think, again, General
Jones did a great deal to lessen the national caveat problem.
Those troops are performing bravely and courageously, and have
experienced considerable loss of life and limb. Let's have your
perspective on what you would hope to do, building, I hope, on
General Jones's work, thus far.
General Craddock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just would like to, first, echo and amplify with you
also, the great respect and admiration that I have for General
Jim Jones. I know that is shared across the Armed Forces. He
has done a remarkable job. There has been a reawakening of NATO
in many different perspectives--and, I think, in Afghanistan.
I have talked a bit with General Jones about Afghanistan,
obviously have seen some reports and read of what's happening.
I think that, as General Jones had characterized it, the
assumption of the International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF) mission in the north and spreading to the west,
proceeded about on plan. Upon assumption of that mission in the
southern part of the country, I think that there was probably
an underestimation of the insurgent forces there. That is a
known area for the large cultivation of the poppies. The opium
comes out of there--the trafficking, if you will. I think that
the movement of NATO forces have encroached into areas that had
been, for a long time, safe havens or operating areas for these
forces, these forces of instability and insecurity. Now they
are being challenged, and that's led to the conflict that we've
seen here recently.
In watching this and having been there a few times, I agree
with General Jones' assessment. This is not a military problem.
It is, to the extent the military will have to set the
conditions for development, for the reconstruction. That it is
essential to, one, offer alternatives to the farmers who grow
the poppies, that are into the heroin trafficking, and also,
then, to provide services, infrastructure, job opportunities to
the people of Afghanistan, beyond the cities. It has to happen
and occur in an organized, structured manner out in the
countryside. The people have to believe, at the end of the day,
that governance is a good thing, and that their government is
making their lives better today, and will continue to do so
tomorrow. So, I think that that is a good program. I think that
General Jones is leading that.
I think that in the future there will have to be much work
done with the NATO members who are contributing to the ISAF to
ensure that they remain steadfast in their commitment, that
they understand that there will be challenges to the security
and the stability. But the fact is that that is the first
priority mission for NATO today. I think it will continue to
be. It is very important that we support that, to the extent
that we can, and we keep the countries together in a strong
alliance.
Chairman Warner. The question of whether or not additional
forces are needed--there's been some requests from the field
commanders--I hope that you will give due attention to those
requests and as soon as you've had a chance, subject to
confirmation, to, as they say in the military, snap in. I hope
that you address that problem early on.
General Craddock. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, there
is a force capability requirement, and that is the level to
which the force needs to be resourced. Again, presuming
confirmation, I would look at that, posthaste.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
On the subject of Iran--you have followed that, I'm
certain--we awakened this morning with the activities at the
United Nations, and--I won't go into the details because all of
us know what the situation is. France has, as of this morning,
made an unusual move, which I think is somewhat different than
what the initial thoughts were as to how we were going to deal
with this problem of Iran's apparent desire to go forward with
programs which could enable them to someday build, construct,
and perhaps even have a delivery system for fissionable nuclear
weapons.
I just would like, generally, to bring to your attention
the history of the Cold War, which I'm sure you've studied,
which this committee--as a member now for 28 years, we went
through that, and how the containment and the deterrence
between NATO and the Soviet Union worked. It could well be that
if diplomacy fails, that NATO could once again begin to perform
a role of deterrence, because Iran is a threat to the whole
world, and particularly Europe and the Middle East. Just tuck
that away in your memory bank, because that worked, and it
worked successfully, the deterrents for the Soviet Union, and
we may have to formulate how NATO--because I think, should we
have any military involvement--and I'm not suggesting in any
way that, at this time, it will be done, but it should be
multinational, and a framework of NATO, it seems to me would be
a good place to start.
General Craddock. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Admiral, we discussed, in my office
yesterday, a matter that's always been of great interest to me,
and that's the Panama Canal. Apparently, at this point in time,
Panama, understandably--a sovereign nation, looking at a series
of very significant upgrades to that canal, and it's going to
cost several billion dollars. Where will they go for the
funding? What nations will come in? That all points to perhaps
bringing in the influence of other nations in that key region
of the world, and that lifeline which is so important, not only
to economic trade, but to the transfer of military vessels,
notably our vessels. Would you give us a comment or two of your
views on that?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir. Certainly, the canal is a
vital resource for the United States. Sixty-five percent of the
vessels that pass through it are bound for U.S. ports. It's our
means to swing ships between the Atlantic and Pacific fleets.
It's of immense importance to this country.
The Panamanians are seeking, as I understand it, sir, to
recapitalize a project, $3 to $4 billion. President Torrijos is
going to the Panamanian public in a referendum to seek approval
for this process. It is unclear, at this time, exactly where
the funding would come from. Probably, part of it would be from
internal taxed resources within the Republic of Panama. Part of
it would be from outside investors.
Chairman Warner. That's what concerns me, who those
investors might be.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Particularly the extent to which China
might see this as an opportunity to begin to have greater
influence in this hemisphere.
Admiral Stavridis. I think it's an issue that we should
continue to follow, as we are following, in general, Chinese
economic and military-to-military contacts throughout the
region. Senator, if I'm confirmed, I'll continue to look very
hard at that.
Chairman Warner. I hope this country might think of being a
partner--an active partner--to help--respecting the sovereignty
of that country, but, at the same time, recognizing the key
strategic importance of that canal to our operations.
Finally, Venezuela--again, the current leader of that
country is trying to utilize his influence not only throughout
littoral nations that provide for Central America, but, indeed,
throughout the world. Much of his rhetoric and actions is
antithetical to the interests of our Nation, and just basic
principles of freedom and fundamental democracy. What do you
hope to achieve there?
Admiral Stavridis. Senator, I agree. I would start by
simply saying that historically, as a country, the United
States has enjoyed very good relations with Venezuela.
Unfortunately, the current government has taken many anti-U.S.
positions in various international fora. There is very harsh
rhetoric from the leader of the current Venezuelan Government,
and ties to countries like Cuba, Syria, Iran, and Belarus, that
are disturbing. It seems as though the current Venezuelan
leadership is attempting to create a kind of a block of
countries in Latin America which could then be influenced to
take anti-U.S. positions.
The Venezuelans are also in the midst of large arms
increases. They've just purchased 100,000 AK-103 rifles from
the----
Chairman Warner. I think the total bill was several billion
dollars worth of acquisition.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir. It's been, again, disturbing.
It's not just rifles, it's jet aircraft and helicopters, big
programs. They have a lot of oil money. It's a concern in the
region, and we need to watch carefully.
Chairman Warner. Those military sales are being acquired
primarily from Russia?
Admiral Stavridis. That's correct, sir. I would conclude by
saying we still have some military-to-military contact with the
Venezuelans. To the degree we can influence them to move in a
positive direction, we should do that. But, at the moment,
Venezuela's actions, as articulated by their government, have
to be of concern in the region. If confirmed, it would be an
area I would focus on, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
General, in your written answers to pre-hearing questions
relative to Afghanistan, you said that, ``If NATO's political
or military will is lost in the Afghanistan ISAF mission, the
future of NATO out-of-area operations, and, thus, the NATO
response-force concept, will be severely jeopardized.'' You
discussed with the chairman the call of General Jones for an
additional 2,000 to 2,500 troops and transport helicopters to
bolster the NATO effort in southern Afghanistan, but, so far,
the only substantial troop offer has come from Poland.
Do you believe, from what you know, that other NATO members
are going to provide the additional troops that General Jones
has called for?
General Craddock. Senator, in discussions yesterday, in
talking with General Jones, there are indications, now, other
nations will be stepping forward.
Senator Levin. I hope so. Do you believe that other changes
are going to be needed to support the NATO mission in
Afghanistan? For example, would you advocate transferring
responsibility for operations and intelligence relative to
Afghanistan to the European Command from the Central Command
(CENTCOM)?
General Craddock. I don't, at this time, have the finite
level of detail to be able to determine, right now, whether or
not, upon the assumption of stage 4 transfer of authority to
NATO for the entire country ISAF operation, exactly how much or
what kind of intelligence transfers are needed. I believe that
in the future there will be a definite need for increased
communications and intelligence and information transfers
between U.S. forces in Afghanistan and NATO. The extent of that
and how the modalities of that will come together, I don't know
at this time.
Senator Levin. Our staff heard from U.S. military and
civilian officials in Afghanistan last month that there are
insufficient funds for the quick-turnaround, small-scale
projects that are critical to recruiting the population away
from the Taliban. There are also reports that the State
Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development
requested about $600 million in fiscal year 2006 supplemental
for Afghanistan, but that the White House approved only $43
million. It's hard to tell how much of the Commanders'
Emergency Response Program (CERP) funds are being used by the
commander in Afghanistan for the Provincial Reconstruction
Teams (PRTs), but, by all accounts, in Afghanistan, the need
outstrips the funds that are available. Will you report back to
the committee on what amount of CENTCOM's CERP funds are being
spent on small reconstruction and development projects, such as
the ones being funded by the PRTs? Will you report back to us
your own professional opinion, as we would expect you to do on
all matters, as to what the needs are in that area?
General Craddock. Yes, Senator, I will.
Senator Levin. Admiral, in June 2006, President Bush
declared that he would ``like to close Guantanamo.'' Under what
circumstances, if any, would you recommend that the facilities
at Guantanamo be closed?
Admiral Stavridis. Senator, I would start by saying that
today I see a need for Guantanamo. We have a brutal enemy who
seeks to do us harm, and it seems to me we need a place to
legally, transparently incarcerate individuals--detain them, I
should say. We have had as many as 770 or so in Guantanamo.
We've been gradually reducing that number down to about 450. I
think it would be a very good thing if we continued to reduce
the number of people there. As the numbers go down, if we
continue to get the other countries to take their own nationals
back, one could see, eventually, an instance in which we would
no longer have a need for Guantanamo. I think that's the
genesis of the President's remarks. So, it's really a matter of
winning in this war on terror, and also convincing our allies
and partners to take back the people who are there.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that that's going to happen in
the immediate future, but it would certainly be everybody's
hope--my own included, if I were confirmed as Commander,
SOUTHCOM.
Senator Levin. Admiral, did you review the recently-
released revised Field Manual on Interrogations?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir, I have reviewed it. It's a
very detailed document. I have not read every line of it. I'm
in the process of doing that. If confirmed, before taking
command I will have read every line in the Army Field Manual. I
think it's a good document and an improvement, and it's a clear
document.
Senator Levin. What is your assessment as to how it's being
received by military and civilian personnel?
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, my assessment, talking not as the
SOUTHCOM commander, but talking to my friends who are involved
in this, including, for example, Admiral Harry Harris, who's
the current commander at Guantanamo--I believe that the
document is well received because it's written in a way that
the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are involved in
interrogations can understand it. I can understand it when I
read it, and that's a strong improvement. Also, it has no
classified annex. It's open and it's transparent.
Senator Levin. Do you believe that interrogators at
Guantanamo can carry out their mission within the standards
that are set forth in that field manual?
Admiral Stavridis. Senator, I'm not an expert in
interrogations, but my personal belief is that they can.
Senator Levin. My time is up. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. General Craddock, opium cultivation has
reached record levels in Afghanistan. Should the United States
military be actively engaged in poppy eradication? Or ISAF
military?
General Craddock. Thank you, Senator. Tough question. In
the original agreements, the Brits were to focus their efforts
on the eradication of the poppy fields. That has not happened.
Actually, as you said, their production is up. I think that
there has to be a concerted effort to eradicate those fields.
As a part of the attraction to the lawless element, to the
traffickers, to the terrorists who use the proceeds, the
revenues generated by that trade, it may well be ISAF is going
to have to, as they move to provide security and stability,
take on the eradication of those fields. I don't know that, but
I know it has to be done. As stage 4 occurs and more U.S.
forces come under the NATO control, it may well be, U.S. forces
will be involved in that too. That is the genesis of the
funding for the radicals and extremist insurgents there.
Senator McCain. A vicious circle.
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. There have been media reports concerning
some kind of a truce or treaty being concluded between the
Pakistani Government, President Musharraf, and the Taliban, in
the areas along the Afghan/Pakistan border. What do you think
of that? Is it true? What kind of a problem does that create if
there is some kind of sanctuary along the Pakistan/Afghan
border?
General Craddock. I am aware of an agreement. I do not know
the details, other than what I have read here recently. I think
that the key here is in assessing it through implementation. We
need to keep watch. On the surface, it may be an agreement that
will work to control the border. In application, everyday
execution, it may not work. So, I think we have to be watching
closely. We have to see this movement back and forth across
these borders. If a safe haven is created, it will cause
enormous problems for NATO and for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Senator McCain. Again, I have no detailed information, but
it is very disturbing, if some kind of sanctuary is provided
for the Taliban by the Pakistani Government. We continue to be
concerned about bad relations between the two countries
already. But General Jones has recommended that NATO send
additional forces into Afghanistan. We all know our forces are
there, but we're also pretty well stretched. Are you
disappointed, so far, in the reaction of the NATO allies to
this request for additional troops?
General Craddock. Senator, I am. I am not surprised, given
my experience in Europe and having served in a NATO command in
the Balkans. There was a statement of requirements that the
plan lays out, ``Here are the troops we need.'' It appears that
it was sourced to about 85 percent of the capability required.
A decision was made then to accept that risk and to go ahead
and assume the mission.
The key here now is to continue to work with the nations to
source the remaining capabilities required. I think there's
some airlift and some attack helicopters and a few other--a
strategic response force, a battalion strategic force
available. That's what has to continue to be worked with the
nations, because it's a plan that was agreed to, now it's a
matter of owning up to the commitment.
Senator McCain. I think the facts on the ground indicate in
Afghanistan that there has been a resurgence of Taliban
influence and activities, to the point where we now have, some
cases, hundreds of Taliban engaged in combat. That's very
concerning. I wonder what may have gone wrong over the last 4
years that has allowed this resurgence.
An additional follow-up question. I notice, for example, I
think four Canadian troops were killed yesterday. Sometimes our
allies get a little shaky when their personnel, obviously, are
in harm's way, and killed or injured. Maybe you could give me
an idea of what went wrong and what needs to be done
differently if we're going to reverse this trend.
General Craddock. In talking a bit with those who work this
every day, to include General Jones, the belief is that these
Taliban forces, insurgents, had located in that area as a safe
haven, away from urban areas, out in to the countryside.
Second, those are large cultivation fields for the poppies. So,
that was a natural attraction--provides, if you will, the
sanctuary. I think the movement in of about 8,000 NATO forces
pushed out into the countryside and confronted these safe
havens, these sanctuaries, and that caused the contact that
maybe had not been done previously to the extent that allowed
it. I think, again, that the forces are adequate. It's a matter
of, as you said, resolve. There will be casualties taken. The
assumption of stage 4, it may well be that NATO ISAF finds that
there'll be tougher fights in the future over in the east. But
I think that the fact that now they are being engaged in larger
numbers would indicate that it may be they were there for a
while, and there were never forces out there engaging them
where they were living, operating, and training, which has
occurred. But we must stay the course here, we must continue to
have the resolve, work with the nations, and do this in a
smart, meaningful way to set the conditions, then, because if
the development doesn't come in after the security is
established in those regions, the people will not believe in
the government, and the Taliban will be back.
Senator McCain. Of course, that's based on the ability of
the government to control the areas.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. I thank you.
I congratulate both of our witnesses. We look forward to
having you in place as soon as possible, General.
General Craddock. Thank you, Senator.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator McCain.
I would simply add, the seriousness of this question that
both of us addressed, and that is the question of force levels.
We have watched that debate here in Iraq. It continues. You now
will be the point person, you will be that field commander that
has to make the recommendations, make them in accordance with
your professional judgment, make it strong, make it so it's not
any equivocation. Because, I have to tell you, NATO did very
well in the Balkans, was very successful, but the credibility
of NATO for the future is on the line right now in this
operation.
General Craddock. Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree and
I will promise you I will do that as soon as possible, once
confirmed.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
General Craddock, you have served in many critical
positions, with great expertise and fidelity, but I must
confess I'm a bit troubled about this nomination. Last July,
you were here before the committee trying to explain why you
would not support the recommendation of Lieutenant General
Schmidt with respect to an adverse action against General
Miller for his activities in Guantanamo. I said, at that point,
and that time, it was a moment to draw the line for
accountability, not just at sergeants and majors, but general
officers. You didn't draw that line. You said, ``imprecise
guidance policy,'' you couldn't hold them accountable, but you
chose to disregard, I think, what was a very considered and
thoughtful report by the Special Inspector General, in favor of
avoiding accountability. Today, accountability still, I think,
has been evaded. I just am troubled. I think that is the
critical issue of whether or not an individual at your level
will make tough decisions, regardless of the consequences to
his fellow officers and regardless of consequences to his
superiors. It should not go without comment that General Miller
was intimately involved with civilians and the Secretary of
Defense in this particular issue and that by exonerating him, I
think, at least you gave some comfort to the Secretary of
Defense and to others. I don't know if that's been
reciprocated.
But I must say that based upon your career, which is one of
fidelity to the uniform, I was disappointed then, and I still
remain disappointed. I said it then publicly, and I say it
again now.
I am just dismayed about the failure of senior-level
civilians and senior military officers to be fully held
accountable for palpable mistakes that have been made, even
when recommended by another officer like General Schmidt. So, I
want that comment to be in the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCain. General Craddock may wish to respond.
Chairman Warner. Yes, I know he does.
Please respond.
General Craddock. Senator, I understand your comments. I'm
not going to review my rationale today. I've done that many
times, and twice, I believe, before this committee. I will
stand on the record of what I have said.
I will tell you though that as a professional officer over
many years, these decisions are always difficult. I have to act
on the facts as they are given to me. I have to weigh all of
the issues at hand. There's obviously deep consideration given.
I will tell you that it's my personal belief that I will
always take the hard right as opposed to the easy wrong. There
will be those who differ with my judgment and the rationale,
but the fact is the report given to me, the facts presented to
me, led me to that decision. I then, as I am bound to do,
referred that to the Army Inspector General who conducted an
investigation. The results of that turned out to be the same as
my result and my finding. So, that's all I can say to that, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Reed, do you have anything
further?
Senator Reed. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I just
think that this represents another example of a lack of
accountability and being rewarded for being compliant and not
accountable.
Chairman Warner. As the committee well knows, we have
pending before us a hearing, at which time it's anticipated
General Miller will once again appear before this committee to
re-examine this issue. As soon as you can advise me, Senator
Levin, on the matters that you raise in connection with
preparing for that hearing, we'll move forward.
Senator Levin. Let me just check with staff.
I think, Mr. Chairman, the issue is, I'm trying to gather
what the question is, apparently there's some preliminary
questions that need to be asked by staff in preparation for
such a hearing. But, as far as I'm concerned, the quicker we
get to the bottom of that issue, the happier I'm going to be.
Chairman Warner. I agree with that. It seems to me, given
the short period within this Congress is still in business, we
have to tweak that.
Senator Levin. Yes. I will, again, check into the status of
that inquiry.
Chairman Warner. If you would advise me, I'd appreciate it
very much.
Senator Levin. But I do think Senator Reed has raised a
question about accountability at higher levels that has just
not been answered satisfactorily. I hope that our hearing with
General Miller can shed at least some light on that failure of
accountability at higher levels. We will look into the status
of our pre-hearing questions and make sure that they're
promptly done, if they're not already prepared.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. I'd simply add that it's anticipated that
Colonel Pappas also would be included as a part of that hearing
series. He'll appear before the committee.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I've talked to you before, General Craddock, I've been
disturbed for a long time about the way the continent of Africa
is divided up. I think it's confusing. It's difficult to do
things, such as, right now, when we're looking at the African
brigades. I've been very active in this area. It's my
understanding now, although I've not seen anything specific on
it, that there's going to be an African command. Now, I'd like
to ask you what that structure would be. How does that relate
to CENTCOM and to EUCOM as far as your understanding is
concerned?
General Craddock. Thank you, Senator.
Indeed, I understand there are ongoing discussions and
deliberations. I believe EUCOM has been tasked by the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary to provide a proposal. I
am a proponent of a dedicated command for Africa.
Senator Inhofe. Now, that would be an additional command, I
guess?
General Craddock. That would be an additional combatant
command.
Senator Inhofe. Okay.
General Craddock. Now, the question becomes--and that is
what the work in progress is--how is it done? What is the
shape, substance? As you've said, right now Africa is shared by
three combatant commands. So, how would the arrangement, the
geography, change, in terms of the Horn of Africa, which is now
CENTCOM, East African islands, PACOM, and then the rest, EUCOM?
I think that we have to wait--and I believe it's due here the
next few weeks--for the first proposal. I think it's on the
fast track, that we all recognize that our critical national
interests in Africa are, indeed, very important, both from the
counterterrorism perspective, the secure and stable
environment, to the humanitarian perspective, with HIV/AIDS,
endemic disease; and then, obviously, the energy issues are
also quite relevant.
So, we know there's work in progress. It's being pushed to
a fast track, and I'll be very interested to watch how this
develops, because it will, indeed, be a key aspect of EUCOM in
the future.
Senator Inhofe. I'd like to have this committee get
involved in that because I have some ideas. I know that General
Abizaid has been concerned. How can you break off the Horn of
Africa, for example, where you have Djibouti and you have a lot
of the terrorist activities that's moving in there as a result
of the squeeze in the Middle East? So, it's a difficult thing
to deal with.
Also, I personally like the idea of a complete command just
dedicated to the continent of Africa, because it's become so
incredibly important.
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. As I've gone around and talked to--in the
different areas of the proposed sites for the five African
brigades, I just think--I just can't imagine that that is going
to work very well if it's divided into two or three different
commands. So, we'll be watching that real closely.
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. It's already been mentioned, Admiral--
Stavridis?
Admiral Stavridis. Perfect.
Senator Inhofe.--Stavridis--oh, yes; well, I've said it
twice now; that'll be the last time--of the concern that is
there in that command in the SOUTHCOM with Chavez, with the
changes in Castro--well, let's start with Castro. Right now, we
don't know for sure what's going to happen to him. We know a
little bit about his brother, about as much as you need to
know. What is your feeling, anything you'd like to say in an
open hearing, as to how you see Cuba, in the event of Castro's
stepping aside?
Admiral Stavridis. Thank you, Senator.
Certainly, Cuba is front and center on the windshield for
any commander at U.S. SOUTHCOM. If confirmed, it'll be at the
center of my site picture. I think, like all of us, I'm very
hopeful of a peaceful transition to a democratic regime in
Cuba. I have to say, I'm not optimistic of that happening in
the immediate future. The basic signals we seem to get from
Cuba today are that if Fidel Castro were to step aside or pass
on, his brother, Raoul, would probably take the reins of power
there. I think, in the end, very little would change under that
scenario. The Cuban economy is extremely rocky at this moment.
It's propped up, in large measure, by oil subsidies from
Venezuela. As a result of all those factors, we experience
about 8,000 migrants a year coming here to our shores from
Cuba. I think as well, Cuba is, according to the State
Department, a state sponsor of terrorism.
So there is a basket of problems there. I don't think
there's a hopeful outlook in the immediate future. What the
United States can do is continue to be supportive of the Cuban
people and to hope for them, and to assure them that in the
event of a transition to a democratic regime, we would be there
for them.
Senator Inhofe. Some of us have been around long enough
that we can remember the instability in that whole area down
there, back during the Reagan years, and the changes that took
place, very positive changes.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. But with the contras and the Sandinistas
and Daniel Ortega--and now he's running again. The information
I have, he's leading. Their election is in, what, November, I
believe?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. What do you see happening in terms of
Nicaragua, if Ortega were to win that thing?
Admiral Stavridis. Senator, I'm not an expert at all on
Nicaraguan politics, which are complicated, but common sense
would tell me, looking back, as I think you do, from the nature
of your question, that Daniel Ortega was an opponent of the
United States, an anti-American force in that country.
Certainly, the election is a free and democratic one. Nicaragua
is a sovereign country, and they should pick their own leaders.
They will. But I think we would be concerned about linkages
between Nicaragua, Venezuela, and other countries in the region
which would continue to move toward this idea of a block of
nations that we spoke about earlier that could take anti-
American positions. So, that would be of concern. If confirmed,
it would be something I would follow closely, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Good. There's not a lot of time left, but
there is one other subject that I feel very strongly about and
that is the International Military Education and Training
(IMET) program. In the National Defense Authorization Bill that
we hope that we'll be able to pass here shortly, we have some
provisions that give easier access to that program. There was a
time, when it first began, that we thought we were doing other
countries a favor by allowing them to come here and get
training. That's totally changed, in my thinking, anyway. I
think that we're the beneficiaries of this program.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. I'd like to know--because it'll affect all
countries--we found out, readily, that if we have any
restrictions on our ability to bring in people to train, the
Chinese and others are always there, ready to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I can't think of any single thing that we can
do that gives us a greater inside track with these countries
than to be able to get the training over here.
So, I'd like to ask each one of you to comment as to your
feeling about the program and where you see it going.
General Craddock. Thank you, Senator.
I would say, first, we support the American Servicemembers'
Protection Act (ASPA). Unquestionably, we want our
servicemembers protected around the world. Unfortunately, the
unintended consequence of that is this IMET problem. We are
losing, every day, engagement opportunities with many nations
around the world. Over the years, as you said, this has
benefited them. But to bring them to our schools, our
institutions, they have the opportunity to live in our culture,
see strong democratic institutions, and civilian leadership of
the military as a powerful thing. We gain from the engagement,
the contact. We understand them better. When we're there, we're
more appreciative and knowledgeable of their culture. We're
losing that in very critical countries.
I have been a strong advocate to de-link the IMET program
from the ASPA sanction in order that we can engage and not lose
contact with a generation or two or three of officers and
noncommissioned officers, in countries that are important to
us, and it's important to them to be linked with us. So, I
certainly support and endorse any way possible that we can get
this program back on track.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, it was unintended consequences, and
it's a program that I really feel strongly about. Do you agree,
pretty much, Admiral?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir. I think the expression up here
is, I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of General
Craddock.
Senator Inhofe. That's the expression.
Admiral Stavridis. I do so, completely. I'll just point out
that within the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility, 32 countries,
11 of them are affected by this. So, it's extremely significant
in SOUTHCOM, I completely agree with General Craddock's
assessment and would hope that we can continue the program.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, that's another reason we need to really get
that thing moved along, because this bill will offer new
opportunities for your guys to take advantage of IMET.
Admiral Stavridis. That would be great.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator, I've always been a strong
proponent, as you have, of the IMET, and it's interesting, the
chapter--for those following this hearing, that might not know
the specifics--it's young officers of the foreign nations who
are brought here and then given an opportunity, usually of up
to a year or so, to study in our various military colleges and
institutions. As you well know, Senator, so often those
officers who are, let's just say, young captains or majors go
back home, and they rise through the ranks and usually become
the senior military officers in their respective nations. That
bond is of great value in times of stress, should it occur,
because they often turn to their counterparts here, in American
uniforms, having served with them, to seek advice and guidance.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. So, you're right on target.
Senator Inhofe. I would go one step further and say not
just the educational institutions, but much like Fort Sill and
the artillery training in some of our military installations.
It's very significant.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir. Agree.
Chairman Warner. No question about it. Also, Senator, we
want to recognize that on this committee I know of no member
who has given more time to study Africa than you have. Indeed,
how many times have you been, say, just in the last 2 years or
so?
Senator Inhofe. I'd say about eight times, I think.
Chairman Warner. About eight times--and several of those,
into the Darfur region. You're to be commended for finding the
opportunity to study that, and you are an expert on it.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, a lot of people talk about
the Darfur problems, but if you get into northern Uganda and
the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) problems up there, they're
every bit as bad, but they don't get the attention.
Chairman Warner. Correct.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much for your comments.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, in the global war on terror we have come to, I
think, a greater understanding of the enemy that we confront,
and it is a form of extremism and radicalism that has hijacked
one of the world's great religions. Whether you call the enemy
Islamic extremists, Islamic radicals--others have used other
terminology--while there may be some fault lines between
Islamic extremists in different parts of the world, it is, I
believe, part of the same enemy, which in the words of General
John Abizaid, celebrates the murder of innocent civilians in
pursuit of its goals. Recently the people of America, and the
world, were reminded of one of those groups, Hezbollah, who
rained down Katyusha rockets supplied by Iran through Syria on
civilian populations in northern Israel. I don't know many
people who have doubt that if they had been able to supply more
lethal weapons--I don't know many people who doubt that
Hezbollah would have refused to use them, causing more death,
more injury to innocent civilians.
One of the other things that the American people have been
reminded of is that Hezbollah has killed more Americans than
any other terrorist organization in the world, except al Qaeda,
dating back to 1983 in Beirut when 241 marines were killed. So,
I want to ask you a little bit about--and I've had some of
these conversations with General Craddock; he knows where I'm
heading, but Admiral, I want to bring this to your attention to
our backyard--and that is, South America, where Hezbollah has a
foothold, particularly in the triborder region, where we know,
as a matter of fact, they supply money to radical causes, to
the Hezbollah headquarters, so to speak, in the Middle East. We
also, I think, can all acknowledge the ease with which
terrorist financing can transition into operations if, in fact,
some operators were dropped in, or if not homegrown in our
backyard in South America. So, I would like to get, Admiral,
from you, please, what you believe that we ought to be doing,
if confirmed, as part of the SOUTHCOM to deal with this
potential threat in our backyard.
Admiral Stavridis. Senator, thank you for the question.
I've had a chance to read a variety of intelligence
reports, some of which are classified and we can't go into
here. But, at the unclassified level, I've looked at a
Congressional Research Service study and a State Department
study recently, looked at materials provided from U.S.
SOUTHCOM. It appears certainly true that Hezbollah has a
foothold, is a good way to put it, in the SOUTHCOM area of
responsibility. The triborder area of Bolivia, Paraguay, and
Brazil--has probably the largest population that we're aware of
right now. But there are outposts throughout the region.
At this point, the best I can tell, it appears to be
largely financing, as you alluded to, but it can segue very
easily into human trafficking, the ability to move special-
interest aliens into our country through human smuggling
routes, surveillance--we have indications of the surveillance
of the Panama Canal, for example. So, within the region, it's
of real concern.
What can we do about it? I think our role at SOUTHCOM, at
this point, is to be very plugged into all the intelligence, to
work very closely with all of our partners in the region. I
mean, this is one that obviously we can't go down and solve by
ourselves. We have to work one-on-one with our partners, and
also try and create a regional hemispheric, if you will, sense
of cooperation in this topic. So, I would say building
partnership capacity with our partners, working with them
closely, using intelligence aggressively, and being very aware
of the problem, and highlighting it in all of our military-to-
military activities, sir.
Senator Cornyn. General Craddock was talking to, I think,
Senator McCain and other members of the committee about the
connection between narcotrafficking and terrorist financing. In
Afghanistan, we continue to see that connection in South
America and other parts of the world. But, in particular, I'd
like to get your thoughts, Admiral, about Colombia, but
primarily about what is happening now in Venezuela, where
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) are getting safe
haven, where perhaps there's greater participation in illegal
drug trafficking in Venezuela to help fund FARC's anti-
government activities. I am one who believes that the work that
we've been able to do to support the Colombians in that
country, with coca eradication and to enable them, through
military training and otherwise, to fight and defeat the
revolutionary forces there, FARC and others, has been a very
positive development. But if, in fact, that illegal drug
trafficking merely moves east in a country that if it doesn't
welcome them, at least tolerates it, what does that tell you
about what we need to do with regard to the attention we pay to
Venezuela, which is an avowedly anti-American government, one
that is associating with the greatest threats to the United
States, in Tehran, and welcoming armament factories from Russia
and the like? How would you describe what our role should be
with regard to the developing activity in Venezuela?
Admiral Stavridis. Thank you, Senator.
I would start by saying--and I think you alluded to it--
that Colombia has made tremendous progress over the last 4 or 5
years. They're militarily very successful against the FARC. One
of the other major groups there, the United Self-Defense Forces
of Columbia, is demobilizing. The economy is doing fairly well.
I think one significant part of helping in that region, in that
border area, is continued support to Colombia so that their
economy continues to improve, so that we operate with them in a
military-to-military fashion, so that we continue to give them
the benefit of all that we can as they fight this complex
battle against narcotics and narcoterrorism.
On the question of FARC operating in that border region
with Venezuela, I have seen intelligence that indicates that is
true. Again, I would not want to, in an open hearing, go much
further than that. I'd like to come back to you on the record
with an answer more specific to that particular question. It is
of concern.
[The information referred to follows:]
[Deleted.]
Senator Cornyn. Thank you. General Craddock, I didn't mean
to leave you out, but since you're moving over to EUCOM, I
thought I would focus my attention on the Admiral and get his
views. I know both of you realize that even though Northern
Command is responsible for the homeland defense function for
the continental United States, that we can't ignore what is
happening right out our back door right across the border.
General Craddock. I agree completely.
Senator Cornyn. Because of what you've just described,
Admiral, and what General Craddock and I have talked about
previously, and that is, when you have international criminal
organizations, they're more than happy to finance their
operations using any available commodity, whether it's people,
drugs, guns, WMD, or the like.
General Craddock. Exactly.
Senator Cornyn. I believe it's absolutely imperative that
the Department of Defense continue to focus greater attention
on our international borders, and to help the Department of
Homeland Security, which has the primary responsibility to
control our international borders, through the use of
technology, which the United States military has right now, and
which could, I believe, be deployed with great beneficial
effect, and in so doing, enhance our national security, because
our backyard is important for all the reasons we've discussed.
General Craddock. Yes, sir.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Cornyn.
We may, gentlemen, have several questions for the record.
We'll ask that you respond. The record will remain open until
the recess of the Senate tonight.
I do want to return to one line of discussion we've had
today, and that is drug trafficking in Afghanistan, General
Craddock, and your responses about how you felt there are
certain responsibilities that NATO must face up to in that
area. I think parallel and equal emphasis should be given to
the role to be played by the Afghan military, perhaps, to some
extent, the police forces, in which the United States put a
very significant investment. There always will be certain
instability in a government when it stands up. President Karzai
has shown tremendous courage. In a recent visit that I had with
him in Afghanistan a short time ago with several of our
colleagues here, we talked about this situation. He seemed to
be dedicated. But there are certain political realities that
he's faced with. This is a subject that has to be dealt with in
such a way that it doesn't cause an increase in the instability
of his government, because that government simply has to
succeed. It's a freely elected government, so, while I'm
hopeful that Karzai will remain in office, let's hope it
remains a freely elected government. Also, we had the privilege
on this visit to meet for the first time with the
parliamentarians, a very interesting group, rather a feisty,
outspoken group of parliamentarians, and in our dialogue with
them and it was hard to break off, they were so anxious to meet
with, should we say, their counterparts from the United States,
the parliamentarians and we legislators.
So, I think that you have to work hand-in-hand with NATO
and the Karzai government as we, hopefully, do a joint effort
to begin to take down this ever-growing problem of the
narcotics being raised there and the money that comes, as a
consequence of that crop, into the sinews of that country in
many ways. I just hope that, in that course of action that you
will direct, together with the government, that the Afghan
forces will have a very active, if not a greater role than,
indeed, the NATO forces in resolving that problem.
If you'd like to make a comment or two on that.
General Craddock. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I totally agree with your statements. The Afghan national
army has made great progress. We're still training, still
building that army, and it will, as it continues to grow and
gain competence and professionalism and capability, be able to
assume more and more of that security burden. I think that they
will be instrumental in maintaining the control, along with its
nascent police force that also must be built, and it must gain
the confidence of the people, out and about in the countryside
so that these development programs can work.
Now, the real power of those PRTs is that they are
generally customized to each region. They work with the local
elders and government officials. They bring in the national
government, if you will, out of Kabul--to the extent where the
people understand that there is a benefit to a new clinic, a
school, a road, something we take for granted that is not
there, infrastructure, a job opportunity--that government is a
positive force in their life. The key is that the
parliamentarians, the cabinet members, and President Karzai
participate in that, they support that, and, at the end of the
day, it's an Afghan face; that in the meantime NATO will be
providing some security and stability, but what we would want
to do is work ourselves out of a job.
Chairman Warner. I certainly understand that. But it's a
formidable job and it's growing in terms of its challenge. But
we must succeed.
General Craddock. Indeed.
Chairman Warner. I feel strongly that since we've invested
so much in building up their military forces, that their
military forces should take the lead in this eradication
process. Now, you stop to think a moment--and you have, and
those of us who have been over there and studied the problem--
the amount of the dollars going to the farmers is minuscule. It
seems to me some program could be devised, for a very modest
sum of money, just to persuade them to sit back in their arm
chairs, if necessary, maybe grow a little cabbage and broccoli,
or whatever they want to do, but get them out of the poppy
business. Because the big money in this is after it leaves the
poppy field and these old and venerable farmers, you see them--
they actually have to massage almost every poppy head to
extract all the product and so forth as they go along. That's
not where the money is. The money is where it leaves that
field, and then it goes on up through the many hands that deal
with it. That's where the big dollars are. It seems to me we
can just persuade the farmers somehow to not grow it. It's a
sensitive situation, but it's one that has to be dealt with. I
think the Gross National Product (GNP). I've seen figures as
high as three-quarters of the GNP of Afghanistan is monies
coming from the poppy fields and the narcotics.
General Craddock. That's right.
Chairman Warner. That money, as it leaves the farmer, he
gets a pittance, but as it moves up, certain monies flow back
into the sinews of Afghanistan in various ways, and it's a big
challenge. General, the buck stops on your desk now.
General Craddock. I understand, Mr. Chairman. It is an
enormous challenge. Recently some Colombians have met with
Afghans to talk about their fight over the years. The
Colombians have had some success with alternative development
to the farmers to convince them that they'll make as much money
off of a licit crop as an illicit crop. It is successful in
parts of that country. Those are the types of programs that,
for a very low cost, can be very important and beneficial. So,
it's a multifaceted approach. It's not just security, but it's
offering alternative developments and opportunities.
Chairman Warner. All right. I thank you both very much. I
think we've had an excellent hearing. I commend you on your
direct responses to the questions.
We'll take about a 2-minute recess as the next panel comes
up.
General Craddock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Stavridis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess at 10:52 a.m., reconvening at 10:59 a.m.]
Chairman Warner. The committee will resume.
Now I ask our two nominees, Mr. Ford and Mr. James, to
introduce those persons who have accompanied you.
Mr. Ford. I'm accompanied today by my wife, Cecilia. She is
a retired government attorney, 34 years with the Department of
Health and Human Services, most recently as the chair of the
Departmental Appeals Board. Our children are not able to be
with us today. We have two on active duty, one in the Air Force
in San Antonio, and our second son is in the 82nd Airborne at
Fort Bragg.
Chairman Warner. I know you're proud of them.
Mr. Ford. We are, thank you.
Chairman Warner. Very proud of them.
Mr. Ford. We have a daughter who's a junior at the
University of Virginia.
Chairman Warner. I have some familiarity with that
institution.
Mr. Ford. So does my wife. She's a graduate of the law
school.
Chairman Warner. My law school class was originally 1953,
but I went off to the Korean War for a period of time, and came
back and finished with the class of 1954. You weren't on planet
Earth then, were you?
Mrs. Ford. He was, actually. [Laughter.]
Mr. Ford. She's class of 1972, I think.
Mrs. Ford. 1972.
Mr. Ford. 1972.
Chairman Warner. Well, it's a grand institution.
Mr. Ford. It is a wonderful school.
Chairman Warner. I was privileged to go back and give the
graduation speech at the University of Virginia 50 years from
the year I graduated from the law school. I hope that you'll
have that same opportunity someday.
Anyone else that you might have brought?
Mr. Ford. The folks from the Army legislative liaison team,
Bernie Ingold and Mark Rivest.
Chairman Warner. Good.
Mr. James, I know you have some of your friends here.
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I'm very pleased to introduce Ms. Joyce Blackwell, who
is my executive assistant, who is a very integral part of my
team.
Chairman Warner. She is----
Mr. James. She's sitting----
Chairman Warner. Please come up here. He needs all the
support he can get.
Mr. James. I agree with that, Mr. Chairman, I need all the
support I can get. I'm very pleased to introduce a long-time
friend who is a surprise visitor here today, Betty Murphy.
Chairman Warner. Won't she come up and join us here?
Mr. James. I would hope that she would.
Chairman Warner. Front row, please?
Mr. James. Yes.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Mr. James. Ms. Murphy and I have known each other for a
number of years. We both graduated from the same law school.
Chairman Warner. Please. Thank you.
Mr. James. She is, in fact, primarily responsible for my
first tour of duty as a presidential appointee in Washington in
1975, when she recommended to Secretary Dunlop that I be her
successor as the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division.
Chairman Warner. Isn't that interesting.
Mr. James. So she's been one of the tailwinds in my life.
Chairman Warner. That's very important, giving you that
support. Likewise, she touched on my early career. So, we're
glad to see you here.
All right. We welcome all of you. I wanted to make sure
that we acknowledged the families and friends who support our
nominees.
Now, Mr. Ford, you currently serve as the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and
Comptroller. From 2001 to 2004, you served as the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health, Budgets, and
Financial Policy. You have held senior management positions in
various academic and medical disciplines, including as Chief
Operating Officer of Georgetown University Medical Center. That
was a challenge, wasn't it?
Mr. Ford. It was, sir. It was. Academic medicine and the
Army have many things in common, and not least of which is
understanding all the jargon.
Chairman Warner. I recently had just some routine matters
to attend to, and I selected the Georgetown University Medical
Center. I must say, it's in good hands today.
Mr. Ford. I believe it is, sir.
Chairman Warner. Further, as Executive Secretary of the
Healthcare Financing Administration. You have a very impressive
background in these fields and are eminently qualified.
Mr. Ford. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Likewise, Mr. James, you are an eminently
qualified individual nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. In 2003, you were
appointed as the first Chief Human Capital Officer of the
Department of Homeland Security, where you served through 2005,
and are presently serving as an acting capacity.
Mr. James previously has served as the Administrator of the
Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, where you
managed the enforcement activities, procedures, and standards
of 300 offices nationwide; served on active duty in the Army
from 1961 to 1963, and as a member of the 101st Airborne
Division Artillery, and thereafter for several years in the
Army Reserve.
That'll stand you well in this present position, because
there is no substitute, really, for having had the privilege of
wearing the uniform in our country and feeling as a part of the
great team of the men and women of the Armed Forces,
irrespective of which uniform you wear. So, I congratulate you
for that service.
I understand you've also given up a very fine position to
take this one on, at the request of the President and, I
believe, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Am I correct on that?
Mr. James. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Chairman Warner. Whereas, he went out and found you, so to
speak. Would that be correct?
Mr. James. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, I believe, may be able to
return here shortly, but in the meantime, you had both
responded to a series of advance policy questions. Without
objection, I'll make those part of the record.
Now I'll ask you the same standard questions we ask of all
nominees.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
Mr. Ford. Yes, sir.
Mr. James. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Ford. No, sir.
Mr. James. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record in hearings?
Mr. Ford. Yes, sir.
Mr. James. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Ford. Yes, sir.
Mr. James. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. Ford. Yes, sir.
Mr. James. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this committee or any other
committee of Congress?
Mr. Ford. Yes, sir.
Mr. James. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a
timely manner when requested by a duly-constituted committee of
Congress, or to consult with the committee regarding the basis
for any good-faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
Mr. Ford. Yes, sir.
Mr. James. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Now, I'm going to ask, Mr. Ford, would you
like to make some opening comments?
Mr. Ford. I would, sir. With your permission, I'd like to
make some brief remarks.
STATEMENT OF NELSON M. FORD, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER
Mr. Ford. It is an honor to appear before you this morning
as the President's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Financial Management and Comptroller. I would like to thank
the President for nominating me for this position, and
Secretaries Harvey and Rumsfeld for their guidance, confidence,
and support. I would also like to thank this committee for all
it's done over the years for the men and women of the Army.
If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with the
committee to address the many challenges facing the Army.
Perhaps the greatest of these challenges is paying for the
global war on terrorism while transforming the Army into the
more effective formations needed for the 21st century security
environment.
We have to make sure that our soldiers are deployed with
the best equipment and training, while developing the doctrine,
tools, and facilities that will attract future generations of
young men and women to Army careers. As the father of a soldier
who spent a year in Afghanistan and whose unit is now preparing
to return to the fight, I understand these challenges
personally.
The Army's financial management must be based on sound
stewardship and good business practices while enhancing our
capabilities wherever we are called to serve.
Finally, I'd like to thank my family for their support as I
continue to serve the American people in this important time. I
am grateful to them for their love and patience.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Very thoughtful of you to say that,
because, as I said in an earlier moment in this hearing today,
the support of the families is essential for, certainly, not
only the men and women in uniform, but for those in the
civilian capacity. I had the privilege of serving in that
building for over 5 years during the Vietnam War, and I know
the stress that it placed upon my family and my children. We
accept it.
Mr. Ford. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. You'll never regret, of course, that
service, both of you, in connection with the Defense Department
and so forth, but it's an important chapter of your life, and I
hope you look back on it with a sense of satisfaction.
Mr. Ford. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Mr. James?
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I have some
brief opening remarks.
Chairman Warner. Yes.
STATEMENT OF RONALD J. JAMES, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply honored and privileged
to appear before this committee as the President's nominee for
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs.
I'd like to echo my colleague's--Mr. Ford's, thanks to the
President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the
Army for the confidence and trust they've shown in me by
nominating me to serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank this
committee for all the work it's done over the years for the men
and women of our Armed Forces. If I am confirmed, I look
forward to the opportunity to serve my country again at a time
when our national security environment is markedly different
and perhaps more complex than it has been at any other time in
our Nation's history. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with Congress, the Defense Department, and the Department of
the Army to address the force and personnel challenges such as
recruiting and retaining an All-Volunteer Force, building force
capabilities, and advocating for Reserve component needs.
I'd like to thank my family, and especially my wife, Pat,
of 36 years, who could not be here today, for their support as
I continue to pursue opportunities to serve our country. I am
very grateful to them for their continued understanding and
affection.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to any questions you and the
committee may have of me concerning this nomination. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you both. Those were very fine
opening statements.
First, Mr. Ford, last year's National Defense Authorization
Act required certification that military-to-civilian
conversions not erode the quality or increase the cost of
military health care services. Secretary Harvey, on June 19,
2006, provided that certification, indicating that he relied
solely on the advice of the Surgeon General. If you are
confirmed, what role would you play in future decisionmaking
regarding the conversion of military billets to civilian
positions, and, in particular, in determining the cost-
effectiveness of such conversions? What is your overall
assessment of the impact of military-to-civilian conversions on
Army efficiency and readiness?
Mr. Ford. Thank you very much for that question, Mr.
Chairman.
That question, I think, goes back to some of my
responsibilities that I had when I was the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Budgets. Most of the health
spending in the Department of Defense runs through the TRICARE
program, the Defense health program. The spending for military
personnel is about the only spending that actually runs through
the departmental budgets. Our experience at the time was that
the conversions of military billets to civilian billets didn't
have a negative impact; in fact, it had a positive impact. It
freed up military personnel for deployment purposes. We will
continue to monitor that as we go forward.
Chairman Warner. All right. I think we'll want to have you,
from time to time, consult with our staff to clarify any
problems that may arise.
Mr. Ford. I'd be happy to do that, sir.
Chairman Warner. This question goes to both of our
nominees. The Army has established a Wounded Warrior Program
designed to meet the special needs of the most severely wounded
soldiers. Sailors, airmen, and marines, of course, are affected
in some other ways by this same program. Each of the Services
have some comparable form of this. Additionally, the Army has
conducted several comprehensive studies of the mental health
conditions of acting Reserve component soldiers following
deployment to the theater of operations. Have you formed any
opinions about the adequacy of the resources being devoted to
the needs of wounded soldiers and those who are in need of
counseling and mental health services? The families of these
individuals are also very much a part of this whole equation.
What role will you play, if confirmed, in ensuring that these
programs are adequately resourced and are proactively working
to serve the needs of the soldiers and the families?
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed, I can assure
you that this will be one of my highest priorities. We ask men
and women to serve our country. We have an obligation to them
to assure that they, in fact, have health care. I mean health
care not just in the traditional sense, because often the
effects from wartime are more mental than they are physical. If
I am confirmed, I promise you that I will clearly turn my
attention to this, because I view it as a sacred obligation, as
a sacred payback to those who serve our country.
Chairman Warner. I appreciate that. I've seen tremendous
advancements in what modern science and the medical profession,
in particular, can do for mental health. It's come a long way.
We must provide, for these brave individuals and their
families, every bit of help we can, because this has been a
very stressful military operation, really unlike any that this
country has ever been engaged in--it's a war on terror, not
State-sponsored, no uniforms, by and large, worn by the
adversaries. The adversaries are manifold, whether or not it's
sectarian strife, common hoodlums, insurgents from other
nations, individuals whose minds are really so distorted with
erroneous, I think, concepts of religion that they'd give their
lives in suicidal attacks. We're asking a lot of the young men
and women in the Armed Forces today. Consequently, we, here at
home, must give them every conceivable benefit we can to help
them readjust themselves and once again take up, if they choose
to leave the military Service, gainful and productive roles in
the civilian economy.
Mr. Ford, to financial management modernization, this
committee has long been concerned about the pace of
modernization of Department of Defense financial management
systems. What progress have you observed in the Army's
modernization of its financial management systems and
achievement of the goal of having fully auditable financial
statements?
Mr. Ford. Thank you for that question. I've been working
for the Army for about the last 15 months, and I think in that
15-month period we've made some substantial progress. Perhaps
not as much as we would like to have made, but the trajectory
is good. During the last 15 months, we've started the
implementation of our new general fund accounting--enterprise-
wide accounting--system, we have reinvigorated the development
of the Defense Integrated Manpower System, which had been
moribund. I think that's back on track with a very aggressive
implementation schedule. We've worked on new ways to improve
our logistics management. All of these are designed to work
together so that we can get to the point where we are as
careful and thoughtful about our assets and liabilities as we
are about our income and our expenses.
We're pretty good at knowing what we get money for and how
we spend it. We're less able to really understand what our
equipment is, what our facilities are, and when they need to be
refreshed. Our new accounting systems will provide us the
information we need to do that.
It will take some time before audited financial statements
are available, just because of the complexity of putting these
new systems together. But every year, we produce a financial
report, and that financial report is judged to be a good,
thoughtful, clear explication of how the Army is using its
resources.
So, I think we're well on the way, and we have much to do,
but good progress is being made.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. I think it's
important that you follow through that and strengthen it in
every way you can.
Mr. James, recruiting of the highest caliber young men and
women for the All-Volunteer Army, Army Reserve, and the Army
National Guard presents a challenge. All through history there
have been ups and downs in this, but it is a challenge now,
although I was pleased to see, I think, most of the goals have
been met for fiscal year 2006. Indeed, in order to make
recruiting goals, age limits for enlistments have been extended
to age 42. That's interesting. I find that very interesting,
but there are a lot of fully able-bodied individuals at that
age. I remember in World War II, the cutoff was 38 years,
because I came in, in the last year of the war, and I remember
our boot-camp class with 17-year-olds, as I was, and some 18s,
and then some 36, 37, 38-year-old folks, and they had a bit of
a struggle keeping up with the younger ones, but I hope this
works out, at age 42. Aptitude standards have been modified to
allow a greater number of recruits with lower scores to enlist
in the Army. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in
ensuring that the standards for recruiting in the Active and
Reserve components remain high? Are there additional recruiting
incentives that would be helpful, in your view, in assisting
Army recruiters in making their recruiting goals?
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe we have the finest Army in the world. I'm very
proud to join that Army. I do not want my legacy to be that I
let the standards slip. Having been involved in the private
sector and with clients, the building of an excellent
workforce, the critical factor of that is the recruiting and
retaining of the best and the brightest, and providing the kind
of work environment and the kind of incentives that, in fact,
help you to do that. That has been my practice in the past.
That's been the counsel I give to clients. I would expect to
continue that now. I would expect to be very aggressive about
it, because without recruiting the best and the brightest and
keeping the standards high, I would not want to come before
this committee years from now and say that on my watch I let
the best Army in the world slide or slip.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. I'll turn to Senator
Levin momentarily here.
The management of the Army Senior Executive System (SES),
Mr. James, in March 2006, Secretary Harvey announced
implementation of significant changes in the manner in which
senior civilian executives in the Army would be managed,
including requiring civilian leaders to move into positions
where they are most needed. You've indicated in your advance
questions, however, that you do not anticipate having any role
in the management of the Army's senior executives, other than
those assigned to your office. Based on your experience at the
Department of Homeland Security, would it not be desirable that
you and your office have a role in the implementation of the
organizational change? In my own experience in the Pentagon, I
relied so heavily on the senior civilian executives, as I did
the military, of course, but we had a team in those days. We
hardly noticed any different treatment. We were all part of the
team. I hope that the senior civilians under your jurisdiction
in the Army are treated with the same respect that we did many
years ago when I was there.
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, I'll go back and read my
statement, and, if I misspoke in that, I will correct it.
Chairman Warner. I don't think you misspoke. I wasn't
suggesting that.
Mr. James. I will correct it.
Chairman Warner. You mean in your written statement?
Mr. James. My written statement, yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Mr. James. But let me respond to your concerns. It's my
understanding that the primary responsibility for the
allocation and the assignment of SESs has been moved up to the
Office of the Secretary. I would still anticipate, given my
experience and background, that Secretary Harvey would, in
fact, rely on me for advice and counsel. I do know that during
the course of some discussions we have had, I've talked to him
about my strong feeling about the need to model the Goldwater-
Nichols legislation on the civilian side, that if, in fact--and
this is the same thing I practiced and did and encouraged at
Department of Homeland Security--that is, you need to have
executives who, in fact, understand security and who understand
moving of containers. The only way you get that done is that
you, in fact, have a rotational program. You have a program
that's very much like what Goldwater-Nichols envisioned, that
you have jointness. Only then do you really have solid
executives.
It's often people like me who get the spotlight, but the
fact is that if we really care about government, our most
valuable resource for sustaining excellence in government is
the senior leadership core, and I will, to the extent I am
asked--and sometimes even when I'm not asked--raise issues and
concerns about supporting that program.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Levin, please proceed.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Mr. Ford, let me ask you a couple of questions about
the Army budget process. The budget of the Army has appeared to
be about one step above complete chaos in recent months and
years. We have seen a number of reprogrammings being sent to
Congress to borrow from account B to fill a hole in account A,
followed shortly by a second request to borrow from account C
to repay account B, and so forth. We have had reprogrammings of
this nature pending before us that would simultaneously move
large amounts of money into and out of your operation and
maintenance account at the same time. We have seen the Army
initiate a modularity program before the Army had any plan to
pay for it. Has the Army's budgeting process been acceptable,
in your view? What do you plan to do to improve it?
Mr. Ford. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
I have not had a great deal to do with the Army budgeting
process for last 15 months. Most of my efforts have been in
internal controls and in cost management. I think that it's
never good to have a budget process which is in chaos. I think,
from the perspective of the Army, the current situation we're
in is not ideal. We are preparing, each year, a budget, at
least two supplementals, and responding to numerous requests
from the combatant commanders for operational needs that they
identify. So, it's been a difficult process.
My own view is that we need to put as much of the activity
of the Army as we can in the base budget to make sure that the
base budgets are available to the Army on a timely basis and to
have as little of the activity as possible in supplementals,
and that's what I would work to do, if I'm confirmed to this
position.
Senator Levin. I understand that the Army has broken with
longstanding internal DOD procedures and refused to submit a
program objective memorandum (POM) for the fiscal year 2008
budget request to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).
Do you know if that's correct?
Mr. Ford. Sir, we have not submitted our POM to the OSD.
Senator Levin. Is that not a break with a longstanding
tradition?
Mr. Ford. It is a break, as I understand it, with a
longstanding tradition. Let me explain, if I could, what's
happened.
As we began the preparation of the POM this year, we
identified a mismatch between the current fiscal guidance and
the Army's missions, as laid forth in the Quadrennial Defense
Review. When we noticed this mismatch, we informed the OSD. We
are, at this time, in constant conversation with OSD and with
the Office of Management and Budget to understand what the
scope of those differences are, and to look for solutions for
those differences. As soon as we come to an agreement on that,
we will prepare and submit our POM.
Senator Levin. Okay, thank you.
Mr. James, a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report noted a significant increase in recruiter misconduct
between fiscal years 2004 and 2005. The economy, ongoing
hostilities in Iraq, and pressures to meet recruiting goals
have reportedly caused some recruiters to resort to overly
aggressive tactics, which can adversely affect the Army's
ability to recruit and erode public confidence in the
recruiting process. Other recruiters have been accused of
various criminal offenses.
The GAO found that the Services, including the Army, do not
track all allegations of recruiter wrongdoing and likely
underestimate the true number of recruiting irregularities.
If confirmed, will you act to ensure that the Army is aware
of the full scope of alleged recruiter misconduct?
Mr. James. Senator Levin, the answer is yes. I have a
history of teaching and lecturing in the area of sexual
harassment. I have written extensively on the issue. It is
cancerous to an organization to have allegations of any kind of
harassment. It is unacceptable to have misconduct or
misrepresentations. That will be a very high priority, if not
the top priority. It will clearly be a very high priority.
If the Army is to maintain excellence, if the Army is to
maintain credibility, we simply can't have that. I will not
abide by that on my watch, if I am confirmed.
Senator Levin. You will keep track of those allegations in
a form that you can report to the committee?
Mr. James. Yes, sir, because I have a history of experience
in understanding that sexual harassment and allegations of this
kind are always underreported, that normally if you go into a
company and you get two or three harassments, that is more than
likely the tip of the iceberg because there is a tendency by
individuals, especially women, the data showed, not to report,
or to ignore. So, I comment this with the understanding that I
not only need to look at the hard numbers, I need to understand
the reality of what may be happening.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Mr. James, just one last question. This relates to the use
of contract recruiters. There is a pilot program which allows
the Army to use contract recruiters. We have just received a
report, the first one, on the effectiveness and efficiency of
this pilot project. For 3 years of recruiting, from 2003
through 2005, the report concluded that while contract
recruiters were statistically less productive than traditional
recruiters, that the contract recruiter performance improved
during the first 2 years in the most critical areas, and it was
determined to be a viable recruiting option. The report
recommended continuing contract recruiting in some form after
the end of the pilot test on September 30, 2007.
I have a number of concerns about this program, about
contractor recruiters. For example whether or not they are
subjected to greater pressures than military recruiters to
achieve or exceed recruiting goals because their compensation
will be affected by the number of individuals that they are
able to recruit.
Can you give us, very briefly, your views on contracting
out military recruiting? Second, do you know if recruiters are
given a bonus for each person they recruit? If so, what is that
bonus, and is that bonus a significant part of their pay?
Mr. James. Senator Levin, I regret that I simply don't have
the information to respond to that question. I don't have the
data that you do. I would, respectfully, suggest that the
questions that you raise are excellent questions that need to
be asked, regardless of whether recruiters are civilians or
military. The question of, ``are they more effective?'' is
obviously something that would need to be evaluated.
Senator Levin. If confirmed, will you provide to this
committee your assessment of this program? Also, would you give
us details on how these contractors are paid? Because if there
is a financial incentive to sign up people who otherwise should
not be signed up, or to engage in pressure tactics which are
unacceptable for recruiting, we should know that, and it ought
to be part of our consideration and deliberation as to whether
to extend this program. But if you could look into this
program, see how it's operating, see how it works, and report
to this committee, I'd appreciate it.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. James. Thank you, Senator. If I am confirmed, I
understand my obligation is to apprise this committee about the
burning issue of recruiting and if we are being effective and
if we are doing it in the right ways.
Senator Levin. The contracting.
Mr. James. Yes, sir, I understand there's a myriad of
questions.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, those are important
questions, and I would suggest that the nominee provide
something for the record on that particular question as
promptly as possible. My counselor back here has some knowledge
on that program, and he'd be happy to tell you some of the
source material that we are looking at on this important issue.
I thank you, Senator, for bringing it up.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. We will keep the record open for Senators,
through close of business of the Senate today, to put their
questions into the record.
I thank the nominees, their families, and those who have
joined us for this very important hearing.
The committee stands in adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to GEN Bantz J. Craddock,
USA, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD)
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities
and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In your
previous responses to advance questions in connection with your
nomination to be Commander, U.S. Southern Command, you expressed your
support for full implementation of these reforms and noted that
proposals by the Center for Strategic and International Studies for
intra-DOD, interagency, and legislative changes could provide a basis
for change.
Based on your experience in U.S. Southern Command, do you see the
need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act provisions?
Answer. As the Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, the Joint
Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-South) falls under my purview.
JIATF-South is not only a robust joint military organization, it is
also a model for combined, interagency cooperation. All four military
Services work alongside law enforcement agencies, intelligence
agencies, and liaisons from 12 foreign nations to defeat the flow of
illicit traffic. In today's environment of limited resources, I believe
it would be appropriate to expand and strengthen the Goldwater-Nichols
Act to encourage not only joint operations, but also interagency
cooperation. I also believe that the combatant commander should play a
stronger role in the allocation process--resourcing issues are being
studied by the Joint Task Assignment Process development project within
DOD. That process should identify recommendations in joint management
constructs to improve the combatant commander's influence in the
allocation of resources.
Question. In your view, do the rules pertaining to joint officer
management and the qualification of officers as joint specialty
officers require revision? If so, how?
Answer. There are implementation practices within the department
that could be modified, but the law as written is sufficient for
military officers. We may need to better identify Joint Staff Office
positions to ensure the right people are in the right positions, and
then ensure they receive the training and professional military
education (PME) prior to filling those critical billets. Too often, PME
is being accomplished after reporting to the Joint Commands. I am also
aware that there are proposals under review to credit officers with
joint qualifications based on a variety of duty experience associated
with joint missions. I think such considerations are an appropriate
evolution in how we go about identifying and managing joint officer
resources to meet contemporary requirements of joint staffs and task
forces.
An additional consideration for revising the law would be to
require critical civilian positions to be joint qualified and educated
as well. As we move more and more to a civilianized force, reducing the
number of military personnel, we must ensure that we continue to have
properly qualified personnel in critical billets.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and North Atlantic Treaty
Organization's (NATO) Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR)?
Answer. The Commander, EUCOM, is responsible for coordinating and
conducting all U.S. military operations and activities across the 92
countries in the EUCOM area of responsibility (AOR) in pursuit of U.S.
national military objectives. This AOR includes all of Europe, two-
thirds of the African continent, the Middle East, and the Caucasus
Region. He is also responsible for the health, welfare, and security of
the approximately 104,000 servicemembers forward deployed within that
AOR. He coordinates the efforts of the Service component commands
assigned to the European Theater. The NATO Military Command Structure
assigns specific roles and duties to SACEUR. These include:
Strategic planning: Identifying and requesting forces
for the full range of Alliance missions and contributing to
crisis management and effective defense of NATO territory and
forces.
Operational leadership: Upon aggression, executes
military measures within the capability of the command to
preserve or restore the security of NATO nations.
Transformation: Cooperates with the Supreme Allied
Commander for Transformation (SAC-T) on integrating
transformation efforts. Contributes to stability throughout
Euro-Atlantic area for developing contacts and participating in
exercises and activities with NATO and Partnership for Peace
(PfP) partners.
Strategic Analysis: Conducts strategic level analysis
to identify and prioritize type and scale of capability
shortfalls. Manages NATO allocated operation and exercises
resources to accomplish operational missions as directed by the
North Atlantic Council (NAC).
The responsibilities of the Commander, EUCOM, and the SACEUR are
complementary. The fact that they have traditionally been vested in one
officer affords near-seamless coordination between the U.S. and NATO
military command structures.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have been fortunate to serve in a number of positions
that I believe have prepared me for these duties. I have had extensive
command experience in the European Theater. I was the Commander of U.S.
Forces for the initial entry operation into Kosovo. I have subsequently
commanded the 7th Army Training Command and the 1st Infantry Division
(Mechanized)--the ``Big Red One''. In my current capacity as the
Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, I have been involved with
similar combatant command issues that include security cooperation, the
global war on terrorism, interagency cooperation across a range of
issues, etc. . . These assignments have given me an opportunity to hone
both operational and diplomatic skills that are critical to the success
of any commander. Having had the opportunity to spend a significant
portion of my military career assigned in Europe provides me with a
better appreciation for the cultural differences and similarities with
our partners and allies in the EUCOM AOR.
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,
EUCOM?
Answer. Key to my ability to perform the duties of Commander,
EUCOM, and SACEUR will be getting around to the countries within the
AOR and meeting the Chiefs and Ministers of Defense as well as the U.S.
Ambassadors. Gaining an immediate appreciation for their insights and
perspectives will be essential. Just as important, I will need to get
on the ground and interact with the commanders and forces throughout
the theater, particularly those involved in the ongoing operations in
Northern Africa, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the African Union
Mission in Sudan (AMIS).
relationships
Question. Section 162(b) of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the
chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense
(SECDEF) and from the SECDEF 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, EUCOM, to the
following:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Secretary of Defense exercises authority over the Armed
Forces through the EUCOM Commander for those forces assigned to the
EUCOM AOR. The EUCOM Commander exercises command authority over
assigned forces and is directly responsible to the SECDEF for the
performance of assigned missions and the preparedness of the command.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Deputy SECDEF is delegated full power and authority to
act for the SECDEF and to exercise the powers of the Secretary on any
and all matters for which the Secretary is authorized to act pursuant
to law. The EUCOM Commander coordinates and exchanges information with
the Deputy Secretary on matters delegated by the Secretary. The
commander directly communicates with the Deputy Secretary on a regular
basis.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Answer. A direct command relationship between the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy and the EUCOM Commander does not exist. However,
the EUCOM Commander regularly interacts, coordinates, and exchanges
information with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on policy
issues relating to NATO, European, Eurasian, and African affairs. The
commander directly communicates with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy on a regular basis.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. There is not a direct command relationship between the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the EUCOM Commander.
However, the EUCOM Commander regularly interacts with, coordinates, and
exchanges information with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence on intelligence related matters.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs.
Answer. There is not a direct command relationship between the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and
the EUCOM Commander. The EUCOM Commander and the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Affairs work together on
coordinating international security policy and strategy with
responsibility for Africa.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Policy.
Answer. There is not a direct command relationship between the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy and
the EUCOM Commander. The EUCOM Commander and the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Policy work together on developing
security cooperation strategies for Europe, Eurasia, and NATO.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman functions under the authority, direction, and
control of the National Command Authority. The Chairman transmits
communications between the National Command Authority and the EUCOM
Commander as well as oversees the activities of a combatant commander
as directed by the SECDEF. As the principal military advisor to the
President and the SECDEF, the Chairman is a key conduit between the
combatant commander, interagency, and Service Chiefs. The EUCOM
Commander keeps the Chairman informed on significant issues regarding
NATO and the EUCOM AOR. The commander directly communicates with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a regular basis.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The Secretaries of Military Departments are responsible for
administration and support of forces that are assigned or attached to
the EUCOM Commander. The secretaries fulfill their responsibilities by
exercising administrative control through the Service component
commands assigned to EUCOM.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval
Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Chief of Staff of the
Air Force.
Answer. The Service Chiefs are responsible for ensuring the
organization and readiness of each respective Service and for advising
the President. However, the Service Chiefs do not have operational
command authority. The EUCOM Commander must rely upon the each of the
Service Chiefs to provide properly equipped and capable forces to
accomplish missions in the EUCOM AOR.
Question. The Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation.
Answer. Both NATO's Strategic Commanders, SACEUR and SAC-T, carry
out roles and missions assigned to them by the NAC or in some
circumstances by NATO's Defence Planning Committee. SACEUR and SAC-T
work together to ensure the transformation of NATO's military
capabilities and interoperability that support Allied Command
Operations.
Question. The other combatant commanders.
Answer. Formal relationships between the EUCOM Commander and the
geographic and functional combatant commanders derives from command
authority established by title 10, U.S.C., section 164. Combatant
commanders closely coordinate as necessary to accomplish all assigned
missions.
Question. The Secretary of State.
Answer. There is not a direct command relationship between the
Secretary of State and the EUCOM Commander. The EUCOM Commander and the
Secretary of State cooperate on the development and implementation of
regional and bilateral strategy and policy for Europe, Eurasia, Africa,
and NATO.
Question. The Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
Answer. There is not a direct command relationship between the
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and the EUCOM Commander.
The EUCOM Commander and the Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs work together in developing regional and bilateral policy
issues in Africa, Europe, Eurasia, and NATO.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs.
Answer. There is not a direct command relationship between the
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and the
EUCOM Commander. The EUCOM Commander and the Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs work together on developing
U.S. foreign policy in Europe, Eurasia, and NATO.
Question. The U.S. Permanent Representative to the NAC.
Answer. There is not a direct command relationship between the U.S.
Permanent Representative to the NAC and the SHAPE/EUCOM Commander. The
U.S. Permanent Representative is 1 of 26 members of the NAC and
provides direction to NATO's military authorities. The EUCOM Commander
works with the U.S. Permanent Representative to the NAC to coordinate
U.S. military contributions to NATO.
Question. U.S. Chiefs of Mission within the U.S. EUCOM AOR.
Answer. There is not a formal command relationship between the
EUCOM Commander and the U.S. Chiefs of Mission for the 92 nations in
the EUOCM AOR. In a foreign country, the U.S. Ambassador is responsible
to the President for directing, coordinating, and supervising all U.S.
Government elements in the host nation. The EUCOM Commander coordinates
and exchanges information with U.S. Chiefs of Mission regularly on
matters of mutual interest, to include military operations and
engagement activities. In addition to the regular exchange of
information with the U.S. Chiefs of Mission, past EUCOM Commanders have
hosted regional conferences. If confirmed, I intend to continue this
practice.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges and problems
you would confront if confirmed as the next Commander, EUCOM and
SACEUR?
Answer. I believe the major challenges facing the next Commander,
EUCOM and SACEUR can generally be divided into six broad categories:
Defense Cooperation in Eastern Europe, Africa, Theater Security
Cooperation Reforms, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)-
Afghanistan, NATO Kosovo, and NATO Capabilities.
As the focus of European security continues to shift from Central
to Eastern Europe, EUCOM strategic plans and activities to address the
challenges in Eastern Europe and Eurasia compliment NATO efforts to
strengthen new alliance partner capability in this region. EUCOM
efforts to stage U.S. forces in Bulgaria and Romania will focus on
military-to-military activities that continue to build the military
capacities of new NATO alliance and perspective alliance countries
along with strategic partners in Eastern Europe and Eurasia.
The increasing strategic significance of Africa will continue to
pose the greatest security stability challenge in the EUCOM AOR. The
large ungoverned area in Africa, HIV/AIDS epidemic, corruption, weak
governance, and poverty that exist throughout the continent are
challenges that are key factors in the security stability issues that
affect every county in Africa.
Today's theater security cooperation programs provide critical
resources to increase the security capacity of countries in need, but
inefficient processes and program planning and design restrictions make
practical use of our security cooperation programs inefficient. The
lack of flexibility to respond to rapidly changing security
requirements hampers the combatant commander's ability to provide the
kind of training and equipping of foreign military forces. Reform of
existing theater security cooperation programs is required to
streamline our processes so that U.S. national security objectives are
met.
The future of NATO out of area operations is tied to the success of
NATO's ISAF mission in Afghanistan. Although the security and stability
ISAF mission in Afghanistan will not be a short-term or challenge-free
endeavor, the commitment the Alliance has made exporting security and
stability to regions in need is what will allow NATO to continue as the
relevant security organization of the future. If NATO's political or
military will is lost in the Afghanistan ISAF mission, the future of
NATO out of area operations and thus the NATO Response Force concept
will be severely jeopardized.
The Balkan countries have been a challenge for the last several
Commanders, EUCOM/SACEURs, and this will not change for the next one.
In Kosovo, the upcoming decision on the future status of Kosovo holds
several unknowns that will assuredly affect the region. With continued
vigilance, this region is on the path to be a NATO success story.
Finally, continuing to improve the standardized capabilities of
NATO Alliance militaries will be an ongoing challenge for Alliance
nations that grapple with scarce resources to contribute to their
security organizations. Resources for modernization and standardization
are competing directly with current operational requirements in Kosovo,
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Darfur along with supporting U.N. peacekeeping
operations throughout the region.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges and problems?
Answer. In the previously mentioned areas, the key to success will
be proactive engagement and clear direction. The next EUCOM/SACEUR must
establish clear priorities and provide a strategic vision to guide
transformation, foster relationships, and set the conditions for the
successful integration of the new NATO member countries. Additionally,
constant reassessment of these challenges and coupled with the ability
to adjust will be critical enablers as we address evolving security
challenges in the EUCOM AOR.
nato capabilities
Question. This committee has a long history of concern that NATO
remain first and foremost a highly capable military organization. Over
the years, there have been concerns that NATO member countries do not
spend as much as they should on maintaining and modernizing their
militaries, and that there has been a considerable gap in capabilities
between the United States and many other NATO members. This issue has
become an even larger concern as NATO has expanded to include several
East and Central European nations.
What is your assessment of the military capabilities of the NATO
member states, and of the NATO organization as a whole? In what areas
specifically is more improvement needed? In what areas has there been
the most progress?
Answer. The NATO member states are very well trained and equipped.
The limiting factor for NATO capability is logistics and
transportation, including strategic airlift. Military equipment and
capability are the best in the world. Until NATO has the logistics and
transportation infrastructure needed to be expeditionary in nature,
greater quantities of unmoved equipment will be rendered irrelevant.
There has been a great deal of progress in transforming new member
states of NATO into all volunteer, professional forces.
Question. What is your assessment of the role of SAC-T in effecting
positive change among NATO member nations?
Answer. The role of SAC-T is to effect positive change among NATO
member nations forces and capabilities to improve NATO's operational
effectiveness. SACEUR and SAC-T work in cooperation, not competition,
to realize effective change across the alliance. I look forward to
continuing the relationship that General Jones has developed.
Question. What will you do, if confirmed, to ensure that military
capability and interoperability remain top priorities for NATO?
Answer. Military capability and interoperability are top priorities
for NATO, and will continue to be so during my tour. Ongoing operations
in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo provide ``real world'' experience to
base our future plans. Our ability to work together will be enhanced by
these experiences.
nato enlargement
Question. NATO has indicated that it does not expect to invite new
members to join NATO at the Riga Summit in November 2006, but that it
will make clear that the door remains open to new members.
What do you believe the criteria should be for accepting new
members into NATO?
Answer. The criteria for accepting new members is clearly outlined
in the Washington Treaty, the Alliance's 1995 Study on NATO
Enlargement, and the NATO Membership Action Plan.
Chapter 10 of the Washington Treaty notes that the alliance,
through unanimous agreement, may invite any European State that is in a
position to further the principles of the treaty and to contribute to
the security of the North Atlantic area.
Beyond that very broad statement, Allied Heads of State and
Government, in September 1995, issued the Study on NATO Enlargement,
which among many things, noted that any new member, at the time that
they join NATO, must commit themselves to very specific things, such
as: settling any international disputes by peaceful means; contributing
militarily to NATO's collective defense; and maintaining the
effectiveness of the alliance by sharing its roles, risks,
responsibilities, costs, and benefits.
Finally, in 1999, NATO, building on the principles of that study.
launched a program known as the Membership Action Plan (MAP), which is
specifically designed to assist aspiring countries in their
preparations for possible future NATO membership. The MAP lists over 30
separate political, economic, defense, military, financial, security,
and legal items, which the alliance expects each NATO aspirant to meet
upon accession into the alliance. These items range from establishing
democratic and civilian control of their armed forces and allocating
sufficient budget resources for the implementation of alliance
commitments, to having in place sufficient safeguards and procedures to
ensure the security of NATO information and ensuring, to the greatest
extent possible, that their domestic legislation is compatible with the
legal arrangements and agreements that govern cooperation within NATO.
Question. Is there a limit to how many members NATO can include and
still be an effective military organization capable of making decisions
and acting in a timely fashion?
Answer. It would not be appropriate for me to answer the first part
of your question since it is a political one, which is best answered by
the Allied Heads of State and Government, who collectively must answer
it. However, with regard to the second part of your question, I can
tell you that the last two rounds of NATO enlargement, which increased
the size of the alliance by 10 members over the last 7 years, have
strengthened the Alliance.
nato-russia council
Question. The NATO-Russia Council was established at the Rome
Summit in May 2002.
How has the NATO-Russia relationship evolved since that time?
Answer. NATO-Russia relations have evolved since the Rome Summit
and have incrementally increased in terms of the number and complexity
of events. These events include exercises, seminars, academic
exchanges, and technical conferences. Russian ratification of the NATO
PfP Status of Forces Agreement remains a necessary next step for
additional progress, especially in field exercises.
Question. How do you see this relationship evolving in the future?
Answer. I anticipate the relationship to continue a deliberate
positive trend that reflects the mutual interests of both NATO and
Russia.
Question. Does Russia continue to have concerns about further
enlargement of NATO and, if so, should NATO take steps to help mitigate
Russian concerns?
Answer. Russia has always been concerned about NATO enlargement,
but the track history speaks for itself. The NATO-Russia relationship
is non-adversarial and focused on practical interoperability. NATO has
always been transparent about the enlargement process, and Russia has
many opportunities to stay appraised on the enlargement status. The
ongoing relationship with NATO facilitates this.
nato-european union
Question. The NATO-European Union (EU) relationship is viewed by
some as competitive and by others as complementary.
How would you characterize the NATO-EU relationship today?
Answer. When discussing the NATO-EU relationship it is important to
understand that the United States considers NATO to be the premier
security structure in Europe and this drives much of our policy
decisionmaking. We believe the Alliance formalizes and deepens the
security and political relationship between North America and European
allies and partners. In this respect we believe that NATO is the
natural venue for those nations to consult and act together on security
matters--a principle that EU Heads of State also affirmed. The U.S.
supports European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) and a close,
cooperative relationship between the EU and NATO.
Question. How would you like to see this relationship evolve in the
future?
Answer. To achieve a close, cooperative relationship between NATO
and the EU from a military point of view, I believe there are several
areas that both organizations can work together to improve. Let me
offer some examples:
Enhanced staff-to-staff dialogue between the EU
Military Staff and NATO's International Military Staff.
Full use of Berlin Plus arrangements.
Wider, more active liaison work, including more
frequent briefs to the NATO and EU military committees, by the
NATO Permanent Liaison Team to the EU and the EU Liaison Cell
to SHAPE.
More frequent meetings between the NATO Chairman of
the Military Committee and the EU Military Committee Chairman.
Additional informal NATO-EU MILREP off-sites.
Utilization of Crisis Management Exercise 2007 as the
primary mechanism for understanding, demonstrating, and
enhancing the necessity, possibility, and opportunity for
cooperation between NATO and the EU, taking full advantage of
the lessons learned.
Expediting establishment of robust ties between the EU
Defense Agency (EDA) and the range of comparable NATO
structures addressing capabilities development, fully using the
Berlin Plus mechanisms, as was agreed in the EDA's ministerial
charter.
Question. What do you believe would be the optimal delineation of
responsibilities between NATO and the EU?
Answer. The U.S. has supported ESDP with the understanding that it
will create real additional military capabilities and conduct missions
where NATO is not engaged while working in a manner that is
cooperative, and not competitive, with NATO. This is the purpose of the
Berlin Plus arrangements for consultations and collaboration between
the two organizations.
afghanistan/international security assistance force
Question. On July 31, 2006, the NATO-led ISAF assumed
responsibility for security in the southern region of Afghanistan.
Since that time, NATO forces have had several military engagements with
the Taliban, and have sustained casualties.
How confident are you that NATO will be able to sustain its
commitment to ISAF given the challenging security situation in
Afghanistan?
Answer. The NATO Alliance took a significant step when it decided
to conduct military operations in Afghanistan. That it did so
reinforces its commitment to the global war on terrorism and the NATO's
belief that this effort is central to continued peace and stability in
Europe. It was a decision made with deliberation and a significant
commitment of resources. Thus far, NATO forces have shown determination
and resiliency. The alliance has given no indication at this point as
having any doubt in their decision and I am confident that member
nations will stay the course in providing Afghanistan the stability and
security it needs to move forward.
Question. When do you believe NATO will be ready to assume
responsibility for security in the eastern region of Afghanistan?
Answer. Generals Jones and Abzaid have been in close consultation
with respect to the standards and conditions necessary on the ground to
affect the transfer of authority (TOA) in the eastern region to ISAF.
This transition effort has progressed as expected and the commanders
are confident that the time is near to conduct this transition. Given
the strength of ISAF and the strength of the U.S. forces currently
serving in Region East and the performance of ISAF forces recently in
the Region South, it appears to me that we are approaching the time to
conduct TOA. Unity of command is an essential element in military
success and fully vesting ISAF with the stability and security
responsibilities for all of Afghanistan serves this purpose.
Question. In your view, should EUCOM assume responsibility for all
U.S. missions in Afghanistan once NATO has assumed responsibility for
the ISAF mission?
Answer. ISAF is organized and manned to accomplish the mission
authorized by the Alliance. Within that mandate, the force is well
prepared to meet the broad and varied challenges that it will face in
Afghanistan. There are other operations that will continue to be
conducted in the country that are outside those parameters established
for ISAF. The current command relationships take into account these
various activities and I believe that these can be conducted in a
synchronized and coordinated manner. The various operations also take
into account the unique capabilities of both NATO and the United States
military forces. After the TOA for Stage 4, nearly 13,000 U.S.
personnel will be under the direct command of the Commander, ISAF. The
remaining U.S. forces will continue to conduct complementary and
coordinated operations in support of the mission to maintain stability
and security in Afghanistan.
Question. What challenges do you foresee for NATO when it assumes
responsibility for this fourth sector in Afghanistan?
Answer. I think we will see a continuation of what ISAF has
encountered in the region. The U.S. has been present in Region East for
some time now. We can expect little change from what we are seeing
today.
Question. Are you concerned about U.S. troops participating in a
NATO-led mission under the control of a non-U.S. general officer? What
do you see as the benefits of such participation?
Answer. No, I am not. My predecessors have all worked to make NATO
the pre-eminent military alliance in the world, and I believe their
past record stipulates to that great success. In doing so, great effort
has been made in standardizing operations and procedures, to ensure all
members of the military forces understand the capabilities and
limitations of each nation's contributions. U.S. forces have served
with great distinction under commanders of other nations--as have other
NATO forces under the command of U.S. leaders. This has been a great
strength within the Alliance and I see that this will continue in
Afghanistan and in other areas of future NATO operations.
Question. To what extent are national caveats a problem with
respect to NATO forces participating in ISAF?
Answer. Any time a unit, a component, or a single soldier is given
the option to default to a national prerogative that may run counter to
the assigned mission, that mission is put at risk. While I understand
that there are issues that might rise above the military necessity on
the ground, it must be understood that any such limitation placed upon
an essential resource may well create an irrelevance in that resource's
use to the command. Clearly, this situation has the effect of lessening
overall military effectiveness and we in the alliance should strive to
ensure no such limitations are saddled upon a commander. We continue to
push for elimination of caveats within the alliance and we still have
room for progress.
Question. Officials are reportedly expecting opium cultivation in
Afghanistan to reach record levels this year with a possible 40-percent
increase in land under poppy cultivation. Are you satisfied with the
current level of effort to counter the narcotics trade in Afghanistan?
Answer. Obviously, the rising rate of poppy production in
Afghanistan is a troubling issue. Drug trade generates enormous amounts
of money that is being funneled back into Afghanistan, providing the
resources to both criminal elements and the insurgents to fund their
operations. This is a source of funding that only exacerbates the
challenges that ISAF, the Afghan government, international aid efforts,
and U.S. military forces face in helping to provide stability,
security, and reconstruction in the Nation. Having faced a similar
situation as the Commander of the Southern Command, I can assure you
that there are no easy answers to this problem, but a comprehensive,
coordinated effort that removes the incentives for poppy production,
reduces the influence of the criminal element in those poppy production
areas, creates alternative income sources for farmers, and ensures that
corruption in local and regional governments is eliminated is critical
to reversing this trend. I cannot be satisfied with efforts to date
that have resulted in the current situation that has an immediate,
negative impact on our military operations.
Question. Please provide your assessment of the capabilities and
effectiveness of NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Answer. Not having been on the ground, I cannot give a personal
observation or assessment as to either ISAF's current capabilities or
its effectiveness. From what I have read and seen in news reports, this
is a groundbreaking mission for NATO that has many implications for the
Alliance and its future. Great effort and commitment has been
demonstrated in approving the mission, allocating the required forces,
moving them into Afghanistan, and conducting operations to date. During
the recent increase in combat operations, ISAF forces have acquitted
themselves well in the field as the Alliance moves towards Stage 4 TOA
expansion to Region East. All this activity and effort demonstrates a
true commitment to this mission.
lebanon
Question. Recently the Department announced that EUCOM would assume
responsibility from CENTCOM as the lead unified command for Joint Task
Force-Lebanon. Is this a change to the Unified Command Plan (UCP) or a
temporary tasking?
Answer. U.S. EUCOM assuming the mission from U.S. CENTCOM in
Lebanon does not change the UCP. The transition of JTF-Lebanon to U.S.
EUCOM is a temporary requirement given a specific JOA and missions
focused on supporting the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.
Question. What was the rationale for this transfer of
responsibility?
Answer. The Joint Staff directed the change in operational control
because the military role began to transition from the nonevacuation
operations to U.S. Government support to American Embassy Beirut
(AMEMB) for aviation and maritime lift support, as well as providing
standby capability for short-notice evacuation of embassy personnel to
include a security force to augment existing AMEMB security.
Question. What specific missions have been assigned to EUCOM with
respect to the current situation in Lebanon?
Answer. To provide DOD support to SECDEF approved U.S. Government
humanitarian assistance efforts as requested by Department of State
(DOS) and U.S. Agency for International Development; continue
sustainment and security support to AMEMB; and to be prepared to
conduct short notice evacuation of embassy personnel.
Question. Do you anticipate that NATO could assume any formal role
relating to the situation in Lebanon?
Answer. U.S. EUCOM does not anticipate NATO assuming a role in
Lebanon. The U.N. has taken on the role and UNIFIL has the lead.
Currently, the U.N. has begun deploying additional UNIFIL forces to
Lebanon.
Question. What role do you anticipate for EUCOM in the disbursement
of military assistance, including section 1206 funding, to support the
Lebanese armed forces?
Answer. U.S. EUCOM does not anticipate a role in the disbursement
of military assistance to Lebanon Armed Forces. This responsibility is
retained by U.S. CENTCOM.
nato/iraq
Question. NATO has committed to help train and equip the Iraqi
security forces to enable Iraq to assume responsibility for its own
security.
What is the status of NATO contributions--both inside Iraq and
outside of Iraq--to training and equipping the Iraqi security forces?
Answer. Status of NATO contributions inside Iraq: through its NATO
Training Mission to Iraq (NTM-I) NATO provided assistance to Iraqi
security forces through the training and education of Iraqi security
forces. NTM-I began operations on February 20, 2005, and have trained
over 2,000 Iraqi security forces to date, including military officers
and civilian leadership. This effort includes the establishment of an
Iraqi War College, the Iraqi Command and Staff College, and the Iraqi
Basic Officers Commissioning Course. The NATO Training Equipment
Coordination Group (NTECG) has coordinated the delivery of more than
$130 million of equipment for the Iraqi security forces including
tanks, trucks, small arms, ammunition, and protective equipment.
Through September 5, the NTECG had trained more than 308 Iraqis at NATO
institutions and is currently coordinating an additional 225 quotas.
Finally, with respect to out of country training offered through NATO,
the Allies have provided 96 quotas in their national institutions and
the NTECG currently has 69 additional quotas under coordination.
Question. Do you expect NATO's level of effort in this area to
expand, diminish, or stay about the same over the coming months?
Answer. Contingent on sufficient trust funding to support
operations, NATO's level of effort will expand to include academic
noncommissioned officer (NCO) training this year. NATO has also
received, for the first time, an Iraqi generated statement of
requirements requesting NATO assistance for 2007. This proposal was
prepared by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior and
requests assistance in both training and education and equipment.
Question. Do you believe that there is more NATO could do to assist
in the development of the Iraqi security forces?
Answer. There is more that can be done. NATO is an Alliance of 26
nations with a diversity of approaches and capabilities to offer. For
instance, many European nations have very capable paramilitary police
forces such as the gendarmerie or the Carabinieri in Italy. These
forces are part of the military in many of these nations. NATO is
currently exploring expansion of the mission to assist the Iraqi
security forces in developing a Gendarmerie/Carabinieri capability in
order to assist interior security troops.
defense cooperation in eastern europe
Question. The United States is in the process of building new
forward operating locations in Eastern Europe.
Are you satisfied with the current plans, including the proposed
locations and activities to be conducted at those locations?
Answer. I am satisfied with current Joint Task Force-East planning
efforts. The proposed locations and activities are satisfactory and in
keeping with EUCOM's goal of establishing more strategically forward-
positioned expeditionary forces. The Forward Operating Sites in
Bulgaria and Romania will increase Theater Security Cooperation and
bilateral training exercise opportunities across the range of military
operations with our global war on terrorism partner nations. These
Theater Security Cooperation events will be synchronized to support our
regional war on terrorism contingency plans.
If confirmed, would you plan to review these current and proposed
arrangements?
Answer. Although the current and proposed Defense Cooperation and
implementation agreements with Bulgaria and Romania enter into force
for 10-year periods, it is my intent to conduct annual reviews to
ensure the agreements continue to meet the needs of the United States
and EUCOM.
kosovo
Question. It appears that agreement could be reached in the near
future regarding the final status of Kosovo. Nearly 16,000 NATO troops
currently participate in the Kosovo Force (KFOR) that provides security
and stabilization assistance in Kosovo.
What do you anticipate will be the role and requirements for KFOR
after an agreement on final status for Kosovo has been reached?
Answer. In the immediate aftermath of the final status talks
settlement there is a high potential for disaffected parties to
generate violence and unrest. In the short-term, NATO's role in the
immediate aftermath will be to ensure that security and stability are
maintained as the conditions of the talks are implemented. As a longer-
term measure, NATO will need to transition to other security factors to
include the European Union to ensure that comprehensive approaches to
Kosovo civil society are met. What cannot happen in the short- or the
long-term is for the international community to disengage from Kosovo
until the Kosavars are capable of ensuring their own security and
stability. If there was a premature withdrawal it would be an open
invitation for disaffected elements or organized criminal elements to
move into the environment.
Question. Is NATO prepared in the event that ethnic violence and
tension increases in the coming days and months?
Answer. NATO is very well positioned to respond to civil
disturbances and unrest throughout Kosovo. KFOR has recently
implemented a Multinational Task Force Concept that requires all
maneuver companies in the operating area to be capable of responding to
events throughout Kosovo. Additionally, KFOR conducts rehearsal
deployments of its operational reserves that deploy during selectively
targeted timeframes to ensure forces are positioned and ready to
respond. It has also developed effective coordination measures with
international community police forces. Finally, KFOR has procedures in
place to enable quick reinforcement by other international forces in
the Balkans.
Question. If there is no agreement on final status this year, what
role should NATO play in Kosovo?
Answer. To begin with, let's keep in mind that agreement is not a
precondition to final status talks. It is well within the authority of
the United Nations to generate an imposed settlement. If there is no
settlement this year, the logical outcome of such an event would be
unrest and violence on the part of those Kosovars who are seeking the
settlement. KFOR's role would be to ensure that a safe and secure
environment is maintained so that efforts can move ahead towards that
final settlement. NATO's role is to provide the time and the space for
a comprehensive political solution to be reached.
republic of turkey
Question. In June 2006, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
issued a report on Turkey that argued that the United States and Turkey
should take steps to repair their strained relations and help ensure
that Turkey remains firmly anchored in the west. The recommended steps
included a trilateral dialogue on the future of Iraq; a proactive U.S.
diplomatic approach to encourage Europe to agree to Turkish accession
to the EU; and establishing a high-level U.S.-Turkish commission to
provide a structured mechanism for regular interaction across agencies
of government, NGOs, and the private sector.
Do you believe that Turkey is of enormous strategic importance to
the United States and Europe?
Answer. Yes. Turkey remains an important strategic partner for the
United States and Europe for reasons that made it a viable strategic
NATO ally for the last 50 years. It is the crossroad of vital air and
sea lanes of communication and directly supports the EUCOM mission of:
(1) facilitating security cooperation between partner nations; and (2)
providing consequence management and crisis response throughout the AOR
as needed. They provide a stable, moderate, and secular Islamic society
that is working for accession to the European Union. They are a
traditional ally, friendly to the United States, and have been loyal
throughout their history. Turkey's ability to recover economically
following a crisis is documented by the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund. This further indicates Turkey's ability to meet western
economic standards. Another critical piece is the positive diplomacy we
share and extensive military cooperation that has played a vital role
in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, as well as JTF-
Lebanon. The United States and Turkey share a common strategic vision.
Turkish security is as important to the U.S. as it is to Turkey itself.
Question. Do you agree with the recommendations of the CFR report?
Answer. Maintaining and bolstering relations with Turkey is
paramount to successful influence in the region. Closely tied with
energy partners and engaging in relations with nontraditional nation-
states, the importance of improving relations with Turkey is critical
for U.S. regional success. The CFR stated the ideology and the
generalized goals that would achieve these results. However, EUCOM with
interagency assistance would consider putting more concrete tasks to
match the goals and objectives outlined in the CFR.
Question. Are there activities you would like to initiate at EUCOM
and at NATO to promote stronger U.S.-Turkish and European-Turkish
relations?
Answer. We should continue to work with Turkey to improve the
capability of the countries of the Caucasus region to secure their own
borders while discouraging these countries from using military force to
resolve ``frozen conflicts.'' Both Turkey and the U.S. have significant
interests in this region and see the Caucasus countries impeding the
cross-border movement of transnational threats while allowing free flow
of valuable hydrocarbon assets out of the Caspian basin. Both Turkey
and the U.S. have significant security cooperation programs to achieve
these goals, and, with continued dialogue, these programs can
complement one another. We've done this well in the past in Georgia,
and have begun to look at ways to cooperate in Azerbaijan. We have to
be careful not to provide capabilities that will upset the military
balance or that hurt movement towards resolution of the frozen
conflicts, but again that can be done through good dialogue.
africa
Question. A January 2006 CFR report argued that Africa is of
increasing strategic importance to the United States and our allies,
including Africa's role in energy security, combating the spread of
terrorism, and halting the devastation of HIV/AIDS. EUCOM has been
active in addressing security threats in Africa, through efforts such
as the Trans-Sahel Counter-Terrorism Initiative (TS/CTI) to combat
terrorist networks and deny safe havens throughout the Sahel region.
In your view, what are the most significant security threats in
Africa today? What do you foresee as EUCOM's role in addressing those
threats?
Answer. Foremost among African security threats to U.S. interests
is the trans-Sahel's increasing attraction to terrorist groups; the
undergoverned region provides a sanctuary for terrorist planning and
training to a ready pool of extremists.
Other notable threats to U.S. interests in Africa include the
spread of HIV/AIDS, the spillover effects of insecurity in central and
eastern Africa, the instability in West Africa that threatens to spread
and disrupt hydrocarbon production, and the dramatic growth in the
level and nature of Chinese activities throughout Africa.
HIV/AIDS continues to contribute to social and
economic instability. AIDS has surpassed malaria as the leading
cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa, and its impact is
worsened by the disproportionate toll it takes on their
populations. Forty percent of Africans are under the age of 15,
and their poverty and lack of economic prospects exacerbates
both a growing extremist sentiment and illegal emigration into
Europe.
Fighting and lawlessness in Sudan's Darfur region and
eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo has created the
largest humanitarian crisis in decades.
A rise in both criminal and militant activity in
Nigeria's oil-producing delta region this year has disrupted
the country's oil output by between 500,000 and 1 million
barrels per day. Foreign oil workers, especially Americans and
other westerners, are increasingly at risk of being kidnapped
for ransom.
While developed countries will continue to rely on
Africa to supply much needed raw materials, other major
developing economies of the world will compete with the west's
demand for these resources. For example, China is the world's
leading consumer of copper, steel, cobalt, and aluminum, is
second only to the U.S. as an importer of African oil, and is
investing heavily in these African resource sectors.
Despite these challenges, today, Africa is on a course to slowly
move away from its recent history of mass ethnic violence and
dictatorial regimes. However, if gradual improvements to security and
democracy are unable to keep pace with popular expectations for meeting
basic needs, security will again deteriorate. These conditions could
provide a fertile environment in which terrorist networks could
encroach, emerge, and prosper in coming years.
Question. What do you foresee EUCOM's role in addressing those
threats?
Answer. We see our role as conducting operations which contribute
to an environment inhospitable to violent extremists and their
ideology. EUCOM is executing Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara
(OEF-TS). OEF-TS is the DOD operation supporting the DOS TS/CTI. It
addresses the defeat of violent extremist networks in Trans-Saharan
Africa largely through capacity building, information sharing,
Strategic Communication/Information Operations, and Theater Security
Cooperation (TSC). It provides a long-term solution, aimed at both
defeating violent extremist networks, and reducing their underlying
conditions.
Question. Are there resource or other challenges that EUCOM is
facing in effectively executing the TS/CTI or similar initiatives?
Answer. DOD's top three global war on terrorism efforts (OIF, OEF-
A, OEF-TS) are all currently funded by supplementals. Unless OEF-TS
becomes a Program of Record in fiscal years 2008-2013, OEF-TS will
continue living through the supplemental venue. I am encouraged that
OSD is seeking to find better ways to resource COCOM initiatives and is
using OEF-TS as their business case for this endeavor.
Other challenges for TS/CTI/OEF-TS primarily deal with access.
Policy restrictions, legal roadblocks, lack of service men protections,
and differing country team perspectives relating to counterterrorism
create challenges that must be overcome.
darfur
Question. NATO is currently assisting the African Union (AU) in
Ethiopia by helping to build the capacity of AU forces that will serve
in Darfur, and by providing strategic lift in and out of Darfur for AU
forces that are serving there.
Do you anticipate that NATO could be asked to play an expanded role
in providing security and stopping the genocide in Darfur?
Answer. NATO could be asked to play an expanded role, but any such
request will have to be carefully weighed against the realities of the
current strategic situation. Many NATO Allies have commitments in the
Balkans, Lebanon, Afghanistan as well as supporting our efforts in OIF
and OEF.
Question. Is NATO planning for the possibility of an expanded
mission there?
Answer. NATO is limited in its ability to plan by political
decisions reached by the NAC. The NAC has authorized current levels of
assistance in strategic movement support and capacity building in
support of AMIS to be extended. NATO military authorities are prepared
to do more in terms of providing training and support to AMIS and NATO
is prepared and engaged with the United Nations (U.N.) to explore ways
for NATO to support U.N. efforts as well. NATO is prepared and ready to
do more than it has been asked to do by the AU. The key to any
increased NATO assistance will lie with those who are requesting the
assistance.
unified command plan (ucp)
Question. In 2004, DOD conducted a review of the UCP. While the
Department reviewed the command structure in Africa, it did not approve
establishing a separate command or realigning the existing command
structure. Under the existing command structure, EUCOM, U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM), and U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) have
responsibilities for Africa. Since the establishment of the current
command structure, Africa has become more strategically important to
the United States. Since 2001, the Department has increased its
presence and activities in Africa. What is your view on the present
command structure in Africa?
Answer. As you've accurately stated, Africa is split between three
geographic combatant commands under the current UCP. From a unity of
command and unity of effort perspective, a change in U.S. command
arrangements in Africa has merit and should be considered. A separate
command for Africa would provide better focus and increased synergy in
support of U.S. policy and engagement, but it would also require a
significant commitment of resources. Establishment of Africa Command as
a geographic combatant command is included as an initiative in the UCP
2007 review.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you ensure that no
seams exist in the operations and activities being carried out in
Africa between EUCOM, CENTCOM, and PACOM, as well as with other Federal
agencies of the United States operating in the region?
Answer. There will always be seams or boundaries; our challenge is
to mitigate the seams through either UCP changes, where it makes sense,
or through effective coordination with our respective counterparts both
within DOD, the Interagency, and our allies and partners. To be
effective in support of U.S. policy we all have to work as a team. That
implies sharing information, participating in planning and coordination
forums, establishing supported and supported relationships, and at
times establishing a Joint Task Force to operate on the seam, to
address a specific problem or task. The key to success in working with
the interagency is not only effective communication and coordination
within the beltway, but also integrating a full spectrum Joint
Interagency Coordination Group within the Unified Commands as well.
theater security cooperation operation reforms
Question. Recent changes in the Security Cooperation Guidance
require all DOD components to coordinate their Security Cooperation
Guidance implementation strategies, plans, and activities with the
relevant geographic combatant commanders.
Based on your experience, what is your view of the extent to which
these changes are being implemented? What impact are they having on the
development of theater security cooperation programs?
Answer. The welcomed changes to the Security Cooperation Guidance
are being implemented in a slow but sure way. Since the release of the
guidance, many agencies have had to make significant course corrections
in how they do business, and EUCOM is no different. The process to
improve interaction takes time and I expect our interagency cooperation
will improve significantly as we enter the next planning cycle. We
believe that the increased interagency cooperation will bring about
better synergy and collaboration at many levels, improving the overall
coherency of our security cooperation activities.
Question. Do you anticipate that other changes may be necessary? If
so, what areas do you believe may need to be addressed?
Answer. While some security cooperation reform measures have been
embraced, there still is some work to be done. Specifically, the focus
of our efforts should be on three areas: DOD reform, interagency
reform, and legislative action. Within the DOD, the GCC still does not
have adequate visibility over activities within our AOR nor do we have
sufficient influence over service Foreign Military Sales decisions
affecting theater security cooperation programs. Within the interagency
arena, steps should be taken that allow for true flexibility and
interagency cooperation at the regional and GCC levels. The GCC should
have greater input into the FMF/IMET process, integration into the
budget development process, resource visibility, and an empowered Joint
Interagency Coordination Group. Finally, legislative action that
supports funding flexibility designed to allow greater logistics
support and training for purposes of interoperability, coalition
operations, and foreign forces fighting in lieu of U.S. forces must be
pursued. The reform requested should enable proactive capacity
building, true synchronization of title 10 and 22 funds, and a systemic
multi-year approach to security cooperation budgeting processes.
Question. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of the
interagency process for developing our theater security cooperation
strategy? What, if any, reforms might be necessary to develop a more
effective, integrated approach toward our theater security cooperation
programs?
Answer. The interagency process has yielded some positive results,
but the concept and execution still require significant work to achieve
the integration necessary for security cooperation success on a
regional and global scale. The EUCOM Joint Interagency Coordination
Group has been in place for 4 years, and its efficacy has been limited
due to a shortage of appropriate personnel and limited authorities. The
representation provided by the interagency is insufficient, in both
rank and numbers, to coordinate the myriad of activities conducted in
the AOR. The Joint Interagency Coordination Group needs to be staffed
and empowered to make decisions for their agencies in theater on
strategy and objectives. The GCC should look into a reciprocal
arrangement and provide liaison officers in key agencies that have a
significant footprint within the AOR.
interagency support and processes
Question. In his 2006 testimony, General Jones noted that due to
the modern complexity of the EUCOM theater's security challenges, U.S.
efforts require a broad interagency approach and that EUCOM works ``to
improve interagency coordination across the spectrum of governmental
and nongovernmental organizations in order to achieve optimal national
results.'' It has been suggested that the methods in place for
interagency cooperation between, for instance, the Defense and State
Departments overseas, are less than optimal. Some have suggested that
an overhaul on the pattern of the Goldwater-Nichols Act is needed. What
is your opinion as to the existing interagency processes for
coordination and support?
Answer. Our processes are too cumbersome to deal with in our
present day security environment and challenges presented in the 21st
century. Our society allows our enemies to understand how we operate
and they are exploiting certain limitations to their advantage. An
overhaul within DOD's other agency partners, patterned after Goldwater-
Nichols, would be a welcome reform.
Question. What improvements, if any, would you suggest?
Answer. The improvements necessary for this type of reform point
toward the concept of unity of command. While the United States
Government has many tools capable of affecting the various regions, the
current efforts are not directed by a single entity since there is no
legally binding requirement for agencies to coordinate their activities
to create efficiencies and synergy. Coordination towards a collective
interagency effort in order to deconflict departmental or agency
priorities should guide any effort to address this issue, one that I
believe is overdue for detailed study.
eucom and nato missile defense
Question. NATO territory is currently within range of a variety of
short- and medium-range ballistic missiles from potentially hostile
states. Some NATO nations (United States, Germany, and Italy) are
partners in the Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS) that will
use some components of the Patriot PAC-3 system.
What is your view of the priority of ballistic missile defense in
the overall NATO/EUCOM security situation? Where does it fit in
relative to other priorities like combating terrorism, cruise missile
defense, and providing peacekeeping forces?
Answer. Rogue states in the Middle East and Southwest Asia possess
a current ballistic missile capability that threatens a major portion
of Europe. Iran is aggressively expanding the range and sophistication
of its ballistic missiles and is pursuing nuclear capabilities that
dramatically expand the threat to the entire European region. The
deployment of ballistic missile defense assets in Europe would make a
significant contribution to the protection of the United States and
Europe from a Middle Eastern ballistic missile threat. Ballistic
missile defense must remain a priority so that we are postured to
counter threats to the United States, deployed forces, and allies.
Ballistic missile defense is directly linked to the other theater
priorities such as deterring/defeating the use of missiles and WMD as a
means of terrorism, defending against cruise missiles, and protecting
peacekeeping forces from these threats.
Question. What role do you see for U.S. and NATO missile defenses
in protecting Europe against existing and near-term missile threats?
For example, what role do you envision for the Aegis BMD and THAAD
systems?
Answer. United States ballistic missile defense assets are
dedicated not only to defense of the U.S. homeland, but also to the
defense of deployed forces and allies from the growing ballistic threat
from rogue states. Sea-based and mobile assets are integral components
of a comprehensive ballistic missile defense system, but cannot defeat
the entire range of threats by themselves. Sophisticated sensors are
required for early acquisition and target discrimination and ground-
based interceptors are needed to defeat longer-range missiles. U.S.
ballistic missile defenses can synergistically integrate with emerging
NATO concepts for a missile defense system. The United States is fully
committed to treaties and alliances and the collective defense of
Europe.
Question. Do you believe there are sufficient U.S. and allied
Patriot/PAC-3 capabilities currently available in the EUCOM AOR, or are
additional capabilities needed?
Answer. Joint Staff tasked STRATCOM, in coordination with other
combatant commanders and force providers, to develop a worldwide
Patriot Theater Ballistic Missile Risk and Threat Assessment in order
to recommend to SECDEF an allocation of ballistic missile defensive
capabilities to cover global requirements. It would not be appropriate
for EUCOM to preempt that ongoing process. However, we can say that
EUCOM's current requirement for one Patriot Battalion has been given a
relatively high priority thus far and does not appear to be at risk for
deployment to another theater. The Patriot Battalion stationed in
Germany is currently configured with PAC-2. It is scheduled for upgrade
to PAC-3 by 2009. The Missile Defense Agency, Joint Staff, combatant
commanders, and force providers are also engaged in a number of
assessments intended to develop a comprehensive missile defense
acquisition, development, and deployment plan. EUCOM is engaged in this
process and is satisfied with its current progress.
ground-based midcourse defense (gmd) site in europe
Question. The Department is requesting funds in fiscal year 2007 to
acquire and deploy 10 ground-based interceptor missiles at a site to be
located in a European country by the end of the decade. This missile
defense site is planned to provide protection for the United States and
most of Europe against future long-range ballistic missile threats from
Iran and other locations.
What is your view on the requirement for such a capability deployed
in the EUCOM AOR?
Answer. Rogue states in the Middle East and Southwest Asia possess
a current ballistic missile capability that threatens a major portion
of Europe. Iran is aggressively expanding the range and sophistication
of its ballistic missiles and is pursuing nuclear capabilities that
dramatically expand the threat to the entire European region. The
deployment of ballistic missile defense assets in Europe would make a
significant contribution to the protection of the United States and
Europe from a Middle Eastern ballistic missile threat. Sea-based and
mobile assets are integral components of a comprehensive ballistic
missile defense system, but cannot defeat the entire range of threats
by themselves. Sophisticated sensors are required for early acquisition
and target discrimination and ground-based interceptors are needed to
defeat longer-range missiles. Ballistic missile defense must remain a
priority so that we are postured to counter threats to the United
States, deployed forces, and allies. It will also stand as a testament
of our commitment to the region and attest to the strength of our
partnership with our NATO allies.
Question. What role, if any, should NATO play in the decision to
build, operate, or pay for a European GMD site?
Answer. Discussions with NATO allies, potential host nations, and
others are being led by the OSD. Related questions can be answered best
by OSD. It is our understanding that it is OSD's intent to keep NATO
allies, potential host nations, and other significant international
actors informed about its missile defense program and plans, but that
the U.S. will not ask other countries to assist in building, operating,
or paying for the system at this time. Potential host nation(s) may be
asked to share in some costs such as related infrastructure
requirements.
Question. What role, if any, will NATO have in developing a concept
of operations for the employment of a GMD system located in Europe, and
what role would the Commander, EUCOM, play in executing the GMD mission
either for the defense of the United States or Europe?
Answer. These issues are being studied by the Joint Staff,
STRATCOM, NORTHCOM, Missile Defense Agency, and others. Answers to
questions regarding command and control of U.S. ballistic missile
defense forces in Europe have not yet been developed, coordinated, or
approved. We anticipate that command and control the forces under the
operational control of EUCOM will be compatible and similar to the
doctrinal models in use in other AORs. We anticipate that the U.S. will
exercise sole command and control of the system for the foreseeable
future.
combat training centers
Question. The Army's combat training centers (CTCs) in the United
States are heavily utilized in preparing units for rotations to Iraq
and Afghanistan. Once the proposed drawdown of U.S. forces from
Germany, is completed, there is a potential that the Combat Maneuver
Training Center in Hohenfels will be underutilized even as the CTCs in
the United States are fully subscribed. The addition of new modular
brigades to the Army over the next few years will increase the demand
for training rotations at the CTCs. Do you believe there are ways the
training center at Hohenfels can help absorb this increased demand
without having to deploy troops from the United States to Germany
solely to conduct a training rotation?
Answer. The Joint Multinational Training Center at Hohenfels,
Germany, is a dual-mission maneuver CTC that is capable of training the
modular brigades in USAREUR and to export this training capable to
support units based in. The JMRC can conduct four brigade level
training rotations at Hohenfels and support four rotations external to
Hohenfels, including continental United States (CONUS), as part of its
exportable training capability, thereby providing additional raining
support to CONUS-based units.
acquisition reform
Question. Within the past year, several major studies (e.g., the
Quadrennial Defense Review 2006; Beyond Goldwater Nichols by the Center
for Strategic and International Studies; the Defense Acquisition
Performance Assessment (DAPA); and Transformation, a Progress
Assessment by the Defense Science Board) have been completed that
address the issue of defense acquisition reform. Each of these reports
emphasized the need for reduced program risk and greater stability with
respect to acquisition procedures.
What concerns, if any, do you have regarding the process the
Services use to acquire capabilities to support the needs of the
combatant commanders?
Answer. While improvements in DOD acquisition processes are
continually being made, I believe it is important that the combatant
commanders have a larger voice in Defense-wide and Service-specific
programs early in the acquisition cycle to ensure the COCOM views/
capability requirements are met in a timely manner. The existing
defense acquisition process is challenged to rapidly fill hardware and
personnel requirements as changes are identified by COCOMs.
Question. The studies mentioned above make numerous recommendations
regarding the role of the service acquisition executives and the
combatant commanders in improving military acquisition processes and
outcomes.
What are your views regarding proposals for the establishment of
service acquisition commands that would report to the services' chiefs
of staff and acquisition executives?
Answer. Existing service acquisition commands generally
accomplished their missions in generating material solutions to meet
existing emerging operational needs. However, defense acquisition
processes writ large, still struggle to rapidly produce large capital
investments in a timely fashion. In addition, the recent efforts to
ensure that joint capabilities are considered over larger acquisition
programs need to continue. I am encouraged by the direction the
department has taken thus far and the emphasis both from DOD and
Congress continue to focus on the issue. In your judgment, would such
proposals improve the acquisition process?
Answer. I don't believe establishing more service acquisition
commands, without significantly altering the requirements generation
process and existing acquisition rules, will improve the current
acquisition process. As stated above, the laws regulating acquisition
processes need to be streamlined while maintaining effective oversight.
Question. In your view, what improvements should be made to enhance
the combatant commanders' role in the acquisition process?
Answer. Geographic combatant commanders, as the supported
commander, should have a larger role in Defense-wide and Service-
specific programs early in the acquisition cycle. This is particularly
important as it pertains to resourcing capabilities required to
prosecute the global war on terrorism and theater security cooperation
initiatives.
quality of life programs for military families
Question. The top three quality of life issues in the EUCOM AOR
include obtaining quality living accommodations; gaining predictable
access to health care to include family member dental support; and
ensuring dependent education programs provided by the DOD Dependent
Schools. In this regard, General Jones has noted that 44 percent of
EUCOM personnel have children and that commanders in the EUCOM region
have emphasized their support for and reliance on EUCOM resources to
provide crucial morale programs, enhance retention, and foster esprit
de corps.
What do you see as the most significant longer-term challenges for
EUCOM in preserving and enhancing the quality of life for assigned
personnel while force redeployments to the United States proceed?
Answer. As we transform, it is essential that we stabilize our base
operational support funding to maintain quality of life programs and
services comparable to those available stateside. As resources are
shifted to support expansion of stateside mission locations, we are
challenged in maintaining EUCOM theater programs and services. While
expanding our host nation partnerships and creating joint service
solutions will help minimize the erosion of services and military
family benefits, maintaining stable base operational support funding in
the coming years will ensure a mission-focused, fully supported
military family.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure the
adequacy of support services for military families during the
transition to ensure that vital support mechanisms, such as DOD
schools; morale, welfare, and recreation services; housing; and
commissary and exchange continue to serve military personnel?
Answer. Providing an optimal quality of life remains essential to
maintaining readiness. Listening to the needs of our warfighters and
military families is job one in meeting their needs. Each year we ask
grassroots representatives to meet with senior leaders and subject
matter experts to identify and tackle theater quality of life
challenges. Issues that cannot be fixed or supported in theater are
forwarded to OSD and armed services leaders for the identification of
joint strategic pathways leading to improvements. The EUCOM quality of
life office, the link between senior leaders, our joint service
infrastructure, and theater personnel will remain the critical pulse
point for identifying and resolving quality of life challenges. I will
directly champion for support with senior leaders and congressional
representatives those issues that cannot be fixed in theater. Listening
and responding to the needs of our military family will continue to be
one of my top priorities.
reserve duty status in eucom
Question. There are currently 32 different duty status categories
affecting operational access and benefits for reservists who drill and
otherwise perform duties in the EUCOM AOR.
What is your understanding of the nature of the problems caused by
variations in Reserve duty status? What progress, if any, has been made
in addressing and resolving this issue?
Answer. The complexity of Reserve duty status categories makes it
difficult to access and efficiently utilize reservists. The labyrinth
of processes, policies, and funding streams results in servicemembers
working side-by-side, doing the same work, but getting entirely
different pay and benefits. As you can imagine, these inequities in pay
and benefits cause morale issues within a command. The section in title
10 regarding Reserve duty status categories is a cold war relic. I
advocate for OSD and Congress to work together to completely review and
rewrite the sections in title 10 regarding Reserve duty status
categories. The objective of this review should be to simplify access.
american servicemembers' protection act
Question. The American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA)
precludes foreign military financing and international military
exchange training with countries which have not executed an article 98
bilateral agreement in which they pledge not to extradite serving or
former U.S. personnel, officials, or citizens to the International
Criminal Court. You previously have testified that this law affects 11
countries in Latin America and has resulted in lost opportunities in
engaging with generations of military officers and noncommissioned
officers in nations in the U.S. Southern Command AOR.
What is your understanding of the impact of this law on military-
to-military relations in the EUCOM AOR?
Answer. My understanding, based on discussions with General James
Jones, is the same affect is occurring in the EUCOM AOR.
Question. If confirmed, would you support modifying ASPA so that
military assistance programs would not be prohibited for countries that
have not signed article 98 agreements?
Answer. I have and continue to support ASPA as protection for our
servicemembers worldwide. Having said that--I believe there are
negative unintended consequences that impact one half of the 92
countries in Europe and Africa through lost opportunities to provide
professional military training with military officers and
noncommissioned officers. I have and will continue to advocate for a
``delinking'' of International Military Education and Training (IMET)
funding from the ASPA sanction.
burdensharing in europe
Question. The United States is in the process of reducing the
number of military personnel stationed in Germany and closing
installations, while at the same time increasing troop levels in Italy
and Eastern Europe. Both changes have resulted in substantial
investments to be made in military construction over the next few
years. This committee has historically advocated for prudent management
of facility and infrastructure requirements within EUCOM in the
theater. This includes a constant assessment of opportunities to share
the financial burden for constructing and maintaining facilities that
will support NATO or allied operations, and the receipt of residual
value amounts for improvements funded by the U.S. on installations to
be returned to the host nation. What is your assessment of the current
effectiveness of burden-sharing arrangements in Europe?
Answer. EUCOM actively seeks NATO Security Investment Program
(NSIP) funding to share the burden of constructing facilities used by
the U.S. to support NATO operations. The U.S. contributes approximately
23 percent annually to the NSIP, a 4-percent decrease in our annual
contribution amount from 10 years ago. In fiscal year 2006, EUCOM
benefited from over $130 million in NATO construction investment at
Ramstein, RAF Lakenheath, Rota, Incirlik, and Souda Bay. The U.S. share
for this investment was $30 million. Through existing and emerging NATO
Capability Packages, the U.S. has the potential of realizing over $350
million in planned NATO construction at Aviano, Ramstein, Rota, Souda
Bay, Moron, and Sigonella over the next 5 years. Additionally, through
the use of NATO pre-financing statements, we are also ensuring that
U.S.-funded projects have the future potential to be accepted by NATO
under emerging capability packages. These statements, although not
binding in nature, establish the foundation for future acceptance of
U.S.-funded projects by NATO and the mechanisms by which we may recoup
our investment.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that the burdensharing
and residual value programs are carried out in a manner that ensures
maximum benefit?
Answer. We understand congressional concerns over burdensharing,
and we will continue to aggressively leverage NSIP investment in
facilities and infrastructure the U.S. requires to maintain its
commitment to the common defense of our NATO allies. Our ability to
gain residual value from returned facilities is tied to the re-use of
those facilities. During closure negotiations, EUCOM coordinated
closely with the respective host nation in identifying potential re-use
of returned facilities. After concluding negotiations, we will continue
to protect U.S. interests by monitoring host nation utilization of
returned facilities while remaining vigilant to other potential re-use
opportunities.
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 fully recognize and understand the importance of
congressional oversight as it is clearly outlined in the Constitution
of the United States.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes. Although the President is my Commander in Chief, and
he and the SECDEF constitute my chain of command, I recognize that my
oath is to the Constitution. That document clearly divides
responsibilities with regard to defense between the executive and
legislative branches. For both the administration and Congress to
execute their respective responsibilities appropriately, it is
incumbent upon me to be honest and forthright with both while offering
my best military advice.
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. EUCOM and
SACEUR?
Answer. Yes. That is an inherent part of my responsibilities as
outlined above, and I will be happy to appear when called.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
nato interoperability
1. Senator Levin. General Craddock, what will you do, if confirmed,
to ensure that the United States works more closely with its allies on
technology-sharing, especially in areas such as counter-improvised
explosive device research, and generally on improving interoperability?
General Craddock. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan highlight the
need for interoperability as we increasingly rely on coalition partners
and allies to support the global war on terror. Technology cooperation
provides us not only interoperability, but an increase in coalition
partner capacity, political cohesion, and common operational systems.
Technology cooperation is a key piece of Theater Security Cooperation
planning and I intend to integrate technology cooperation into all such
plans. Another key piece to this equation is the Office of Defense
Cooperation personnel at United States embassies. They are the front
line of communication with the armaments development communities of
foreign nations, and I would support resourcing this valuable asset.
European Command (EUCOM) is continually looking for new and more
effective ways to both share technology amongst our partner nations as
well as to increase the interoperability of our systems. I will build
on that trend by continuing to focus our technology efforts and
programs in ways that broaden and mature the participation of our
traditional partners, while developing new avenues of participation by
our emerging partners.
provincial reconstruction teams--afghanistan
2. Senator Levin. General Craddock, some Provincial Reconstruction
Teams (PRTs) are being turned over to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) to lead, but we are told that U.S. personnel will
still participate in the teams. Do you support continuing to provide
Commanders Emergency Response Funds for the PRTs under NATO leadership,
and if so, what mechanism should be used to provided funding for those
non-U.S.-led PRTs?
General Craddock. Nations volunteering to lead PRTs employ a
structure appropriate for their area and task based upon their
assessment of both. The NATO provided a set of minimum standards
required to ensure a consistency of approach in NATO's PRTs in its
recent operations plan revision. Based on this information, nations are
able to build on that guidance to standardize the organizational
structure and methods of operation of PRTs. Many of the ideas on best
practices come from the PRT's deployed in the northern region of
Afghanistan and in particular the German model. These PRTs are
civilian-led (unlike U.S. PRTs) but include military personnel.
Together they deliver a coherent multi-agency approach to long-term
reconstruction and development in Afghanistan. How these NATO PRTs are
funded is a national decision.
U.S. PRTs reflagged to International Stabilization and Assistance
Force (ISAF) will continue to be led by U.S. personnel and, as such,
should continue to receive Commander's Emergency Response Program
(CERP) funding. Other PRTs operating under ISAF are led by allied or
partner nations; those lead nations should be encouraged to establish
(or maintain, where they already exist) funding arrangements similar to
CERP for their respective PRTs.
force posture in europe
3. Senator Levin. General Craddock, the United States is in the
process of building new forward operating locations in Eastern Europe.
Are you satisfied with the current plans, including the proposed
locations and activities to be conducted at those locations, or do you
plan to review these current and proposed arrangements, if confirmed?
General Craddock. We have just completed Defense Cooperation
Agreements with the countries of Romania and Bulgaria to station U.S.
forces for training and Theater Security Cooperation. The plan is to
only add U.S. specific or modernize existing facilities to provide
adequate work spaces for a small permanent Joint Task Force-East (JTF-
E) headquarters force of approximately 120 personnel at Mihail
Kogalniceanu (MK) Airbase in Romania, and life support and maintenance
facilities to support rotational forces during their training cycles.
JTF-E headquarters will have operational control of rotational and
assigned forces working out MK Airbase, and rotational ground forces
split-based between Forward Operating Sites at the 34th Mechanized
Brigade Base, Romania, and Novo Selo, Bulgaria. Commanded by a general
officer, this joint headquarters will orchestrate security cooperation
activities with the newest members of NATO and partners in Eastern
Europe, including the Black Sea and Caucasus regions.
Our current plans for this important transformational effort are
tracking very well and I will continue to support this EUCOM effort to
improve the military capability of new NATO allies and Eastern European
partners. While I am satisfied with these current efforts, I intend to
routinely assess actual activities against the planned efforts to
ensure we are achieving expected objectives.
4. Senator Levin. General Craddock, do you believe the EUCOM should
have Special Operations Forces (SOF) assigned to/stationed in your area
of responsibility (AOR)?
General Craddock. Having SOF in the EUCOM's AOR provides the
operational flexibility required to respond to emerging crises and
contingencies. SOF remain a key asset in building and developing
Irregular Warfare and Partner Nation capacity in the regional war on
terror campaign, as directed in the Quadrennial Defense Review.
Additionally, SOF demonstrates U.S. regional commitment, and allows
a rapid response to opportunities, as they arise, in the EUCOM theater.
SOF are a force multiplier that produce additional value through the
``partner engagement'' realized in local training and exercises with
our partner nations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
guantanamo detainee oversight
5. Senator Kennedy. General Craddock, the riots of this past May
and the coordinated suicides of this past June have raised concerns
about the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo. To what extent did you
exercise oversight as to the management of conditions in the camp
during the period leading up to these unfortunate events, and would you
please enumerate the responsive measures you took in their aftermath?
General Craddock. As the Commander of U.S. Southern Command, I am
responsible for all U.S. military operations in the Caribbean, Central
America, and South America, including the operation of Joint Task
Force-Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), a strategic level detention and
interrogation facility in support of the global war on terrorism. In
that regard, I am responsible for ensuring that all detainees at such a
facility are treated humanely and in accordance with U.S. law, the law
of war, and U.S. policy. JTF-GTMO is under the command and control of a
General/Flag Officer (previously Major Genera] Jay Hood and currently
Rear Admiral Harry Harris, Jr.), who oversees the day-to-day operations
of the detention facility.
While exercising oversight of camp conditions, I have ensured JTF-
GTMO complies with new congressional and Department of Defense
directives and policy. Specifically, I directed compliance with the
Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Upon receiving the 30 December 2005
memorandum from Deputy Secretary England, I forwarded it on 1 January
2006 to Major General Jay Hood, who, on 2 January 2006. confirmed that
JTF-GTMO was in compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act. On 3
January 2006, I endorsed a memorandum from Major General Hood to Deputy
Secretary England that informed Deputy Secretary England of JTF-GTMO's
compliance.
Likewise, on my receipt of the 7 July 2006 memorandum from Deputy
Secretary England on the application of Common Article 3 to the Geneva
Conventions of 1949, I forwarded it to Rear Admiral Harris, who on 14
July 2006 confirmed that JTF-GTMO's directives, policies, practices,
and procedures comply with Common Article 3 standards. On 24 July 2006,
I informed the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee
Affairs of JTF-GTMO's compliance.
More recently, following the issuance of Department of Defense
Directive (DODD) 2310.01E. The Department of Defense Detainee Program,
on 15 September 2006. I submitted implementing guidance concerning DODD
2310.01E to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for his review
and approval. On 3 October 2006, Under Secretary Edelman approved my
proposed guidance to JTF-GTMO concerning DODD 2310.01E, which I will be
issuing to JTF-GTMO shortly.
Additionally, in exercising oversight of camp operations, I have,
since assuming command in November 2004, visited Guantanamo 12 times,
including visits on 11 and 19 June 2006 immediately following the
detainee suicides. During those visits, I was briefed by JTF-GTMO
personnel as well as Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
agents. I was also provided an interim brief on 2 August 2006 by NCIS
as to the progress of their ongoing investigation of the suicides.
Finally, I exercise oversight and maintain awareness of camp
operations through the receipt of daily reports from JTF-GTMO and
through a multi-disciplined U.S. Southern Command Detainee Coordination
Team, which I established in November 2005.
darfur
6. Senator Kennedy. General Craddock, in your written testimony,
you stated: ``The increasing strategic significance of Africa will
continue to pose the greatest security stability challenge in the EUCOM
AOR.'' You also stated that planning for contingencies in the Darfur
region of Sudan would be dependent upon the scope of authorization
granted by the North Atlantic Council (NAC) and by the ``realities of
the current strategic situation'' at the time NAC authorization is
granted. However, due to the African Union Mission in Sudan's (AMIS)
inability to provide effective security or to stop genocide in Darfur,
there is an increasing demand within the international community for
NATO to enforce the no-fly zone set forth in prior United Nations
Security Council Resolutions, to increase AMIS's current capabilities,
and to help AMIS prepare for a transition to a United Nations
peacekeeping force. Assuming the NAC grants you broad authority, what
measures are you prepared to take as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
(SACEUR), beyond supporting AMIS with strategic movements and capacity
building efforts, to end the military and humanitarian crises and
establish strategic stability in the region?
General Craddock. NATO decisions are taken on the basis of
consensus after discussion and deliberation among member countries.
Prior to a decision being reached by the Alliance to undertake a
mission or operation, the NATO Military Authorities provide their
advice regarding the military requirements necessary to achieve the
desired outcome as stated by the NAC. Once the council reaches a
decision to embark on a mission or operation, the role of the SACEUR is
to execute all the agreed military measures within the authorities and
capabilities afforded by the alliance. The SACEUR is generally not
afforded ``broad authority'' to undertake additional measures without
the specific authorization of the NAC.
The NAC has recently endorsed the African Union's formal request
for additional Staff Capacity Building Seminars. This training should
impart the principle of how a civilian-controlled military operates in
a democracy and ensure respect for human rights and lay the foundation
for the development of competent forces. As long as the Alliance
remains in a supporting role to the African Union, it must remain
sensitive to the desires of that organization.
force limitations
7. Senator Kennedy. General Craddock, the war in Iraq has placed a
strain on our ground and amphibious capabilities, and it may be
compromising our preparedness to address other contingencies. For
instance, the United States was unable to respond in a timely manner to
the onset of crisis in Lebanon. As it happened, the seagoing assets of
the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group, including the 24th Marine
Expeditionary Unit, had to be moved to the eastern Mediterranean from
exercises in the Red Sea to conduct evacuations. What will you do to
prevent force limitations from compromising the mission of EUCOM in its
AOR?
General Craddock. The U.S. military is one of many instruments of
political power and does not act unilaterally with regard to U.S.
policy. The decision to begin evacuations of noncombatants belongs to
the U.S. ambassador of the affected country and involves far more
subtle considerations than the proximity of an individual naval vessel.
I think a more accurate accounting of the EUCOM response to the onset
of crisis in Lebanon is that the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon received
exactly the measure and pace of response it requested, with remarkably
effective results from the perspective of American citizens concerned.
It would be disingenuous for a combatant commander to tell Congress
that force limitations don't matter in any AOR. The fact is that
whether at war or during peacetime, there would never be enough troops
or equipment to have a robust force omnipresent in an area spanning 92
countries on 2 continents to mitigate resource constraints across this
vast area. I plan to continue the EUCOM best practices: proactive
``phase zero'' operations that reinforce democratic government's
ability to participate in the regional war on terror; robust security
cooperation with partner nations around the theater; and effective use
of the Global Force Management system to provide or request capability
wherever needed.
israel/palestine
8. Senator Kennedy. General Craddock, your written testimony
describes the current role of EUCOM in Lebanon, but it does not mention
EUCOM's role with respect to instability in Israel and the Palestinian
territories. What specific missions are currently assigned to EUCOM
with respect to the current state of affairs in Israel and the
Palestinian territories?
General Craddock. EUCOM's primary mission with respect to Israel is
in the area of Theater Security Cooperation, and is primarily focused
on military-to-mHilary engagement. The Palestinian Authority program is
managed by Department of State and handled by General Dayton's team
which is not associated with EUCOM. EUCOM does not conduct any programs
within the Palestinian Territories.
9. Senator Kennedy. General Craddock, what specific contingencies
concerning the safety and security of Israelis and Palestinians can you
foresee EUCOM taking an active role in situating?
General Craddock. Israel's security is a U.S. national priority and
as such it continues to be a significant part of EUCOM planning
efforts. I will continue to work to improve and expand the ongoing
military dialogue with the Israeli Defense Forces, as well as ensure
our military-to-military activities remain relevant to Israel's
security and EUCOM's regional engagement activities. Transformation
initiatives and information exchanges will continue to encourage our
mutual interests and further broaden what has been a positive and
productive relationship.
EUCOM is not currently authorized to interact or participate in
activities in the Palestinian territories or with the authorities
therein.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
strategy for command
10. Senator Akaka. General Craddock, EUCOM has recently added
Israel and Lebanon to its AOR in addition to all of Europe. To what
extent do you believe that it is possible to have one overarching and
comprehensive strategy for EUCOM given the extraordinary geographic and
cultural diversity of this region?
General Craddock. Lebanon was temporarily added to the EUCOM AOR in
effort to consolidate efforts between two combatant commands (Central
Command (CENTCOM) and EUCOM) when dealing with one common problem.
However, as of 30 September 2006, responsibility for Lebanon was
returned to CENTCOM. This places Lebanon back in alignment with the
current Unified Command Plan.
The strategy that EUCOM pursues is in compliance with the National
Security Strategy and serves to support allies and partners in the
region. EUCOM strategy leverages military cooperation in a balanced
approach with Department of State diplomatic efforts to achieve U.S.
Government strategic objectives.
EUCOM strategy is designed to be flexible in order to respond to
the cultural and geographic diversity of U.S. partners and allies. This
allows a consistent approach to country and regional issues.
Consistency is the key to successful policy and a flexible approach
allows EUCOM to adjust to the individual needs of the partners, create
a level of understanding between EUCOM and U.S. allies, and to promote
positive presence in the EUCOM AOR.
african command
11. Senator Akaka. General Craddock, there has been some discussion
by the DOD of establishing a new African command. Do you believe that a
separate command for Africa is necessary or does EUCOM have the
resources it needs to devote to the African continent given its
potentially important role in the global war on terror?
General Craddock. I think that our growing focus on the African
continent is appropriate and critical to U.S. national interests. The
reasons include: denying terrorists an opportunity to find fertile
ground, helping to eradicate disease, reducing bloodshed in places such
as Darfur, and countering China's growing economic activities in
Africa. EUCOM has committed increasing resources toward Africa and the
time has come to take steps to formalize these actions. I believe there
is a place for a unified command focused on this continent, but I also
believe it must be a deliberate step and that the resources necessary
for success be provided. This command should ultimately be in Africa,
it should likely include all of Africa, and it should be established
over a period of time that permits the United States to take executable
and effective steps to realize the potential of this important
initiative.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
u.s. southern command
12. Senator Bill Nelson. General Craddock, Southern Command's
(SOUTHCOM) Miami headquarters are at the crossroads of Latin America,
facilitating contact with regional political and military leadership.
Why is Miami the best location for this headquarters (HQ)?
General Craddock. Miami is without a doubt the best strategic
location for U.S. SOUTHCOM to accomplish its assigned missions.
LATAM Expatriates--Miami is home to expatriate communities
from every country in the hemisphere.
Transportation and Logistical Hub for the Americas--Miami
International Airport is the third largest international
passenger hub in the U.S. Latin American destinations account
for 70 percent of the outgoing and 81 percent of the incoming
cargo traffic.
Proximity to Educational Institutions--Nearby multi-cultural
universities (FIU, UM, and FAU) partner with SOUTHCOM for
collaboration on Latin American studies.
Abundant Interagency Partners--U.S. Government agency
satellite offices in Miami (DHS-USCG, DOJ-DEAICE, DOS, FAA,
Treasury) enhance interagency collaboration.
13. Senator Bill Nelson. General Craddock, what is the status of
the Department's efforts to conclude an arrangement to modernize the
HQ?
General Craddock. The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee and U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
each passed a resolution approving the new SOUTHCOM HQs Facility (IAW
40 U.S.C. 3307). Title 10 notification to Senate and House Armed
Services Committees is complete (IAW 10 U.S.C. 2662). To gain full
congressional authority, the Department of the Army is seeking written
permission to proceed from the Readiness Subcommittee of the House
Armed Services Committee. The State of Florida, in collaboration with
the General Services Administration (GSA) and DOD, is leading the
procurement which is scheduled to conclude in a lease agreement between
the State and GSA by 22 December 2006. The new facility is scheduled to
achieve full operating capability by 30 March 2010.
nato
14. Senator Bill Nelson. General Craddock, are more NATO troops
needed in Afghanistan?
General Craddock. The NATO objective in Afghanistan is to enable a
self-sustaining, moderate, and democratic Afghan government able to
exercise its sovereign authority, independently, throughout
Afghanistan.
The NATO military authorities have created, and the NAC has
approved, a Combined Joint Statement of Requirements (CJSOR) outlining
the minimum military requirements for the ISAF mission. Presently, that
CJSOR is not fully resourced by the alliance. However, the forces
currently operating as part of the ISAF are meeting current mission
needs and recent pledges of additional forces have reduced the existing
shortfall. I intend to go to Afghanistan and after making a personal
evaluation of force levels and conferring with operational commanders,
I will present my findings to the Secretary General.
Perhaps more importantly, however, is the need for greater
resources to be applied by the entire international community in the
areas of reconstruction and development. We should all understand that
the conflict in Afghanistan will not be resolved militarily. It will be
resolved when the people of that country see improvements in their
lives as a result of the growing positive influence and capacity of the
Government of Afghanistan. Progress on that front is beyond the ability
of NATO to effect alone.
15. Senator Bill Nelson. General Craddock, what is NATO's will and
capacity to support expanding the mission?
General Craddock. Currently 37 nations provide forces for the ISAF
and by the end of this year, we anticipate that this number may
increase. Alliance nations understand that the mission in Afghanistan
is a long-term commitment. As ISAF's roles and responsibilities
increase, member nations' willingness to provide the capabilities
required have correspondingly increased. The alliance recently
completed a Joint Declaration with the Government of Afghanistan titled
``Framework for Enduring Cooperation and Partnership.'' This
declaration reflects the alliance's recognition of the long-term nature
of its relationship with Afghanistan.
16. Senator Bill Nelson. General Craddock, NATO commanders' hands
are tied by many countries putting specific limitations on what their
troops can or cannot do on NATO missions. How damaging are these so-
called ``national caveats'' and what will do you do as SACEUR to limit
them?
General Craddock. A national caveat is a limitation, restriction,
or constraint on any national military forces or civilian elements
under NATO command and control that preclude NATO commanders from
deploying and employing these assets according to the approved
operational plan. Restrictions may limit freedom of movement within the
designated joint operations area and/or constraints upon the approved
rules of engagement. Allied Command Operations continually review
national caveats and provide periodic operational evaluations of the
individual and collective effects of these caveats to the NAC for their
information and action by national authorities.
General Jones has expressed concern regarding the effects of
national caveats on NATO's ability to carry out various missions.
Certain NATO units' inability to operate due to national caveats is an
issue I am prepared to address early in my tenure as SACEUR. I believe
it is very important to work with the various Chiefs of Defense to
overcome reticence to lift these restrictions to provide operational
and tactical commanders the greatest flexibility possible to facilitate
the accomplishment of assigned missions.
17. Senator Bill Nelson. General Craddock, please describe the
division of labor between NATO's operations in Afghanistan and the
nearly 20,000 American troops in the country? How should this be
rebalanced in light of NATO's struggles?
General Craddock. Since the transfer of authority on 5 October for
Stage 4 of the ISAF mission, the majority of Operation Enduring
Freedom's (OEF) U.S. forces came under the direct operational control
of Commander ISAF. Currently, approximately 12,500 U.S. personnel are
serving in Afghanistan under NATO (ISAF) control, and approximately
10,500 are under U.S. control.
The Commander of OEF is also designated the Deputy Commander
Security for ISAF. This ensures operations involving OEF and ISAF
troops are coordinated and synchronized at the highest levels. It is
also important to note that ISAF troops have effectively operated with
coalition OEF forces.
______
[The nomination reference of GEN Bantz J. Craddock, USA,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
Senate of the United States,
July 14, 2006.
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 of indicated while assigned to a position of
importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:
To be General
GEN Bantz J. Craddock, USA, 7782.
______
[The biographical sketch of GEN Bantz J. Craddock, USA,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Resume of GEN 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
GEN....................................... 1 Jan 05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Aug 02.......................... Jul 04............ Senior Military
Assistant to the
Secretary of
Defense, Office
of the Secretary
of Defense,
Washington, DC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-Jul 04..... Lieutenant General
Secretary of Defense, Office of
the Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC.
Commander, United States Nov 04-Present.... General
Southern Command, Miami,
Florida.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. decorations and badges:
Valorous Unit Award
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
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
Office of the Secretary of Defense Identification Badge
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 GEN 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 European Command and Supreme Allied
Commander, Europe.
3. Date of nomination:
14 July 2006.
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:
24 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 (31) and Amanda E. Craddock (29).
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary
or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local
governments, other than those listed in the service record extract
provided to the committee by the executive branch.
None.
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.
Veterans of Foreign Wars--Member.
Orange Bowl Committee--Ex-oficio Member.
Florida Committee of 100--Ex-oficio 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.
Artillery Association--Order of St. Barbara.
Honorary Kentucky Colonel.
Honorary Texan.
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 14th day of July, 2006.
[The nomination of GEN Bantz J. Craddock, USA, was reported
to the Senate by Chairman Warner on September 28, 2006, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on September 29, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to VADM James G. Stavridis,
USN, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities
and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These
reforms have also vastly improved cooperation between the Services and
the combatant commanders, among other things, in joint training and
education and in the execution of military operations.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. The National Defense Authorization Act of 1986 vastly
improved the way our joint force operates.
An area that I believe could be readdressed is the resourcing of
joint requirements. As an example, combatant command headquarters are
funded through a Service as an executive agent. As a result, Joint
Commands with different Service Executive Agents are resourced
according to the budgeting priorities of the respective Service. The
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) highlighted the need to review this
resourcing approach. The Joint Task Assignment Process development
project, currently underway by the Department as part of a QDR roadmap,
is looking at potential improvements in joint management constructs.
The analysis and recommendations of the group led by the Office of the
Director, Administration and Management, may provide courses of action
to strengthen the Goldwater-Nichols Act.
Additionally, there may be benefit in amending the Goldwater-
Nichols Act to encourage professional education in the civil service
employee sector, as the original legislation did for military officers.
As more of the force is civilianized, it is in the Department's
interest to promote joint educational opportunities for civilian
employees of the Department of Defense.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, U.S. Southern Command?
Answer. The commanders of combatant commands (COCOM) exercise of
assigned forces and are directly responsible for the preparedness of
their respective commands as well as the performance of assigned
missions. Combatant commanders prescribe the chain of command within
their combatant commands and designate the appropriate command
authority to be exercised by subordinate commanders.
As the Commander of U.S. Southern Command, the duties and functions
would include responsibility for the geographical area of
responsibility (AOR) defined in the Unified Command Plan, which now
includes 32 countries and 13 territories/protectorates. The duties and
functions also include, but are not limited to, the authoritative
direction for all military operations, joint training, and logistics in
the AOR.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I am deeply honored by the President's nomination to be the
Commander of U.S. Southern Command. Over the past decades, I have
served in a wide variety of Navy and Joint Commands that I believe will
prepare me well for the challenges ahead if confirmed by the U.S.
Senate.
Operationally, I have served in several key command positions for
the Navy, culminating in command as a Rear Admiral of a Navy Carrier
Strike Group, which conducted operations in the Southern Command AOR as
well as in the Mediterranean and the Arabian Gulf. I have also served
on the Joint Staff, the Secretary of Defense staff, the Secretary of
the Navy staff, and Chief of Naval Operations staff. During my time in
each of these locations, I actively worked on issues involving Southern
Command's AOR.
Most recently, while serving as the Senior Military Assistant to
the Secretary of Defense, I had the opportunity to travel widely with
the Secretary throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. This
experience allowed me to observe international, interagency, joint, and
combined strategy and policy formulation pertaining to the region.
Other specific experiences and background include:
Maritime operations with numerous Latin American and Central
American naval forces throughout my operational career--1976 to
present, including counternarcotic operations in the Caribbean
and Eastern Pacific and multiple combined training operations
with most significant militaries in the region at one time or
another.
Integration of an Argentine destroyer, Sarandi, into the
Carrier Strike Group I commanded 2002-2004, including a full
training work-up and deployment to the Mediterranean during
Operation Solid Step, leading to the award to me of the
Argentine Naval Cross.
Ph.D. in International Relations from the Fletcher School of
Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where my regional work
was focused on Latin America.
Many strategic projects involving Latin America during staff
assignments in the Pentagon, including, for example, the
Unified Command Plan process shaping Southern Command
responsibilities in the late 1990s.
Numerous visits to the region over the past 2 years,
including attending small group meetings with many of the
Defense Ministers and Heads of State, as well as attendance at
the most recent Defense Ministerial of the Americas in Quito,
Ecuador, as a result of my present assignment.
Working knowledge of Spanish and French, and continuing study
of Spanish.
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 key officials and
personnel within the executive and legislative branches of the U.S.
Government to uphold and advance the national policies and interests of
the United States for the region through the missions established and
executed within the command. To this end, I will also engage with the
governments and militaries of partner nations to understand the
magnitude and interdependent issues within the region. I will seek the
cooperation of the Latin American and Caribbean leadership to work
together to engage on vital regional issues. Additionally, I intend to
continue to study Spanish.
relationships
Question. Section 162(b) of title 10, U.S.C., 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:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The President and the Secretary of Defense, or their
authorized alternates, exercise authority over the Armed Forces through
the combatant commanders for those forces assigned to the respective
commands. The combatant commander exercises command authority over
assigned forces and is directly responsible to the National Command
Authority for the performance of assigned missions and the preparedness
of the command.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Defense is delegated full power and
authority to act for the Secretary of Defense and to exercise the
powers of the Secretary on any and all matters for which the Secretary
is authorized to act pursuant to law. The commander coordinates and
exchanges information with the Deputy Secretary on matters delegated by
the Secretary. The commander directly communicates with the Deputy
Secretary on a regular basis.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Answer. A direct command relationship between the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy and the combatant commander does not exist.
However, the combatant commander regularly interacts, coordinates, and
exchanges information with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. A direct command relationship between the Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence and the combatant commander does not exist.
However, the combatant commander regularly interacts, coordinates, and
exchanges information with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence.
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. Although, the combatant commander and the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs work
together on mutual issues of concern.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Low Intensity Conflict (SOLIC).
Answer. A direct command relationship does not exist between the
SOLIC and the combatant commander. The Assistant Secretary of Defense
for SOLIC 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 for Homeland Defense
works closely with all DOD components, to include combatant commanders.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman functions under the authority, direction, and
control of the National Command Authority. The Chairman transmits
communications between the National Command Authority and combatant
commanders as well as oversees the activities of a combatant commander
as directed by the Secretary of Defense. As the principal military
advisor to the President and the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman is
a key conduit between the combatant commander, interagency, and Service
Chiefs. The combatant commander continues to keep the Chairman informed
on significant issues regarding his command and its AOR.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments
Answer. The Secretaries of Military Departments are responsible for
administration and support of forces that are assigned or attached to
combatant commands. The Secretaries fulfill their responsibilities by
exercising administrative control through the Service Component
Commands assigned to the combatant commands.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval
Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Chief of Staff of the
Air Force.
Answer. The Service Chiefs are responsible for ensuring the
organization and readiness of each respective Service branch and for
advising the President. However, as with the other Joint Chiefs, the
Service Chiefs do not have operational command authority. 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
AOR.
Answer. A formal command relationship between the Chiefs of Mission
and the commander does not exist. In a foreign country, the U.S.
Ambassador is responsible to the President for directing, coordinating,
and supervising all U.S. Government elements in the host nation except
for those under the command of a combatant commander. Geographic
combatant commanders are responsible for coordinating in their AOR as
necessary, across the range of military operations and for negotiating
force protection agreements with the Chief of Mission in designated
countries. The commander also coordinates and exchanges information
with chiefs of mission regularly on matters of mutual interest, to
include military operations and engagement activities. I understand
that in addition to the regular exchange of information with the Chiefs
of Mission, Southern Command Commanders in the past have hosted annual
subregional conferences with each country's respective U.S. Ambassador.
If confirmed, I intend to continue these conferences.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges and problems
you would confront if confirmed as the next Commander, U.S. Southern
Command?
Answer. If confirmed, I would seek to learn more about the many
challenges and transnational threats within the region. Challenges
include conditions of poverty, inequality, and corruption that create
an environment conducive to threats such as illicit trafficking and
narcoterrorists. There are also undergoverned areas within the AOR that
may be used by individuals affiliated with terrorist organizations and
criminal groups for logistical support and revenue generation.
There are also key challenges facing the United States in Cuba,
where we must remain hopeful that a transition to true democracy will
begin to unfold soon; in Colombia, where we must continue to aid an
important regional partner in the fight against narcoterrorism; in
Haiti, where a fragile democracy struggles against crime with the
assistance of an important United Nations (U.N.) mission; throughout
Central America, where important partners combat crime and drugs; and
in other venues throughout the region. The U.S. Southern Command must
also be poised and ready to support U.S. Government efforts to provide
humanitarian assistance throughout the AOR.
Another important challenge for U.S. Southern Command is running a
safe, secure, and effective detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
in full compliance with applicable law, policy, and regulation.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges and problems?
Answer. By working collaboratively with our partner nations to
enhance their capabilities at both national and regional levels, we can
best ensure the forward defense of the United States. If our partner
nations are better equipped and trained to face the transnational
threats facing us all, the entire region, including the U.S., will be
safer. If confirmed, I would continue to reach out to those countries
that have been distancing themselves from the U.S. to encourage
military engagement. Also, if confirmed, I will ensure that the U.S.
Southern Command develops and executes a comprehensive regional plan to
address the challenge of regional security throughout the entire AOR.
Finally, if confirmed as Commander of U.S. Southern Command, I will
maintain command focus on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, where
we must ensure all laws, regulations, and policies are followed fully
at all times and that we uphold the highest standards in the execution
of our assigned mission.
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 operations supporting homeland defense and
security, 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 development of
democratic values within 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?
Answer. If confirmed as Commander, U.S. Southern Command, my
highest priority would be to ensure the forward defense of the United
States. In working toward this, it is imperative to work cooperatively
with partner nations to meet our shared security challenges. I would
also continue to support the global war on terrorism by conducting
safe, secure, and legal detainee operations at the Joint Task Force
Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) and through operations to deter and disrupt
terrorist activity within the region.
Question. What actions would you propose to counter the growing
threat to democracy in the region?
Answer. The key to safeguarding democratic institutions is to
encourage security, stability, and adherence to the rule of law, which
allows economic growth and prosperity. Without appropriate security,
illegal activities and corruption flourish and over time can undermine
democracy. Southern Command can improve security in the region by
helping to build Partner Nation security force capabilities through a
focused Theater Security Cooperation program. Additionally, we can
further seek opportunities to partner together to promote regional
security.
Question. What is your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses
of military-to-military exchange programs and contacts in the U.S.
Southern Command AOR?
Answer. My impression is that Southern Command has an extensive and
robust defense military exchange and contact program with a broad reach
from the ministerial to the operational levels. During fiscal year 2006
alone, there were 503 events. Unfortunately, Southern Command military-
to-military exchanges and contacts have been reduced with some
countries as political events unfold in those countries. If confirmed,
I will work hard to increase the military-to-military programs.
counternarcotics efforts
Question. Each year, the Department of Defense spends several
hundred million dollars for counternarcotics programs. Despite the
expenditure of about $5 billion since 2000 for these programs, the flow
of illegal drugs into the United States and the availability of drugs
on the street have not been significantly reduced, and countries such
as Colombia and Peru continue to face tremendous internal security
challenges in responding to this threat. This has led many to question
the effectiveness and focus of our counternarcotics programs.
How would you recommend that the success of the Department's
counternarcotics programs be measured?
Answer. This is a complicated problem. My impression is that there
is no single metric to measure Department of Defense success with
regards to counternarcotics efforts. The Department of Defense is the
lead agency for detection and monitoring in the source and transit zone
and we concentrate on successful detections and resultant endgames.
Recent interdiction and disruption data for the source and transit
zones indicate the Department's success with 252 metric tons of
narcotics being seized or disrupted during calendar year 2005. This is
252 metric tons of cocaine that will not reach its destination.
Additionally, Department of Defense efforts to train and provide
logistical support to Partner Nation militaries, and drug law
enforcement agencies, has substantially improved Partner Nation ability
to contribute to counternarcotics efforts.
Question. Do you believe that the current programs that the
Department is pursuing are the most effective for the region, or should
the Department's efforts focus elsewhere?
Answer. My belief is that U.S. Southern Command constantly
evaluates their efforts and continuously seeks ways to improve results.
Department of Defense programs are complementary to other U.S.
programs, such as the Department of State's (DOS) eradication and
economic development programs. No single focus program is a panacea. I
believe that current Department of Defense programs are appropriately
synchronized with other agency efforts, but if confirmed, I would
continue to explore ways to increase efficiency.
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. If confirmed, my number one priority would be supporting
the global war on terrorism. My impression is that the counternarcotics
mission is intertwined with the U.S. Southern Command's top priority. I
believe the Department needs to continue to provide support to U.S. and
partner nation drug enforcement efforts to deny narcotraffickers the
freedom of movement they require to transport illegal drugs to the
United States.
coca eradication
Question. In Ecuador and Bolivia, the governments have adopted
policies of ``Zero Cocaine--Not Zero Coca,'' asserting that legitimate
uses of coca crops exist and that coca farmers should be protected.
Opponents of U.S. policies regarding eradication have argued that its
side effects of environmental and social damage caused by migrating
cultivation zones outweigh its benefits and that the policy
fundamentally isn't working.
What is your view of the costs versus the benefits of the existing
eradication policy?
Answer. My impression is that coca eradication is one of a
combination of mutually supportive efforts necessary to effectively
reduce the availability of cocaine in the U.S. market. It appears
sensible to continue the eradication program while at the same time
more effectively disrupting the cocaine market by targeting key
organizers and narcotrafficking leaders.
Question. In what areas of the counterdrug eradication program, if
any, is change most needed?
Answer. Although the DOS is the lead agency for the eradication
program, my preliminary impression is that the U.S. Southern Command
needs to continue to seek engagement opportunities with Partner Nation
forces in order to improve their ability to support DOS-sponsored
eradication. However, current governments have limited military
engagement with the United States.
haiti
Question. The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on August 15,
2006, to extend the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Haiti for 6 months.
Haiti continues to experience turmoil and instability.
How would you characterize 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. The challenges continue in this fragile democracy. The U.N.
Stabilization Mission in Haiti maintains a peace-enforcement role in
Haiti. The U.N. mandate calls for a modest increase in police support,
a decrease in troop involvement, and support from member nations to
assist the Government of Haiti in addressing the shortcomings of the
prison system.
Question. How do you assess the security situation in Haiti now and
what is your estimate of how the situation will look in 6 months?
Answer. The U.N. is directly involved in addressing the security
situation in Haiti, which continues to be complex and gang-centric. The
primary threats are turf wars and kidnappings for profit and the
Government of Haiti continues to address this problem while rebuilding
their police forces. With continued U.N. involvement, I am hopeful that
the security situation in 6 months will be improved over that of today.
Question. What conditions or indicators do you consider important
in determining whether there will be another wave of Haitian
emigration?
Answer. A significant condition for a potential mass migration from
Haiti is the Haitian perception that they will not be quickly
interdicted and repatriated by the U.S. Coast Guard and/or other U.S.
authorities. Another factor is the Haitian perception of the country's
ability to ensure their safety and develop an effective economy.
Between June and July 2006, for example, there was a spike in violence
in Haiti and Haitian emigration increased over 300 percent within that
period. In August 2006, violence decreased with a commensurate decrease
in migration.
Question. In your view, what is the cost and effectiveness of U.S.
assistance to Haiti?
Answer. All assistance provided to the people of Haiti is valuable
as a humanitarian effort. The monetary cost, however, is high for
military humanitarian projects in Haiti because of force protection
requirements driven by the current security environment. Fortunately,
our allies are involved and helpful.
cuba
Question. The Commander of U.S. Southern Command, General Craddock,
has stated that he does not view Cuba as a military threat to the
United States and that policies and laws regarding Cuba need to be
reviewed ``stem to stern'' in order to determine if they make sense.
General Craddock questioned whether the continuing ban on U.S./Cuban
military-to-military contacts should remain in effect.
What is your opinion about the need for and pros and cons of
military-to-military contact with Cuba?
Answer. I believe General Craddock was referring to the fact that
we now live in a multi-polar, globalized world in which it would be
prudent for the U.S. to re-examine our engagement policies throughout
the world. Generally, military-to-military engagement is valuable;
however, any engagement must be consistent with U.S. Government law and
policy. Currently, the only authorized military-to-military contacts in
Cuba are minimal administrative conversations surrounding the military
facility at Guantanamo Bay. If confirmed, I will assess the specific
situation regarding military engagement with Cuba.
Question. What is your view of the need for review and potentially,
revision of U.S. policies regarding Cuba?
Answer. I believe the U.S. policy toward Cuba, like all policy,
should be periodically reviewed and reassessed to ensure it is relevant
to the changing environment. When adjustments to policy are
recommended, we should feel free to openly debate both the pros and
cons of any given proposal for change.
bolivia
Question. In the past few years, Bolivia has experienced extreme
political unrest and lately, President Morales has taken some positions
that could complicate U.S. relations with Bolivia.
How do you assess the situation in Bolivia and, if confirmed, how
would you seek to accomplish the goals of combating drug trafficking
and enhancing military engagement goals?
Answer. The Bolivian Armed Forces continue to pursue military
engagement with the U.S. If confirmed, I would hope to maintain this
relationship. My understanding is that Bolivian security forces remain
cooperative in the interdiction of narcotics and their precursor
chemicals. My understanding is that although the eradication of illegal
coca has decreased, Southern Command through its Military Group in La
Paz intends to supplement the DOS's International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement division's counternarcotics programs by coordinating
training and serving as the conduit for equipment as appropriate.
joint intelligence operation centers
Question. Earlier this year, the Secretary of Defense approved an
executive order that established Joint Intelligence Operations Centers
(JIOC) in each combatant command as a means to reduce ``stovepiping''
of communications and improve the integration of intelligence and
operations staffs.
Do you think that U.S. Southern Command will benefit from the
formation of a JIOC and if so, how?
Answer. My initial impression is that the command will benefit from
the reduced time required to plan and execute intelligence driven
operations. I prefer, however, to reserve judgment until I have the
benefit, if confirmed, of personal experience as a combatant commander.
Question. What is your understanding of the steps that must be
taken within U.S. Southern Command to implement this directive, and
what resources must be made available to U.S. Southern Command to do
so?
Answer. Generally speaking, it appears that we should pursue
measures that give combatant commanders the authority to task
intelligence sources relevant to their regions; to possess well
developed processes that integrate intelligence, planning, and
operations; have qualified people with appropriate skill sets; and the
right management tools to produce the most quality intelligence
products possible.
venezuela
Question. In 2006, U.S.-Venezuelan relations have continued to be
strained as President Chavez has allied himself with Fidel Castro,
imported increasing amounts of military armament, politicized the
Venezuelan military forces, and exported his brand of populism to the
region.
How would you characterize the current state of military-to-
military relations between the U.S. and Venezuela?
Answer. It has been U.S. policy to maintain as much dialogue as
possible between our militaries. Opportunities for contact have been
increasingly limited. My understanding is that the Government of
Venezuela has not been responsive to invitations from the U.S. to
participate in international and regional military forums. If
confirmed, I would seek opportunities to engage with the Venezuelan
military as responsible members of the region.
Question. What is your view of President Chavez's intentions in the
region?
Answer. My impression is that the Government of Venezuela intends
to create a cooperative group of regional partners, which, they hope
will coalesce into Latin America's dominant diplomatic, military, and
economic bloc. All indicators are that this bloc would not be generally
supportive of U.S. policies.
Question. What role do you see President Chavez playing in national
elections throughout the U.S. Southern Command's area of operations?
Answer. Allegations of the Government of Venezuela's support to
political parties, grass-roots organizations, and anti-U.S. candidates
will probably continue as long as the current government is in a
position to use its nation's oil wealth to attempt to establish
governments supportive of its regime's efforts.
Question. How would you assess Venezuelan relations with Cuba,
China, and Iran vis-a-vis the national interests of the United States?
Answer. The Government of Venezuela is apparently continuing to
develop relationships with countries it views as anti-U.S. These
relationships with Cuba and Iran may be meant to develop ties with U.S.
antagonists. The Government of Venezuela may hope that its relationship
with the People's Republic of China (PRC) will give it more credibility
and a louder voice on the world stage.
panama
Question. How do you assess the current political and economic
situation in Panama?
Answer. The country seems largely stable and is developing well
economically.
Question. To what extent do you assess that the Panamanian
government attempts to interdict the drug flow out of South America
through Panama?
Answer. My impression is that Panama actively cooperates with
United States' counterdrug efforts within the constraints of their
resources. The Panamanian government is actively engaged in
restructuring their law enforcement agencies. Resources available to
traffickers and associated networks challenge the Government of
Panama's interdiction efforts.
Question. What is your assessment of how Panama is protecting and
maintaining the Panama Canal?
Answer. My preliminary assessment is that protecting and
maintaining the Panama Canal is a very complex and difficult operation.
Since the canal plays such a significant role in Panama's economic and
national identity, the Government of Panama has made the security and
maintenance of the canal a top priority. Panama continues to invest in
technology and security training and continues to work collectively
with allies to protect this very important resource through a number of
ways to include the annual Southern Command sponsored exercise
``Panamax,'' which just successfully concluded last month with its
largest multinational participation to date.
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. Challenges of securing the Canal will continue to exist.
There has been some reported Islamic extremist operational/pre-
operational activity in Panama. These events include occasional
surveillance of the locks and other areas around the Panama Canal. For
example, in 2001, known al Qaeda operative traveled through the
Caribbean region and into Panama, reportedly to conduct surveillance on
the Panama Canal. A successful attack on the Panama Canal would
severely hamper U.S. commerce and trade as, since nearly 15,000 ships
pass through the canal each year, of which 65 percent are traveling to
or from U.S. ports. Any degradation of the canal's functioning would
also restrict the U.S. Navy's ability to swing ships between the
Pacific and Atlantic fleets.
forward operating locations
Question. One of the elements of the regional counternarcotics
strategy is the U.S. 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
counterdrug efforts?
Answer. My understanding is that the U.S. Southern Command
currently has the capability to operate from four FOLs, now called
Cooperative Security Locations (CSLs): Manta, Ecuador; Curacao and
Aruba, Netherlands Antilles; and Comalapa, El Salvador. Ongoing
counterdrug operations are actively conducted from Manta, Curacao, and
Comalapa. These CSLs are used by command for the strategic basing of
assets used in the regional detection and monitoring (D&M) operations
targeting illicit air and sea movement and drug production. They
provide vital forward basing of aircraft in support of the Department
of Defense's statutory mission to be the lead Federal agency for D&M in
the source and transit zones.
Question. Does current use continue to justify the costs of
sustaining these locations?
Answer. From what I have learned thus far, I believe so.
Specifically, these CSLs continue to support the National Drug Control
Strategy by targeting the flow of narcotics to the United States. The
current use of these CSLs appears to justify the costs of sustaining
these four locations. For example, the CSLs supported the seizure or
disruption of 252 metric tons of cocaine during 2005.
Question. What assurance do we have from host nations that these
locations will continue to be available to us, and under what
conditions?
Answer. I am told that there are no concrete assurances from any of
the host nations with which we have agreements that U.S. Southern
Command will be able to continue counternarcotics operations from them
beyond the initial 10-year agreement. However, Southern Command is
hopeful of maintaining CSLs at all three locations. The command will
have to monitor that situation closely.
colombia
Question. Under President Uribe's leadership, Colombia has improved
its military performance in pursuing the narcoterrorist groups, and
demonstrated an increased willingness and commitment to decisively
address and defeat the terrorist insurgency.
Please outline your views regarding the current situation in
Colombia focusing upon: (1) the current military and political
situation in Colombia; (2) the ability of the Colombian military to
regain control of its territory; and (3) ongoing Department of Defense
programs, including the effects of the caps on U.S. troops and
contractor personnel.
Answer. As I learn about Colombia, it appears that:
(1) The military's capabilities continue to improve as the
Illegally Armed Groups (IAGs) in Colombia are attrited either
through combat operations or through demobilization. The Uribe
administration has done a good job providing support so the
Colombian military can effectively prosecute their war.
(2) Having said this, Colombia has not yet fully defeated the
violent terrorist groups within its borders and has not yet
fully gained complete control of all of its territory. To do
so, they are working to better synchronize actions against IAG
centers of gravity.
(3) The Uribe administration is developing a focused strategy
aimed at achieving further success in Colombia within the next
4 years. In support, I understand that Southern Command is
conducting a review of current programs and is determining how
best to support the Government of Colombia in the future.
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.
Question. What is your assessment of the record of the Colombian
military with regard to respect for human rights over the past 3 years?
Answer. I am told that the Colombian military is one of the most
respected institutions in Colombia today. While waging a civil war with
an accelerating operational tempo and increased military presence
throughout Colombia's territory, the Colombian government and military
leadership also worked hard to establish a human rights and
international humanitarian law program. Colombia's human rights program
has included mandatory human rights training for every officer and
soldier at every stage of their military careers. The Colombian
military continues to partner with civil society groups, universities,
and international organizations to collaborate on strengthening their
human rights programs. These programs have been instrumental in
reducing the number of human rights complaints against the Colombian
military.
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 government views human rights as a vital
element in its national strategy. If confirmed, I intend to continue to
make respect for human rights a key component of U.S. Southern Command
interaction with Colombia.
western hemisphere institute for security cooperation (whinsec)
Question. WHINSEC, which replaced the School of the Americas in
2001, has the mission of contributing to theater cooperation activities
through the education and training of students in the Western
Hemisphere from Canada to Chile. Earlier this year, Bolivia, Argentina,
and Uruguay joined Venezuela in no longer sending their military
personnel for instruction at WHINSEC.
What is the relationship between U.S. Southern Command and WHINSEC?
Answer. WHINSEC is not subordinate to U.S. Southern Command.
However, the Commander of Southern Command is a member of the Board of
Visitors.
Question. How does U.S. Southern Command participate in command
oversight and curriculum development?
Answer. Southern Command reviews the WHINSEC curriculum to ensure
the school's curriculum supports theater security cooperation strategic
objectives and the combatant commander's regional priorities and makes
appropriate recommendations.
Question. What is your assessment of the impact on regional
cooperation of the decisions by Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and
Uruguay to no longer send military personnel to WHINSEC for
instruction?
Answer. I have been briefed that Bolivia has 59 students programmed
to attend WHINSEC in 2006. It is my understanding that Venezuela,
Argentina, and Uruguay have not stated that they will no longer send
military personnel to WHINSEC. However, these three countries do not
currently have any students programmed to attend the institution. These
countries will miss opportunities to establish lasting relationships
with the future leaders from the rest of the hemisphere.
Question. In your view, what more, if anything, does WHINSEC need
to do to emphasize human rights in its curriculum?
Answer. I am told that WHINSEC currently has the most complete
human rights program available to the militaries and police forces of
the Western Hemisphere. The school has maximized the quantity and
quality of human rights instruction in its curriculum.
Question. How can WHINSEC improve its outreach efforts to
individuals or groups interested in its activities, particularly those
who have accused the school of contributing to human rights violations
by former students?
Answer. In a word, ``transparency.'' It is my understanding that
WHINSEC has consistently responded with a strong and open program of
information that allows individuals and groups to see the
professionalism associated with its instructors and effective human
rights curriculum. During Human Rights Week, I am told that NGOs are
invited to participate in classroom discussions and practical
exercises. Additionally, on an annual basis, WHINSEC invites critics to
an open house to tour the institute and receive briefings.
american servicemembers' protection act
Question. The American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA)
precludes foreign military financing and international military
exchange training with countries which have not executed an article 98
bilateral agreement in which they pledge not to extradite serving or
former U.S. personnel, officials, or citizens to the International
Criminal Court. General Craddock has testified that this law affects 11
countries in Latin America and has resulted in lost opportunities in
engaging with generations of military officers and noncommissioned
officers in nations in the U.S. Southern Command AOR.
What is your assessment of the impact of the ASPA on WHINSEC?
Answer. I believe ASPA sanctions have not impacted the total number
of yearly WHINSEC graduates. Most recently, the number of students from
sanctioned countries has been offset by additional students from
nonsanctioned countries. However, although the total number of
graduates has not been impacted, there are hundreds of military
officers and noncommissioned officers from those 11 sanctioned
countries that have missed out on the opportunity to attend WHINSEC.
The United States has lost the opportunity to forge relationships with
the military officers from those countries and to educate them on the
democratic principles by which our military operates.
Question. What changes, if any, in your view are needed to the
ASPA?
Answer. My preliminary view is that the exemption of the
International Military Education and Training (IMET) program from
sanctions is necessary. The ASPA contains provisions for Presidential
National Interest Waivers, and while a legislative change is debated, I
support Presidential National Interest Waivers to allow IMET funding to
our partner nations.
Question. What actions, if any, do you believe are needed to
ameliorate the adverse effects of existing law?
Answer. I agree with General Craddock that the sooner we can
reinstate the IMET programs for the currently sanctioned countries, the
sooner we can begin offering educational opportunities to all our
partner nations' security forces. The best way to ameliorate the
adverse effects is to ensure the IMET program is adequately funded to
support the needs of our partner nations.
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. I am told that U.S. Southern Command is responsible for the
operation of a strategic level detention and interrogation facility to
collect and exploit intelligence in support of the global war on
terrorism, and Southern Command is responsible for ensuring that all
detainees at such a facility are treated humanely and in accordance
with U.S. law, the law of war, and U.S. policy. Southern Command
exercises these responsibilities through the Joint Task Force-
Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) at Naval Station Guantanamo, Cuba. Additionally,
Southern Command and JTF-GTMO are charged with supporting law
enforcement and war crime investigations, as well as military
commissions when and if such proceedings are resumed.
Question. Congress has authorized and appropriated considerable
sums for military construction and operation of detainee facilities. In
June 2006, President Bush declared that he would ``like to close
Guantanamo.''
Under what circumstances, if any, would you recommend that the
detainee facilities at Guantanamo should be closed?
Answer. The Department of Defense and the U.S. Southern Command
support the global war on terrorism as directed by the Secretary of
Defense and Joint Staff. If confirmed, I will provide the Secretary and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with my candid assessment and
recommendation on all issues affecting U.S. interests within Southern
Command's AOR, including detention operations.
As the President recently stated, ``America has no interest in
being the world's jailer'' and that ``we will move toward the day when
we can eventually close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay,'' but
so long as the United States remains engaged in the global war on
terrorism, our Nation will likely need to remove from the battlefield
and detain those who would do our country harm. We must do so in
accordance with our own law and policy.
Question. What do you expect to be the population of the Guantanamo
detainee facilities for the next several years?
Answer. Since its inception, JTF-GTMO has detained 770 enemy
combatants. More than 300 have been returned to their country of origin
leaving approximately 455 detainees at Guantanamo today. I, like the
President and the Secretary of Defense, hope that the future detainee
population at Guantanamo continues to diminish. However, that will
ultimately depend on many factors, including the willingness of other
countries to accept transfer of their nationals being detained at
Guantanamo or to provide assurances that those detainees will be
treated humanely upon return to their own nations or to prevent those
detainees from returning to the battlefield. Beyond that, I cannot
speculate how many unlawful enemy combatants JTF-GTMO will be required
to detain in the future.
Question. Would you advocate bringing new detainees to the
facility?
Answer. JTF-GTMO provides a secure facility for the humane
detention and interrogation of unlawful enemy combatants. I support the
transfer of any detainee to Guantanamo if, after an appropriate
assessment, it is determined by President or Secretary of Defense that
such transfer is legal and will further U.S. interests in support of
the global war on terrorism.
Question. Do you believe that military commissions can and should
be held at Guantanamo?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed as yet on this issue, and
there are clearly issues that must be worked out between the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government. From what
I know now, I believe that the Secretary of Defense has directed
Southern Command to provide administrative, personnel, logistics,
facilities, security, linguists, and media support to the Office of
Military Commissions. To that end, JTF-GTMO has developed procedures,
prepared facilities, and is well postured to support military
commissions once prescribed by the President and Congress.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs has
recently issued new guidance on medical support for detainee operations
(Department of Defense Instruction 2310.08E dated April 28, 2006). The
new guidelines appear to reaffirm the role of mental health
professionals, including physicians, in providing assistance to
interrogators. Standards and procedures are also authorized for
behavioral science consultants, comprising Behavioral Science
Consultant Teams (BSCT), in the interrogation of detainees.
Please describe your understanding of the requirements of this
policy and what your role would be, if you are confirmed, in its
implementation at Guantanamo Bay.
Answer. As I understand it, the policy authorizes mental health
professionals to provide direct support to interrogators and detention
personnel as consultants to ensure safe, legal, ethical, and effective
interrogation and detention operations. However, the policy also states
that mental health professionals who serve as Behavioral Science
Consultants to interrogation and detention operations may not serve as
mental health clinicians who treat mental health issues of detainees or
staff. If confirmed, I would ensure this policy is followed.
Question. If confirmed, what criteria would you establish for the
training and employment of BSCTs in the interrogation of detainees?
Answer. I am not fully briefed on this program, but my inclination
is to continue to ensure that each member of the BSCT is properly
trained in the current policies to work with interrogation teams. As
part of this training, each member of the BSCT must know the ethical
standards of their profession--psychology or psychiatry. I will learn
more about this issue if confirmed and will look at it carefully.
facilities for headquarters, u.s. southern command
Question. The headquarters complex for U.S. Southern Command in
Miami, Florida, has consistently been an issue for Congress since the
command moved from Panama in 1997. The Department of Defense is
considering a proposal by the State of Florida that would provide
leased facilities constructed by a private developer to meet the
military and space requirements for the 2,884 personnel assigned to
headquarters at Southern Command. This committee has expressed concern
that this lease may cost up to $24 million annually, and may not be in
the best economic interests of the Department over the long-term as
compared to other alternatives for new headquarters facilities, such as
new construction on a military installation.
facilities for headquarters, u.s. southern command
Question. What is your understanding of the Department's position
on this proposal?
Answer. I am told that the Department of Defense currently
recommends build-to-lease of the new Southern Command Headquarters
Facility on no-cost State of Florida land. It is my understanding that
the economic analysis report submitted by the Department of Defense to
Congress cites this as the best option.
Question. What are your views about the most desirable location for
the headquarters complex for U.S. Southern Command?
Answer. I am not an expert on this issue. It is certainly an
important one. My current sense is that the best location for Southern
Command Headquarters is Miami, Florida.
command responsibility
Question. In recent years, you have authored and co-authored
several books including Command at Sea, The Watch Officers Guide, and
The Division Officers Guide. The topics covered in these books reflect
the historical and traditional skills and expectations of the U.S. Navy
for its officer corps. Developments such as the emphasis on joint
warfighting, technological advances in communications, information
sharing, and weaponry, and the asymmetric threats of the 21st century
may require a re-examination of the responsibilities and accountability
traditionally placed upon commanders and commanding officers.
What is your assessment of the responsibility and accountability
that vests in commanding officers in today's Armed Forces?
Answer. A commanding officer, first and foremost, must assume the
role of leader. As leader, that individual is answerable for the people
and resources entrusted to them. To that end, the commanding officer is
ultimately responsible for all that happens within his or her command.
That is the essence of command, and it remains a bedrock principle of
the U.S. military, even in the changing world of the 21st century.
Question. Do you believe that evaluating a commander's performance
and culpability for errors based on whether the actions taken or not
taken would have made a difference in the outcome is an appropriate
standard?
Answer. I believe a commander is responsible and accountable
whenever the commander or his or her command fails to meet relevant
standards. The judgment whether standards have been met in a particular
case must be based on a careful review of the facts and circumstances.
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, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Commander, U.S. Southern
Command?
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 Carl Levin
counterdrug policy--central transfer account
1. Senator Levin. VADM Stavridis, Congress created a Central
Transfer Account in 1998 to fund the Department of Defense's (DOD)
counternarcotics activities. Over the last couple of years, in response
to the Department's requests, Congress has granted permission to the
Department to use these funds also to combat terrorism where there was
a nexus between drugs and terrorism. I understand that as part of the
reorganization of the policy office within the Office of the Secretary
of Defense this fund may be moved from the policy office and that there
may be a request to Congress to use these funds also for purely
counterterrorist operations. Congress' intent, however, was to dedicate
these funds to counternarcotics operations. Do you have an opinion
regarding the need for dedicated counternarcotics funds?
Admiral Stavridis. As I understand the current state of the
proposed reorganizations, there will be no change to the management of
the Department's counternarcotics Central Transfer Account or impacts
to the Command's operations and support efforts. I feel it is important
to have dedicated counternarcotics funds. However, I support the use of
counternarcotics funds to attack terrorism where there is a clear nexus
between terrorist organizations and narcotrafficking. Southern Command
continues to receive authority from Congress to use these funds to
support counternarcoterrorist activities in Colombia. Due to the
significant threat demonstrated by narcoterrorist organizations within
the region, the Central Transfer Account is a vital component and I
intend to monitor the effectiveness and administration of this funding.
2. Senator Levin. VADM Stavridis, if confirmed, would you look into
the issue and report back to the committee on the likely impact to
Southern Command operations of any potential change in the way the
Counternarcotics Central Transfer Account is administered?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, I will look into the issue and report to
the committee on the impact of any potential changes in the way the
Counternarcotics Central Transfer Account is administered.
colombia
3. Senator Levin. VADM Stavridis, President Uribe, with the help of
the U.S. military, has made great strides in taking control of his
country. However, all the resources we have put into the
counternarcotics effort do not seem to have yielded much progress.
Cultivation has increased, and kept up with eradication. Do you believe
that the U.S. counternarcotics policy has been successful? What would
you propose we alter, given the poor results?
Admiral Stavridis. As I understand, U.S. counternarcotics policy is
a balance of complementary programs such as eradication, interdiction,
alternative development, extraditions, and demand reduction. I believe
that no single program is a panacea, nor should we rely on any one
metric to measure U.S. assistance to the Government of Colombia.
I agree that Colombia has made great strides towards stability with
U.S. assistance. The Government of Colombia has restored government
presence to all of its municipalities; lowered violent crimes to the
lowest levels in 18 years; reformed the judicial system; increased
gross domestic product, foreign direct investment, and stock market
capitalization while keeping interest rates, inflation, and
unemployment at historical lows; negotiated the demobilization of over
30,000 illegally armed paramilitary members of the United Self-Defense
Forces of Colombia (AUC) and entered preliminary talks with the second
largest insurgency group, the National Liberation Army.
Additionally, Southern Command executes its ``Detection and
Monitoring'' mission in support of counternarcotics activities of law
enforcement agencies. Recent interdiction and disruption data for the
source and transit zones indicate success with 252 metric tons of
illegal narcotics being seized or disrupted during calendar year 2005.
This is 252 metric tons of cocaine that will not reach its final
destination.
These metrics represent a remarkable turnaround from the late
1990s. The problems facing Colombia are certainly complicated and
although the Government of Colombia has made great progress during the
past 6 years, our job there is incomplete.
I believe we should continue to explore ways to increase
efficiency, advance information sharing among nations, promote partner
nation capability to stem the transnational flow of illicit drugs, and
ensure DOD programs are appropriately synchronized with other agency
efforts.
4. Senator Levin. VADM Stavridis, I understand that the Colombian
government's priority is to deal with the cultivation and the
narcoterrorists, but do you believe that we ought to do more on the
interdiction side, particularly with regard to maritime interdiction?
Admiral Stavridis. After the change of command, I will need to
assess the current levels of interdiction and the resources available
to the command before offering an opinion on the interdiction efforts.
I am aware that Southern Command has provided significant maritime
interdiction capability, most recently with the purchase of 12 Midnight
Express Interceptor boats to contend with the littoral threat.
Additionally, it is my understanding that the command has also provided
significant support to the Colombian Navy and Marine Corps to increase
riverine capability.
5. Senator Levin. VADM Stavridis, there are reports that the
Colombian demobilization program is not succeeding, that paramilitaries
are forming new armed groups, and that demobilized paramilitaries are
infiltrating the political process. What, if anything, do you think the
U.S. military can do to help the U.S. and Colombian governments to
address the weaknesses of this program?
Admiral Stavridis. The Department of State is the lead U.S.
Government agency for the demobilization program. However, it is my
understanding that Southern Command has provided some administrative
support to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) individual
demobilization program with Civil Affairs elements. Southern Command
has not been involved in the AUC force demobilization program, which is
a program separate and distinct from the FARC individual demobilization
program and assisted by the Department of State's International Law
Enforcement--Narcotics Affairs Section.
Since I have not been fully briefed on this program, it may be
premature for me to recommend what type of assistance Southern Command
could provide. I do believe that if Southern Command assistance is
available, it would have to be carefully weighed against all prevailing
factors and interagency concerns.
cuba
6. Senator Levin. VADM Stavridis, in May, General Craddock stated
that he is in favor of a complete review of U.S.-Cuban relations,
including military-to-military contacts. What is your opinion regarding
whether the United States should have military contacts with Cuba?
Admiral Stavridis. As previously stated, I believe that General
Craddock was referring to the fact that we now live in a multi-polar,
globalized world in which it would be prudent for the U.S. to reexamine
our engagement policies throughout the world. Generally, military-to-
military engagement is valuable; however, any engagement must be
consistent with U.S. Government law and policy. Currently, the only
authorized military-to-military contacts in Cuba are minimal
administrative conversations surrounding the military facility at
Guantanamo Bay. I will need to assess the specific situation regarding
military engagement with Cuba once I assume command.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
guantanamo oversight
7. Senator Kennedy. VADM Stavridis, the riots of this past May and
the coordinated suicides of this past June have raised concerns about
the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo. What specific measures will
you take at U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) to ensure that the United
States consistently honors all of its international treaty obligations
with respect to detainees; that detention and interrogation operations
at Guantanamo are compliant with all applicable laws, regulations, and
policies; and that the standards of the revised Army Field Manual are
upheld by all DOD personnel and affiliates under your command?
Admiral Stavridis. I will faithfully and diligently discharge my
duties as Commander, U.S. SOUTHCOM, to the best of my ability in
conformance with existing laws, regulations, and orders. This includes
ensuring that the mission of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), a
strategic level detention and interrogation facility in support of the
global war on terrorism, is accomplished in accordance with U.S. law,
the law of war, and U.S. policy. General Craddock has previously
certified that JTF-GTMO's policies, practices, and procedures are in
compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and Common Article 3
to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Furthermore, I understand that
General Craddock has, in accordance with current directives, submitted
implementing guidance to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and
the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for review and
approval. Once such implementing guidance is approved, I will issue it
to JTF-GTMO and ensure it is followed.
8. Senator Kennedy. VADM Stavridis, what measures will you take to
ensure proper accountability standards (as you describe them in your
written testimony) are applied to commanding officers?
Admiral Stavridis. As I previously testified, I believe a
commanding officer is responsible and accountable whenever an officer
of his or her command fails to meet relevant standards. These
standards, which are the essence of command, are embodied in the Navy's
Core Values--Honor, Courage, and Commitment. Very simply, all
servicemembers, including commanding officers, should be focused on
``doing the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons.''
With this in mind, any judgment on whether standards have been met in a
particular case must be based on a careful review of the facts and
circumstances surrounding that particular case.
9. Senator Kennedy. VADM Stavridis, if confirmed, would you apply
those standards to commanders alleged to have committed wrongdoing at
Guantanamo prior to your tenure at SOUTHCOM?
Admiral Stavridis. I will investigate all credible allegations of
misconduct occurring within the U.S. SOUTHCOM geographic area of
responsibility, including Guantanamo. This includes alleged misconduct
not previously reported or investigated that occurred prior to my
assumption of command. Absent new information, I am not authorized, nor
would I seek, to re-investigate or re-evaluate previously made
findings, decisions, or determinations as to allegations of wrongdoing.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
terrorist activity
10. Senator Akaka. VADM Stavridis, in your testimony you asserted
that if confirmed your number one priority as Commander of SOUTHCOM
would be supporting the global war on terror. What evidence exists to
suggest that the terrorist activity conducted by guerilla groups in
South America against local and regional political leaders are
definitively tied to international terrorist threats to U.S. national
security?
Admiral Stavridis. Colombia's FARC is an international terrorist
group, recognized as such by the U.S. State Department and the European
Union. FARC leadership has declared U.S. persons and interests as
legitimate targets. Members of the Islamic radical group, Jama'at al-
Musilmeen, based in Trinidad and Tobago, initiated a coup there in 1990
with the goal of establishing an Islamic state. The group remains
active, and over the past 2 years members have issued threats against
U.S. interests on the islands. Islamic extremists affiliated with
Hizballah, al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya, and HAMAS are present in the
region. Members of these organizations have been caught by local
officials performing surveillance of U.S. facilities and doing other
preoperational activities. Hizballah proved capable of attacks in the
region when it conducted attacks against Jewish interests in Buenos
Aires in the 1990s.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
u.s. southern command
11. Senator Bill Nelson. VADM Stavridis, SOUTHCOM's Miami
headquarters are at the crossroads of Latin America, facilitating
contact with regional political and military leadership. Why is Miami
the best location for this headquarters (HQ)?
Admiral Stavridis. The best location for SOUTHCOM HQs is Miami, FL,
which provides a wide range of benefits.
Quick access to area of operations--proximity to Miami
International Airport, the only U.S. airport with daily non-
stop flights to partner nations, reduces travel costs and
travel time.
Proximity to Partner Nation Consulates--Partner Nation
consulates are located in Miami Dade, expediting visa
processing and enhancing quick access to Latin America.
Miami is considered the ``Capital of Latin America''--
SOUTHCOM members stay culturally tied to the area of
responsibility. Partner nations are more likely to assign
quality liaison officers.
Communications--Hispanic media has a major presence in South
Florida. Univision, the premier Spanish-language media company,
operates one of its two production facilities in Miami. Miami's
El Nuevo Herald is recognized as the best Spanish language
newspaper in the U.S. and a preferred source of information for
Latin Americans.
12. Senator Bill Nelson. VADM Stavridis, what is the status of the
Department's efforts to conclude an arrangement to modernize the HQ?
Admiral Stavridis. The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee and U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
each passed a resolution approving the new SOUTHCOM HQs facility (IAW
40 U.S.C. 3307). Title 10 notification to Senate and House Armed
Services Committees is complete (IAW 10 U.S.C. 2662). To gain full
congressional authority, the Department of the Army is seeking written
permission to proceed from the Readiness Subcommittee of the House
Armed Services Committee. The State of Florida, in collaboration with
General Services Administration and DOD, is leading the procurement
which is scheduled to conclude in a lease agreement between the State
and GSA by 22 December 2006. The new facility is scheduled to achieve
full operating capability by 30 March 2010.
revolutionary armed forces of colombia
13. Senator Bill Nelson. VADM Stavridis, three Florida residents,
Keith Stansell, Marc Gonsalves, and Thomas Howes, were under contract
with the DOD when they were taken hostage by the FARC 3 years ago. What
additional resources do you need to find and rescue these Americans?
Admiral Stavridis. The command's highest priority in Colombia is
the safe return of the three American hostages. Southern Command's
efforts remain focused on assuring the safe return of these courageous
men. As you are aware, the challenging environment in Colombia makes
obtaining actionable intelligence extremely difficult. Additionally,
reliable Human Intelligence sources remain a challenge. Although these
challenges exist, if actionable intelligence is obtained, we are
confident that appropriate recovery assets will be available to affect
a rescue.
14. Senator Bill Nelson. VADM Stavridis, is a prisoner exchange
between the Colombian Government and the FARC possible?
Admiral Stavridis. It is my understanding that a prisoner exchange
is possible.
The Government of Colombia has conducted a preliminary discussion
with the FARC on how to move forward with any such proposal. Both sides
seem willing to conduct an exchange. Currently, the Government of
Colombia and the FARC are discussing potential sites and stipulations
for establishing a ``Meeting Zone'' (Zona de Encuentro) for furthering
negotiations and conducting the exchange.
However, both sides have made stipulations to any exchange that
complicates the situation from the U.S. Government perspective.
President Uribe has stated that the three Americans held hostage would
have to be included in any negotiation. The FARC has responded that the
two senior FARC members who have been extradited to the U.S. Government
would also have to be included in the exchange.
There has also been discussion between both parties on approaching
a potential third party moderator.
cuba
15. Senator Bill Nelson. VADM Stavridis, what should SOUTHCOM's
role be in any mass migration/emergency situation in Cuba, should the
political situation change rapidly?
Admiral Stavridis. Southern Command's role in any mass migration/
emergency situation would be to support the Department of Homeland
Security to interdict migrants at sea in its area of responsibility and
assume the duties for migrant operations at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay
or other locations in the area of responsibility when directed to do
so.
venezuela/iran
16. Senator Bill Nelson. VADM Stavridis, how extensive is the
developing relationship between President Chavez of Venezuela and the
leader of Iran?
Admiral Stavridis. Venezuela's President Chavez traveled to Iran on
July 21, 2006, and Iran's President Ahmadinejad visited Caracas for the
first time on September 17, 2006. It is my understanding that this was
the 10th visit between high-level Venezuelan and Iranian officials in
the last 2 years. Chavez and Ahmadinejad's relationship will continue
to strengthen, with Iran supporting Venezuela's bid for the United
Nations Security Council seat, Venezuela supporting freedom for Iran to
act in the field of nuclear energy, and both nations expanding
bilateral economic agreements beyond the current U.S. $11 billion
estimate. Both leaders will continue to seek to legitimize their
radical agendas and to build worldwide alliances to counter U.S.
interests.
17. Senator Bill Nelson. VADM Stavridis, are you seeing cooperation
in the nuclear area? Are they cooperating on any other military issues?
Admiral Stavridis. [Deleted.]
haiti
18. Senator Bill Nelson. VADM Stavridis, can you give me your
evaluation of the effectiveness of the peacekeeping forces in Haiti?
Are there enough? Are they improving?
Admiral Stavridis. From my initial observation, the Commander of
the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) forces,
Lieutenant General Elito of Brazil, has provided capable and effective
leadership. Under his direction, MINUSTAH has increased its
effectiveness by deploying additional troops around Port-au-Prince to
address the violence there. The new United Nations Security Resolution
passed on August 15, 2006, calls for the reduction of military forces
from 7,500 to 7,200 but increases the United Nations Police (UNPOL)
authorized strength from 1,897 to 1,951. This is part of the United
Nations' plan to slowly strengthen the Haitian National Police (HNP)
while also strengthening the mentorship offered by the UNPOL. The
MINUSTAH troop level will remain roughly consistent until the HNP is
able to begin effective policing of both the civilian population and
itself
This effort, coupled with increased UNPOL and the ever increasing
cadre of HNP is enough force for the present time. Once the HNP is
adequately manned and trained, improvements to the HNP will be evident
with increased arrests of criminals, reduced crime and corruption, and
increased business activities.
______
[The nomination reference of VADM James G. Stavridis, USN,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 4, 2006.
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 James G. Stavridis, 5127.
______
[The biographical sketch of VADM James G. Stavridis, USN,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Resume of VADM James G. Stavridis, USN
15 Feb 1955 Born in West Palm Beach,
Florida
01 Jun 1976 Ensign
02 Jun 1978 Lieutenant (junior grade)
01 Jul 1980 Lieutenant
01 Oct 1984 Lieutenant Commander
01 Nov 1990 Commander
01 Jun 1997 Captain
08 Jan 2001 Designated Rear Admiral
(lower half) while serving
in billets commensurate
with that grade
01 Mar 2002 Rear Admiral (lower half)
01 Jan 2005 Rear Admiral
01 Sep 2004 Vice Admiral, Service
continuous to date
Assignments and duties:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Naval Academy (Instructor). Jun 1976.......... Aug 1976
Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, Aug 1976.......... May 1977
San Diego, CA (DUINS).
Service School Command, Naval May 1977.......... Jun 1977
Training Center, Great Lakes,
IL (DUINS).
U.S.S. Hewitt (DD 966) (Anti- Jul 1977.......... Apr 1979
Submarine Warfare Officer).
Surface Warfare Officers School Apr 1979.......... Aug 1979
Command Newport, RI (DUINS).
U.S.S. Forrestal (CV 59) Aug 1979.......... Mar 1981
(Electrical Officer).
Office of the CNO (Strategic Mar 1981.......... Aug 1981
Concepts Group) (OP-603).
Tufts University (Student)...... Aug 1981.......... Oct 1983
Surface Warfare Officers School Oct. 1983......... May 1984
Command Newport, RI (DUINS).
Combat Systems Engineering May 1984.......... Sep 1984
Development Site, Moorestown,
NJ (DUINS).
U.S.S. Valley Forge (CG 50) Oct. 1984......... Aug. 1987
(Operations Officer).
Office of the CNO (Assistant for Sep 1987.......... Jul 1989
Long Range Requirements).
Surface Warfare Officers School Jul 1989.......... Oct 1989
Command Newport, RI (DUINS).
XO, U.S.S. Antietam (CG 54)..... Oct 1989.......... Jul 1991
National War College (Student).. Jul 1991.......... Jul 1992
Office of the Secretary of the Jul 1992.......... Mar 1993
Navy (Special Assistant and
Speechwriter).
Ships Material Readiness Group, Mar 1993.......... Jun 1993
Newport, RI (DUINS).
CO, U.S.S. Barry (DDG 52)....... Jun 1993.......... Dec 1995
Joint Staff (Branch Chief, Force Dec 1995.......... Nov 1997
Policy Branch) (J5).
Commander, Destroyer Squadron Nov 1997.......... Dec 1998
Two One.
Office of the Secretary of the Jan 1999.......... Mar 2001
Navy (Executive Assistant).
Office of the CNO (Deputy Mar 2001.......... Jan 2002
Director for Requirements
Assessment, N81D/Director, CINC
Liaison Division, N83).
Office of the CNO (Director, Jan 2002.......... Aug 2002
Naval Operations Group).
Commander, Cruiser Destroyer Aug 2002.......... Jul 2004
Group Twelve.
Office of the Secretary of Jul 2004.......... To Date
Defense (Senior Military
Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medals and awards:
Defense Superior Service Medal
Legion of Merit with four Gold Stars
Meritorious Service Medal with two Gold Stars
Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with three Gold Stars
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal
Joint Meritorious Unit Award with Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster
Navy Unit Commendation
Meritorious Unit Commendation
Navy ``E'' Ribbon with ``E'' Device
Navy Expeditionary Medal
National Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Star
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with two Bronze Stars
Southwest Asia Service Medal with one Bronze Star
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Armed Forces Services Medal with two Bronze Stars
Sea Service Deployment Ribbon with three Bronze Stars
NATO Medal
Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)
Kuwait Liberation (Kuwait)
Expert Rifleman Medal
Expert Pistol Shot Medal
Special qualifications:
BS (English) U.S. Naval Academy, 1976
Designated Surface Warfare Officer, 1978
Ph.D. (Foreign Affairs) Tufts University, 1984
Graduate of Naval War College, 1985
Graduate of National War College, 1992
Designated Joint Specialty Officer, 1999
Personal data:
Wife:
Laura Elizabeth Hall of Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Children:
Christina A. Stavridis (Daughter), Born: 20 August 1985.
Julia E. Stavridis (Daughter), Born: 14 February 1991.
Summary of joint duty assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment Dates Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint Staff (Branch Chief, Force Dec 95-Dec 97..... CDR/CAPT
Policy Branch) (J5).
Office of the Secretary of Jul 04-To date.... VADM
Defense (Senior Military
Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
[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 James G.
Stavridis, 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.)
VADM James G. Stavridis, USN.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, United States Southern Command.
3. Date of nomination:
24 April 2006.
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:
15 February 1955; West Palm Beach, Florida.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Laura Elizabeth Stavridis (maiden name: Hall).
7. Names and ages of children:
Christina, 20.
Julia, 15.
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary
or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local
governments, other than those listed above.
None.
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
U.S. Naval Institute, Surface Navy Association.
11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognition's for
outstanding service or achievements other than those listed on the
service record extract provided to the committee by the executive
branch.
None.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
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.
James G. Stavridis.
This 2nd day of May, 2006.
[The nomination of VADM James G. Stavridis, USN, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Warner on September 28,
2006, with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed.
The nomination was confirmed by the Senate on September 29,
2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Nelson M. Ford by Chairman
Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD)
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities
and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These
reforms have also vastly improved cooperation between the Services and
the combatant commanders, among other things, in joint training and
education and in the execution of military operations.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act changed DOD operations profoundly
and positively. Although I believe that the framework established by
Goldwater-Nichols has significantly improved inter-service and joint
relationships and promoted the effective execution of responsibilities,
the Department, working with Congress, should continually assess the
law in light of improving capabilities, evolving threats, and changing
organizational dynamics. Although I am not currently aware of any
specific proposals to amend Goldwater-Nichols, I will, if confirmed,
have the opportunity to evaluate those proposals that might come before
us.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. This milestone legislation is now 20 years old and has
served the Nation well. It may be appropriate to consider whether it
addresses the current requirements of combatant commanders and the
needs and challenges of the military departments in light of today's
security environment. If Congress believes that a review is required
and if I am confirmed, I would be pleased to take part in such a
review.
duties of the assistant secretary of the army for financial management
and comptroller
Question. As set forth in section 3016(b)(4) and 3022 of title 10,
U.S.C., the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management
and Comptroller (ASA(FM&C)) has the principal responsibility for the
exercise of the comptroller functions of the Department of the Army and
shall direct and manage financial management activities and operations
of the Department of the Army.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
ASA(FM&C)?
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 have spent the last 30 years in a wide variety of
financial management positions and currently serve as the Principal
Deputy ASA(FM&C). Previously, I was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Budgets and Financial Management, where I was
responsible for the financial performance of the Defense Health Program
and Tricare. I have more than 10 years of executive branch experience
in Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Office of
Management and Budget, the Department of Health and Human Services, and
the DOD. Earlier in my career, I was the Chief Executive Officer of a
privately held medical manufacturing company, the Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Georgetown University Medical
Center, and a partner in Coopers & Lybrand, a public accounting firm. I
have served on the finance committees or as treasurer of a number of
not-for-profit organizations, including AcademyHealth, the McLean
Little League, Westminster-Canterbury of Winchester, and the Hospice of
Northern Virginia. I am familiar with the fiduciary responsibilities of
Federal officials, particularly those that are applicable to Army
personnel, and feel confident that I can meet those high standards.
Question. Do you believe that there are any actions that you need
to take to enhance your ability to perform the duties of the ASA(FM&C)?
Answer. Any new position presents new challenges and opportunities
for learning. Because my current role has focused on improving internal
controls and program costing methodologies, I will need to become more
familiar with Army programming and budgeting procedures. I also will
need to strengthen my relationships with other senior leaders and staff
in the executive and legislative branches.
relationships
Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between
the ASA(FM&C) and each of the following?
The Secretary of the Army.
Answer. The roles and responsibilities of the ASA(FM&C) are laid
out in sections 3016(b)(4) and 3022 of title 10, U.S.C., and
Headquarters, Department of the Army General Order 3. As the principal
advisor to the Secretary of the Army on financial matters, the
ASA(FM&C) directs the comptroller and financial management functions of
the Department of the Army.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Army.
Answer. The Under Secretary of the Army is the Secretary's
principal civilian assistant and senior civilian advisor. I will strive
to maintain a cooperative and open relationship with the Under
Secretary and keep him apprised of significant issues.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Army.
Answer. My relationship with the other Assistant Secretaries would
support my responsibility to advise the Secretary of the Army on
financial matters and to direct all comptroller and financial
management functions and activities of the Department of the Army. The
Assistant Secretaries work together to bring a civilian perspective to
Army management and program planning and, in conjunction with the Army
staff, support the Army leadership in the discharge of its duties.
Question. The General Counsel of the Army.
Answer. I would consult and coordinate with the General Counsel on
all legal matters and financial management and comptroller issues
requiring legal review.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) to ensure that Army financial management and
comptroller policies dovetail with those of the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and
Information Integration/Chief Information Officer.
Answer. Financial management systems are critical to enabling the
Army to perform accurate, timely financial management, and are crucial
to achieving auditable financial statements. The Army's financial
managers are working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
staff, including the Chief Information Officer, to ensure that all
financial management systems and other Army systems that feed
information to them meet all relevant OSD standards and milestones
during their planning and implementation.
Question. The Director, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation.
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the Director, Office of
Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E), in fulfilling his or her role
of providing independent assessments of Army program alternatives and
priorities. I also would work with the Director, PA&E, to ensure the
success of the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army.
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Chief of Staff
of the Army and the rest of the Army staff to ensure that resourcing
and financial management decisions support the Army's operational and
strategic objectives.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries for Financial Management of the
Navy and Air Force.
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the Navy and Air Force
Assistant Secretaries for Financial Management to serve as advisors and
liaisons to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
and to develop suggestions for more effective and efficient joint
operations.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the ASA(FM&C)?
Answer. I believe that, if confirmed as the ASA(FM&C), I will face
multiple challenges. In the near-term, the ASA(FM&C) must obtain
funding sufficient to prosecute the global war on terrorism while
simultaneously improving and maintaining the readiness of the Army--
Active, Guard, and Reserve. The Army greatly appreciates the strong
congressional support in providing the necessary resources but the
unpredictability inherent in supplemental appropriations can create
inefficiencies in the resource allocation process. Longer-term, the
challenge will be to improve financial management processes to foster
more efficient operations and to achieve an auditable financial
statement. The Army must meet its responsibility to the taxpayers to
account for the resources that have been provided to support its
mission.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have to
address these challenges?
Answer. Central to addressing the near-term challenge of
predictable and timely funding for both the global war on terrorism and
the Army's base mission is providing clear and concise explanations of
those challenges to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress.
Further, the Army must encourage, in particular, accelerated submission
of supplemental budgets for the global war on terrorism. While the war
continues to be dynamic and unpredictable, there are many aspects of
the Army's wartime mission that we can now forecast with some degree of
certainty. With regard to improving our financial stewardship and
eventually obtaining auditable financial statements, the Army must
continue development and deployment of the General Funds Enterprise
Business System (GFEBS) and ensure that its business processes are
streamlined to take advantage of GFEBS' capabilities. Success will
require the continued involvement of the Army's senior leaders, both
military and civilian, and adoption of a more business-like culture.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the ASA(FM&C)?
Answer. If confirmed, I would revalidate the current priorities for
preparation of auditable financial statements, preparation of fully
justified budget submissions, and implementation of more efficient
financial management systems compliant with joint DOD architectures. I
also would work to strengthen cost management and cost controls as part
of the Army culture and to improve cost estimating for procurement and
program planning. Finally, I would expend every effort to ensure that
adequate funds are available to support our Army to fight and win the
global war on terrorism and to 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 ASA(FM&C) 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 (POM), the
annual budget submission, and the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP)?
Answer. If confirmed as the ASA(FM&C), I would hold responsibility
for all budget matters within the Department of the Army. The Military
Deputy to the ASA(FM&C) would serve under my direct supervision.
Additionally, if confirmed, I would have formal oversight
responsibility for all financial aspects of POM preparation, the Army's
portions of the annual President's budget submission, and all Army
entries in the FYDP.
supplemental funding and annual budgeting
Question. Since September 11, 2001, the DOD has paid for much of
the cost of the global war on terrorism through supplemental
appropriations. These costs, coupled with the Army's costs of
transforming and modularizing, have grown every year. Increasingly, the
reliance on emergency supplemental appropriations as a source for
funding, rather than the annual budget, has met with opposition.
What are your views regarding the use of supplemental
appropriations to fund what can be classified as predictable costs
associated with ongoing operations?
Answer. I believe it is appropriate to address contingency
operation costs within the annual defense budget, if those costs can be
predicted accurately. Because the annual budget is prepared about a
year before appropriations are available, in most instances an
operation needs to have achieved some level of stability before the
resource requirements can be included in the budget process. In the
case of current military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are
some areas where the costs have been reasonably stable and other cases
with much greater variation. Given that the Army faces an intelligent
and adaptive enemy in a dynamic operational and security environment,
everyone involved must make sure that the budget process retains enough
flexibility to respond to the battlefield's changing conditions.
Question. In your opinion, should modernization programs under any
circumstances be funded using supplemental or emergency appropriations?
Answer. In those instances where modernization is required to meet
current readiness shortfalls, it is appropriate to use supplemental or
emergency appropriations to adapt or accelerate ongoing modernization
programs. In addition, supplemental or emergency appropriations should
be used to cover battle losses and procurement of force protection
equipment, even when that occurs through a modernization program.
army reprogramming actions
Question. For the past 2 years, as the end of the fiscal year has
approached, the Army has sought to reprogram billions of dollars in
order to pay end-of-year bills, particularly personnel costs. The
sources for these reprogramming requests in many instances have
involved borrowing from future year budgets in order to pay today's
bills.
What is your view of a budgetary approach that relies on future
year funds to pay current year bills?
Answer. It is unwise to use future year funds (usually set aside
for procurement or research and development) for current year
operations. However, the fiscal demands placed on the Army over the
last 2 years have required an unprecedented use of reprogramming, which
offered the only option for meeting these demands. For example,
personnel costs have proven to be very dynamic and they are a must-pay
requirement. Furthermore, the global war on terrorism-generated
operational tempo of the last several years has created some ``color-
of-money'' mismatches that must be balanced before the fiscal year
ends.
Generally, I do not consider the reprogramming process to be a
budgetary approach, but rather a means to accommodate changing
priorities and emerging requirements within a given fiscal year.
Question. If confirmed, what management changes would you implement
or recommend to the Secretary of the Army to correct this budgetary
practice?
Answer. The Army has made substantial improvements in its ability
to predict personnel costs. To ensure that estimates are as accurate as
possible, we are instituting a more vigorous review of the personnel
accounts and assumptions made to build them before submitting those
figures to OSD and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To
facilitate getting the right amount of military personnel funding, it
is incumbent upon the Army to advise congressional committees of any
changes in the assumptions that might have a significant impact on the
Army's budget estimates. I also would recommend to the Secretary that
the Army pursue whatever means necessary to ensure that must-fund
requirements, especially for personnel, are fully accommodated within
the Army's annual base budget.
information access by cbo and gao
Question. The cost of current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
has more than doubled over the past 2 years. The Army has refused
requests by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to share its modeling assumptions and
programs.
If confirmed, would you be willing to share with agencies such as
the CBO and the GAO information about how the Army estimates its
ongoing war costs, including modeling assumptions and programs?
Answer. I am not aware of any instance in which the Army has
refused to share the assumptions used to develop estimates of ongoing
war costs. The model itself--the Contingency Operations Support Tool--
is not an Army model, but is managed by the OSD and used by all
military departments and the Joint Staff.
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
management and data continue.
What do you consider to be the top financial management issues that
must be addressed by the Department of the Army over the next 5 years?
Answer. I believe the Department of the Army must improve pay
services to soldiers, and improve financial management systems and
processes. There are only two metrics for soldier pay: paying soldiers
the right amount and paying them on time. This has proven challenging
for an Army at war. The Army has, however, worked through the
challenges and, through successful collaborations with the GAO and
Congress, solved many of them. For example, the Army improved delivery
of pay services to wounded soldiers and successfully implemented
legislative changes to waive or remit certain types of debt previously
collected from wounded soldiers.
The Army must have financial management systems that provide
accurate, timely, and reliable information that enables sound business
decisions regarding the allocation of resources during the year of
execution and over the program years. To accomplish this, the Army must
replace inefficient, nonintegrated systems and processes with modern
solutions and best practices that fit within the DOD Business
Enterprise Architecture. The Army must also instill a strong system of
management controls to ensure that the information provided by
financial statements is reliable.
Question. If confirmed, how would you plan to ensure that progress
is made toward improved financial management in the Army?
Answer. I will continue to work closely with the Army leadership,
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service to improve our financial management practices.
The Army has made significant contributions to the Department's
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness plan. This plan provides a
detailed, disciplined roadmap to sustainable improvements in financial
management practices, which ultimately will enable the Army to produce
accurate financial statements. I will work to ensure that funds are
made available to pay for these improvement initiatives because,
without resources, these objectives cannot be achieved.
Question. If confirmed, what private business practices, if any,
would you advocate for adoption by the DOD and the Department of the
Army?
Answer. There are many private business practices that could be
valuable in improving the Army's effectiveness and efficiency. One
embraced by the Secretary of the Army is ``Lean Six Sigma,'' a
structured business process reengineering designed to generate specific
financial savings and better outcomes. Another example that holds
significant potential for the Army is the adoption of commercially
available software products and associated business practices. For
instance, the Army's GFEBS initiative is based on commercial off-the-
shelf software. GFEBS will enable the Army to manage financial
resources, both assets and funding, as an enterprise instead of as a
conglomeration of disparate activities.
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 anticipated results are being achieved?
Answer. Key performance measures would include production of
timely, relevant, and accurate financial information; timely and
accurate pay for soldiers; and continued use of metrics established in
the President's Management Agenda.
budget justification information
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, do you intend to
initiate to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the budget
justification books provided to Congress by the Army?
Answer. The Army has made great strides in improving timeliness and
accuracy of the Budget Justification Books by initiating the budget
cycle earlier and by extending coordination actions across the entire
Army staff (and frequently with Army commands, Army service component
commands, and Army direct reporting units). These changes already have
helped the Army to prepare two budgets concurrently, the base budget
and the supplemental, with the same staffing. Despite some current
funding challenges, I would continue to oversee, assess, and revise, as
necessary, the Army's methodology in order to improve further accuracy
and timeliness. For instance, the Army may be losing precious staff
time in preparing documents of marginal use. I would propose, working
through OSD(C), that the Army streamline the amount of data provided so
that exhibits can be submitted more promptly to the committees.
Additional information, including specific documentation required by
the committees, could be provided as needed at a later date.
travel and government purchase cards
Question. The increased use of government travel and purchase cards
within the Department came about as a result of significant financial
and acquisition reform initiatives over the past decade. Following
numerous well publicized instances of abuse of travel and purchase
cards, however, concerns have arisen about the adequacy of internal
controls in place for both the travel and purchase cards.
What is the status of Army efforts to ensure that proper internal
controls exist and that availability of the cards does not enable
fraud, waste, and abuse?
Answer. The Army currently has about 331,000 active individual
travel cards, which are held by soldiers and civilian employees. This
represents a 30-percent decrease in the number of travel cards held by
individuals, and reduces the Army's exposure to fraud, waste, and
abuse. The Army monitors travel card use, and closes accounts that have
not been used in the past 12 months. The Army also monitors travel card
delinquency metrics on a monthly basis, focusing on the delinquent
dollar amount and the number of delinquent accounts. Currently, about
1.5 percent of the Army's travel card accounts are delinquent, which
compares quite favorably to the industry travel card standard of 6.1
percent.
The Army's government purchase card program is managed by the
Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. The
Army has nearly 56,000 purchase cards with monthly transactions of
nearly $300 million. During fiscal year 2005, the program generated
$25.5 million in rebates to the Army. The ASA(FM&C) is responsible for
ensuring that proper controls are in place to mitigate the risk of
waste, fraud, and abuse. These controls include ensuring at least a
one-to-seven ratio of approving officials to card holders; the Army's
current ratio is one approving official for every 2.4 cards assigned.
In addition, the Army has worked with DOD and the bank to review
purchase data and to identify high-risk transactions. ASA(FM&C) also
routinely monitors purchases against merchant category codes assigned
by the bank to check for propriety.
business transformation agency
Question. The Department recently established the Business
Transformation Agency (BTA) to strengthen management of its business
systems modernization effort.
What is your understanding of the mission of this agency?
Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Defense established the Defense BTA
in October 2005 in order to ensure consistency, consolidation, and
coordination of DOD enterprise-level business systems; and to reduce
redundancies in business systems and overhead costs. The BTA's mission
is to transform business operations in order to augment warfighter
support while enabling financial accountability and improving
investment governance across the DOD.
Question. What role does the BTA play in the financial management
of the Department of the Army?
Answer. The BTA's Enterprise Transition Plan and its Business
Enterprise Architecture are helping to steer development and fielding
of all of the Army's major business system implementations, including
the GFEBS, the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System
(DIMHRS), and others. For example, GFEBS will consolidate several
accounting and financial management systems, giving Army and Defense
Department officials a holistic view of how money is disbursed. It will
feed vital, up-to-the-minute information to senior civilians and Army
leadership, providing top-tier Army and DOD leaders with the timely,
accurate data needed to make sound business decisions in support of the
warfighter. It will facilitate congressional oversight and give
taxpayers the level of financial accountability they expect from the
Army. ASA(FM&C) works constantly and effectively with the BTA to make
sure that all Army systems meet the standards set by DOD.
Question. What benefits, if any, does the establishment of the BTA
have for the Department of the Army?
Answer. The BTA provides the DOD a ``unity of command'' and an
integrated ``unity of effort'' for transforming its business domains.
The Army has established effective working relationships with that
office and its staff.
army pay problems
Question. The GAO has reported on extensive problems with the
National Guard's and Reserve's pay system. Modernizing the military
payroll system is part of the longer-term Business Management
Modernization Program (BMMP); 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. Timely, accurate pay for soldiers, particularly those
mobilized or deployed, is one of the highest priorities for the Army's
leadership and for me in my current position. The Army already has made
tremendous improvements in pay support for mobilized and deployed
soldiers since the inception of current operations. While true
integration of pay and personnel functions into a single, modern system
is the objective state the Army needs to achieve (Army implementation
of DIMHRS is scheduled for fiscal year 2008), there has been and
continues to be much that the Army can do in the interim. The Army has
implemented numerous near-term actions to increase training, to
streamline processes, to expand or to stabilize staffing, and to
improve accountability. Starting in late 2003, the Army initiated an
88-item soldier pay improvement action plan for the purpose of
improving pay and travel reimbursement support to mobilized soldiers.
To date, 70 of those actions have been implemented, leaving only 3 open
items that are not tied to longer-term system solutions.
Over the past year, the Army also significantly improved pay
services for wounded soldiers. In less than a year, the Army reviewed,
and when needed, corrected the pay accounts of more than 60,000
soldiers who, since September 2001, were wounded or experienced medical
problems while deployed. Additionally, the Army installed processes to
preclude problems in the future. The support of Congress has been
critical, particularly regarding the introduction of new legislation
that supports wounded soldiers. If confirmed, I intend to continue to
work for near-term improvements in training, procedures, and current
systems, while simultaneously working towards the longer-term goal of
an integrated, modern personnel/pay system.
defense integrated military human resources system
Question. For several years, the Department has been working on the
DIMHRS, an integrated joint military personnel and pay system for all
the military Services, as a means to eliminate obsolete legacy payroll
and personnel management systems. The Army is the first Service that
has begun to implement DIMHRS. The committee has been informed that the
DIMHRS program is underfunded in both fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
What is the role of the ASA(FM&C) with respect to DIMHRS?
Answer. Although the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 has the lead
for DIMHRS implementation, the ASA(FM&C) provides critical support to
the Army's human resources community in the system's development and
fielding. This support includes requirements determination and
validation, development of test scenarios and associated metrics, and
training tactical finance units on DIMHRS operations. The financial
management community also is supporting the human resources community
in the reengineering of current personnel and pay processes in order to
align them in a manner that will optimize the capabilities of an
integrated, commercial personnel and pay enterprise system.
Question. What is your understanding of the Army's requirement for
DIMHRS and its alternatives if DIMHRS is not successfully implemented?
Answer. From a very basic level, the Army requires an integrated
personnel and payroll system that will eliminate the dozens of
disparate, stand-alone systems in operation today and that will enhance
the Army's ability to pay soldiers correctly and on time. Although the
Army has made improvements in soldier pay performance, additional
improvement is needed. As personnel information is vital to the payroll
process, this additional improvement will not be achieved until the
personnel and payroll processes are integrated. Several alternatives
have been studied, including improving status quo systems and processes
and developing a government-unique personnel and payroll system.
Evaluation of these alternatives determined that DIMHRS presents the
best opportunity for the Army.
Question. What are your views regarding the pros and cons of DIMHRS
implementation into the Army?
Answer. Implementation of an enterprise-wide system on the scope
and scale of DIMHRS always entails significant risk. The success rate
of these endeavors in both industry and government is, at best, very
modest. I believe, however, that the Army and DOD have implemented a
governance structure that is capable of managing the risk and that
offers a solid opportunity to successfully deploy DIMHRS.
Question. If confirmed, what, if anything, would you do to ensure
adequate resources are provided for DIMHRS implementation?
Answer. We are working with the Army's human resources community to
ensure that the proper performance metrics and milestones are
established and that a robust oversight process is in place to manage
effectively the development and deployment of DIMHRS. I currently am
working to ensure that adequate resources (human capital and funding)
are made available to the DIMHRS effort, with the proviso that DIMHRS
development and deployment meets key milestones.
inventory management
Question. Do you believe that the Army has adequate information
about and controls over its inventory?
Answer. I am aware that the Army's inventory management controls
need to be improved.
Question. If not, what steps would you take, if confirmed, to
improve inventory management?
Answer. The Army is taking necessary actions now to improve the
financial accounting and reporting of its inventories. For example, the
Army is working extensively with the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) to establish the baseline
value of the Army's 391 military equipment programs. This work is vital
to the Army's ability to positively address financial statement
assertions regarding the existence, completeness, and valuation of
military equipment inventories. For its $22 billion of capitalized real
property assets, the Army is developing sustainable business processes
designed to establish in financial records the value and condition of
all real property. These efforts are starting to obtain results. The
Army has successfully captured the financial accountability of
equipment provided to contractors, as well as internal-use software, on
its financial statements. In addition to these efforts, the Army is
participating in the DOD-led initiative to implement unique identifier
technology which will enhance visibility and accountability of its
inventories. ASA(FM&C) has worked with the appropriate DOD and Army
organizations to document 330 tasks in the Financial Improvement and
Audit Readiness Plan that must be accomplished in order to provide
adequate information regarding inventories.
business management modernization program
Question. For the past several years, the administration has
pursued a BMMP aimed, in part, at correcting deficiencies in the DOD's
financial management and ability to receive an unqualified ``clean''
audit. What is the role of the Army Comptroller in the business
modernization effort?
Answer. The Army Comptroller has been a leader within DOD in
embracing BTA guidance, both in terms of adopting business practices
that conform to the Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) and
providing feedback as to their efficacy. The Single Army Financial
Enterprise architecture explicitly aligns its operational activities
with those of the BEA. Moreover, the Army's core financial management
modernization program, the GFEBS, adopted early BEA-initiated data
standardization initiatives, such as the Standard Financial Information
Structure and Real Property Inventory Requirements.
Question. Do you support continuing the BMMP?
Answer. Over the past few years, the Department has worked to
coordinate modernization efforts across the DOD enterprise. These
initiatives will address deficiencies in financial management,
implement leading commercial business practices, and help the Army to
achieve a clean audit opinion. Central to these coordination efforts is
the work of the BMMP and its successors, the BTA and the Department's
BEA initiatives. The BTA and BEA have a realistic potential for
orchestrating transformation of business operations across the
Department and could be key agents of organizational change. To be
effective, however, the BTA's federated approach to modernization will
need more clarity and the service components, component domains, and
program offices will require more specific direction regarding how to
work together to achieve synchronized modernization.
Question. The BMMP advocates top-down leadership in establishing
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. It is reasonable for an enterprise modernization effort to
be led by the enterprise. Of course, with an organization as large and
complex as the DOD, some measure of sub-organizational flexibility is
important to success. The Department's coordinated business
modernization approach recognizes the value of providing the Service
components the flexibility they need to fulfill their missions within
an overall framework that ensures interoperability within a defined set
of standards.
Question. If so, what would you do, if confirmed, to ensure that
the Army supports such an approach?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work to build a support
structure for collaborative modernization. Under my direction, the Army
would continue its active participation in DOD's modernization efforts
and would provide regular feedback regarding its design. Moreover, the
Army would align its operations with the BEA and execute its mission
within the bounds of DOD modernization guidance.
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. Enterprise architecture provides a vision for
modernization. Much as a building's architecture supplies structural,
electrical, mechanical, and aesthetic perspectives, enterprise
architecture provides a range of integrated vantage points regarding an
organization's design, for today and tomorrow. Without it, our systems
and processes will be fragmented, reactive, and inefficient in
responding to the threats of the 21st century.
gao recommendations for reform
Question. In testimony before the Readiness and Management Support
Subcommittee, the Comptroller General of the United States, David M.
Walker, offered a suggestion for legislative consideration which, in
his words, is intended ``to improve the likelihood of meaningful,
broad-based financial management and related business reform at DOD.''
The suggestion entailed establishing a senior management position in
the DOD to spearhead Department-wide business transformation efforts.
What is your view of this suggestion?
Answer. The Department has taken meaningful steps to act on Mr.
Walker's suggestion. The Department created the Defense Business
Systems Management Council (DBSMC), chaired by the Deputy Secretary of
Defense. This council is responsible for developing the Department's
business enterprise transition plan and has final approval of all
business system initiatives. DOD also recently established the Defense
Business System Acquisition Executive (DBSAE), who reports directly to
the DBSMC. The DBSAE has direct oversight of Department-level systems
development, with a vast portfolio that includes DIMHRS. I believe that
these two actions implement the intent of Mr. Walker's recommendation
and the Army fully supports DOD's efforts.
Question. Mr. Walker testified that the DOD 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? Please explain your view.
Answer. The Army is too large and complex an organization to
implement labor-intensive, end-of-fiscal-year efforts designed to
produce auditable financial statements. I completely agree with Mr.
Walker on this issue. The right course for the Army is to implement
sustainable business practices designed to improve financial management
processes and to produce reliable financial management information.
These processes must be supported by compliant business systems and an
effective set of management controls.
authorization for national defense programs
Question. Section 114 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that no funds
may be appropriated for any fiscal year to or for the use of any armed
force or obligated or expended for procurement, military construction,
and operation and maintenance, unless funds have been specifically
authorized by law.
What is your understanding of the meaning of this provision, and
what exceptions, if any, in your view exist?
Answer. The National Defense Authorization Act provides the
authority for the Department to execute programs. If confirmed, I will
follow the guidance provided by the Secretary of Defense regarding how
to approach any issue where there is a disparity between what is
appropriated and what is authorized. It is normal practice for the DOD
to work out suitable procedures for these unusual circumstances with
the relevant congressional committees.
future combat systems
Question. What are your views regarding the requirement for the
Future Combat Systems (FCS) program and the Army's ability to fund the
program over the Future Years Defense Program and beyond?
Answer. The challenges the Nation faces in the future--informed by
the challenges confronting us today--make it imperative to build a more
adaptive, expeditionary, and supportable force. The Army is proceeding
with a holistic modernization plan that includes significant changes to
organization, leader development, doctrine, and training. The next
generation of equipment necessary for this modernized force will be
procured through the FCS effort.
I believe that FCS will be a cost-effective way to modernize the
Army. FCS is the first comprehensive modernization of the Nation's
ground forces in more than 40 years--nearly two generations. The near-
concurrent procurement of 18 platforms and systems has reduced system
development and demonstration costs by an estimated $12 billion. In
addition, the Army believes that FCS will help to reduce future costs
by lowering personnel and fuel requirements and easing the logistics
support burden. At the same time, these qualities will help make the
force more expeditionary. With unprecedented levels of oversight, the
program is making sound progress. An extensive testing plan is
validating performance and reducing development risk. The Army believes
that bringing FCS to fruition is essential to providing the soldier the
best warfighting platform possible and to making the future Army
affordable to the American taxpayer.
army future years program objective memorandum
Question. Recent press reports have described efforts by the Army
to increase its funding allocation for the Army POM, which was due
August 15, and asserted that the Army has not been provided sufficient
resources by the Department to execute the tasks it has been directed
to carry out, including conventional operations, irregular warfare, and
homeland defense?
To your knowledge, has the Army POM been submitted? If not, is
there a timetable for completion?
Answer. As of September 12, 2006, the fiscal year 2008-2013 POM/
Budget Estimate has not been submitted to OSD. The Army's senior
leadership is currently conducting discussions with OSD and OMB about
the issues faced by the Army in meeting its mission. If these issues
can be resolved in early October, the Army will be able to make its
submission in November.
Question. What is your understanding of the Army's budgetary
requirements vis-a-vis planned funding by DOD and OMB?
Answer. My understanding is that the difference between the current
fiscal guidance and the resources necessary to accomplish the Army's
mission as delineated by the Quadrennial Defense Review is significant,
and that the Army's current operational and readiness requirements are
greater than both the current fiscal guidance and DOD-directed mission.
We are working now with DOD and OMB to understand the magnitude of
these shortfalls and to identify solutions that address this strategy-
resources mismatch.
proposed reductions in reserve component personnel for fiscal year 2007
Question. Proposed cuts in the numbers of Army reservists and Army
National Guardsmen in the fiscal year 2007 budget submitted by the
Department were met with a storm of criticism by Congress and State
Governors about the process by which these proposed reductions were
arrived at.
What is your understanding of the reasons for this controversy and
criticism, and what lessons have been learned?
Answer. The Army was directed to accommodate a number of fiscal
adjustments near the end of the fiscal year 2007 budget cycle. Army
leadership was given limited time to make these adjustments and chose
to reduce force structure in all components. Those decisions were
designed to minimize the impact on the operational Army and took into
account actual Reserve component end strengths at the time. We fully
understand the importance of the Army National Guard and the Army
Reserve in executing the homeland defense mission and the National
Military Strategy. The Army and the Federal Government cannot execute
their charter missions without participation from all three components.
As always, decisions of this magnitude must be well coordinated with
all affected parties.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
the situation is not repeated in future budget submissions?
Answer. We are one Army that includes Active, Guard, and Reserve
personnel. Any future changes to end strength or force structure should
be fully vetted with all impacted organizations. The Secretary and the
Chief are committed to an inclusive process and I fully support their
view.
cost of resetting the army
Question. One of the most challenging issues that Congress will
face in the years ahead will be the costs of re-equipping and training
the Army. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG Blum, has stated
that it will take $21 billion to reset the Army National Guard and $2
billion for the Air National Guard. It has been estimated that the
Active Army needs about $17 billion.
If confirmed, what role do you foresee in validation of the
requirements for funding for resetting the Army total force?
Answer. The $17 billion requirement is for fiscal year 2007 and
includes $2.5 billion to replace Reserve component equipment, both Army
National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve. The validation of these
requirements has been a joint effort among Active Army commands, the
Reserve component, and the full range of Army staff oversight
officials. If confirmed, I would ensure a continued leadership role for
the Army financial management community, not just in validating
requirements but in guaranteeing accountability for the execution and
reporting of costs to reset the force.
Question. Where will the tradeoffs be in terms of modernization and
support of current operations?
Answer. Reset is a cost of war that should not come at the expense
of modernization efforts. The Army must continue to adapt and improve
its capabilities in order to provide the combatant commanders with the
forces and resources required to sustain the full range of global
commitments. Cutting modernization programs to sustain current
operations would compromise the Army's ability to win in the 21st
century's evolving battlefields. Any tradeoffs, if absolutely
necessary, would be made in accordance with the priorities already
established by the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Army. The
top priority will remain support of the fighting force.
Question. What is your current assessment of the Army's readiness
for support of future conflicts in light of the cost of sustaining
modernization, reset, and support of current operations?
Answer. The requirement to reset equipment and to restore units to
full readiness upon their return from operational deployments is
fundamental to sustaining the full range of current global commitments
and to preparing for emerging threats. Resetting the force while
simultaneously fighting the global war on terrorism and transforming to
become a more powerful, more flexible, more deployable force is a
complex task that necessitates a sustained national commitment and a
careful balancing of resources. My assessment is that the Army is
meeting the challenges it faces in current operations but needs to do
more to be ready for other threats. With the continued support of
Congress, the Army hopes to be able to fulfill today's responsibilities
and to meet the challenges posed by future conflicts.
military quality of life and family advocacy
Question. The committee places a high priority on sustainment and
improvement of quality of life programs, including health care, family
assistance, child care, morale, welfare and recreation, education, and
employment assistance for family members.
How do you perceive the relationship between quality-of-life
programs and the Secretary of the Army's top priorities for
recruitment, retention, and readiness of Army personnel?
Answer. They are inherently related. To meet recruiting and
retention goals, the Army must sustain improvements already made to the
quality of life of soldiers and their families, and rectify problems as
it becomes aware of them.
Question. If confirmed, how will you guard against erosion of these
critical quality-of-life programs in a tightly constrained fiscal
environment?
Answer. I will carry out the guidance of the Secretary and the
Chief to protect key quality-of-life programs and to avoid inequitable
reductions in these programs during the program and budget review
processes.
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 ASA(FM&C)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
legislative relief for logcap contracts
1. Senator Levin. Mr. Ford, the Army has submitted an unofficial
request to Congress to provide retroactive legislative authority for
fiscal years 2003 through 2006 to allow the unlimited purchase of
equipment or military construction through Logistics Civil Augmentation
Program (LOGCAP) funds. My staff has been advised that several military
construction projects in the Central Command region are on hold pending
Anti-Deficiency Act or other legal reviews. Please provide a list of
military construction projects that have been halted pending any legal
or audit review that would be affected by the Army's proposed
legislation.
Mr. Ford. My understanding is that, following a staff delegation
trip to Iraq in August 2006, several congressional staff asked for a
list of Army priorities to support operations in Iraq. The Army staff
provided a document listing several congressional priorities. This
document was not cleared by the Office of the Secretary of Defense or
the Office of Management and Budget and, therefore, did not represent
the administration position. In fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005,
the Army awarded 103 military construction projects in Iraq through the
LOGCAP. Construction was not initiated on 37 of those projects, and 4
projects were found to be below the unspecified minor military
construction threshold of $750,000 and could therefore be funded with
operation and maintenance appropriations, under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 2805. Since the projects were halted, the Army has received
authority to undertake 12 of the remaining 62 projects with operation
and maintenance funds, pursuant to the contingency construction
authority conferred by section 2808 of the National Defense
Authorization Act, 2004. Projects are as follows:
(Project Number 66276) Class I Storage Warehouse at Anaconda,
Iraq
(Project Number 66279) Incinerator Facility at Anaconda, Iraq
(Project Number 66358) Multi-Purpose Warehouse at Anaconda Iraq
(Project Number 66359) Forward Redistribution Point Warehouse
at Anaconda, Iraq
(Project Number 66354) Dining Facility at Anaconda, Iraq
(Project Number 66361) Laundry Facility at Al Asad, Iraq
(Project Number 66280) Incinerator Facility at Al Asad, Iraq
(Project Number 66352) Personnel Bed-Down Area at Al Asad, Iraq
(Project Number 66360) Materials Storage Warehouse at Victory
Base Camp, Iraq
(Project Number 66356) Incinerator Facility at Victory Base
Camp, Iraq
(Project Number 66278) Combat Logistic Support Area at Camp
Speicher, Iraq
(Project Number 66353) Staging/Marshalling Area at Q-West, Iraq
The report attached contains the listing of those construction
projects halted in July 2005.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2. Senator Levin. Mr. Ford, why does the Army believe that any
additional authority to use operation and maintenance funds for
military construction is required beyond the authority for fiscal years
2004 through 2006 provided in section 2808 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as
amended?
Mr. Ford. Combatant commanders have expressed the desire to have
more flexibility to satisfy temporary operational requirements and
believe the current Department of Defense (DOD) process for invoking
the contingency construction authority under section 2808 is too slow.
We need to review our internal DOD policies and procedures and
streamline them where possible. Legislative relief should only be
requested if necessary.
3. Senator Levin. Mr. Ford, have the Army or DOD Audit Agency or
Inspector General offices undertaken or completed reviews of the
activities for which the Army is seeking legislative relief? Please
provide the results of any such reviews that have been completed, or
the estimated completion date of any ongoing reviews.
Mr. Ford. The Army has initiated investigations into potential
violations of the Antideficiency Act associated with LOGCAP funded
construction activities. One of the investigations is being conducted
by the DOD Inspector General. The Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction has conducted extensive investigations into a variety of
contract activity in Iraq. In addition, the Army Audit Agency has
conducted several audits of financial operations. I will consult with
the Army's Auditor General, Inspector General, and DOD Inspector
General to identify audits or inspections specifically related to
activities for which we are seeking informal relief and provide results
to the committee. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office
has conducted extensive reviews of the LOGCAP and other logistics
support contracts (GAO 04-854, GAO 05-328).
4. Senator Levin. Mr. Ford, do you believe that construction or
procurement activities contracted through the LOGCAP process should be
subject to different legal standards than if those items were procured
through any other contracting mechanism? If so, why?
Mr. Ford. No. While LOGCAP is just one of many contracting vehicles
available to commanders, construction and procurement activities
undertaken pursuant to LOGCAP task orders should be subject to the same
rigorous legal standards that govern other government contracting
vehicles. However, commanders should not be constrained by policies
that are unresponsive to operational needs. We must ensure we provide
the combatant commanders the authorities and tools they need to
accomplish their mission while at the same time ensuring Congress has
sufficient oversight to perform their constitutional duties. I will
work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to identify those
areas where new authorities might be needed and attempt to rectify
cumbersome regulations that hinder accomplishment of operational
objectives.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
financial management processes
5. Senator Akaka. Mr. Ford, you asserted in your advanced testimony
that a long-term challenge of the Army will be to improve financial
management processes and to achieve an auditable financial process.
What do you believe are the primary obstacles to achieving this long-
term goal?
Mr. Ford. The primary obstacle to improving financial management in
the Army has been the absence of realistic, integrated plans backed up
by appropriate resources and senior leader commitment.
As the Army's senior financial officer, I am fully committed to
improving the Department's financial management processes but recognize
that attainment of this goal will require sustained efforts over
several years. The Secretary of the Army has a strong interest in these
efforts and has made improved financial management a top priority in
the Army.
The Army has developed and is implementing a strategic action plan
for improving financial management that contains 1,776 discrete tasks
designed to correct existing problems and provide long-term financial
management improvements. Our plan integrates technology and process
requirements and is a key component of DOD's Financial Improvement and
Audit Readiness (FIAR) Plan and Enterprise Transition Plan. The Army
plan also identifies the resources needed to develop and implement the
required technology and business process changes. We monitor our
progress towards achieving our financial management improvements
biweekly (and sometimes more often) and believe the Army will be able
to meet the target for auditable financial statements contained in the
FIAR Plan.
______
[The nomination reference of Nelson M. Ford follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
August 3, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Nelson M. Ford, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Army, vice Valerie Lynn Baldwin.
______
[The biographical sketch of Nelson M. Ford, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Nelson M. Ford
Nelson Ford currently serves as Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller. From
2001 through 2004, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Budgets
& Financial Policy in the Department of Defense where he was
responsible for financial management, policy development, and program
evaluation for the Defense Health Program.
Mr. Ford has held senior management positions in academic medicine,
medical manufacturing, and health insurance, as well as providing
strategic and financial advice to a wide range of clients in the health
care field. From 1997 to 2000, he was President and Chief Executive
Officer of Clinipad, a manufacturer of disposable medical products.
During the 1990s, he was Chief Operating Officer of Georgetown
University Medical Center, with responsibilities including management
of Georgetown Hospital and practice plans, research activities, and
academic budgets of the medical and nursing schools.
Earlier in his career, Mr. Ford was a partner with Coopers &
Lybrand and was responsible for health care consulting in the Mid-
Atlantic region. He was the Executive Secretary of the Health Care
Financing Administration and worked on health policy matters in the
Office of Management and Budget during the 1970s. He serves on the
board of the AcademyHealth and has served on many other not-for-profit
boards and advisory committees.
Mr. Ford holds a bachelor's degree in history from Duke University,
a master's in education from the University of Delaware, and has
completed additional professional training at the University of
Pennsylvania.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Nelson M. Ford
in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Nelson M. Ford.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and
Comptroller.
3. Date of nomination:
August 3, 2006.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
June 3, 1947; Wilmington, DE.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Cecilia Sparks Ford (maiden name: Sparks).
7. Names and ages of children:
Aven Walker Ford, 27; Alexander Sparks Ford, 25; and Mary Bartlett
Ford, 19.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Alexis I DuPont HS (9/1959-6/1965), HS Diploma, June 1965.
Duke University (9/1965-6/1969), B.A., June 1969.
University of Delaware (1/1971-6/1972), M.Ed, January 1973.
University of Pennsylvania (9/1975-6/1977), no degree.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (FM&C), Department
of the Army, Pentagon, 6/2005-Present.
Director-Senior Products, Humana, Washington, DC, 9/2004-6/2005.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense-Health Affairs (HB&FP), Falls
Church VA, 1/2002-9/2004.
Executive Vice President-Finance and Strategy, GMI Networks Inc.,
Vienna VA, 9/2000-3/2001.
Presidents Chief Executive Officer, Clinipad Corporation, Rocky
Hill, CT, 10/1997-3/2000.
Chief Operating Officer, Georgetown University Medical Center,
Washington, DC, 9/1992-2/1997.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Director, AcademyHealth.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
AcademyHealth, Director.
Washington Golf & Country Club, Member.
Immanuel Presbyterian Church, Asst. Treasurer.
George Washington University, Adjunct Associate Professor.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Republican Party, member.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Civilian Service.
USOE Fellowship.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
I've published no books, articles, or reports. I was listed as a
co-author on two HEW publications on the cost of educating handicapped
children in the early 1970s but do not remember their titles.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
(See attached.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Nelson M. Ford.
This 16th day of August, 2006.
[The nomination of Nelson M. Ford was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on September 28, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on September 29, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Ronald J. James by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act has had a positive influence on
the operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), particularly in the
relationships between the combatant commands and the military
departments. If confirmed, I will have an opportunity to assess whether
the challenges posed by today's security environment require
enhancements to the legislation.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing this milestone
legislation and assessing whether any modifications should be
considered to address the challenges faced in today's security
environment.
duties
Question. Section 3016 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs shall
have the principal duty of ``overall supervision of manpower and
Reserve component affairs of the Department of the Army.''
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that
Secretary Harvey will assign to you?
Answer. Although Secretary Harvey has not discussed with me the
duties and functions he will expect that I perform if I am confirmed, I
anticipate that he will rely on me to provide accurate and timely
advice in the area of Army manpower and Reserve affairs, as the statute
establishing the position of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs provides. I presume also that the specific
duties assigned to this position would be consistent with the
responsibilities assigned to the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs in the Department of the Army's General Order Number 3,
which sets forth the duties of each principal office of the
Headquarters, Department of Army. In addition, I believe the Secretary
of the Army would expect me to continue pursuing an effective,
professional relationship with the Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel and Readiness) and other key officials within the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, our Military Department Assistant Secretaries
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and the other Army Assistant
Secretaries. I anticipate that Secretary Harvey will expect me to
continue and to build upon the effective and professional working
relationships between the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs) and the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1
(Personnel), The Surgeon General, the Chief, Army Reserve, the Chief,
National Guard Bureau, and the Director of the Army National Guard.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:
The Secretary of the Army.
Answer. If I am confirmed, my relationship with the Secretary of
the Army would be close, direct, and supportive. I would work to
communicate as effectively as possible with the Secretary regarding the
advice, views, and plans of the Secretariat and Army Staff and to
oversee the implementation of the Secretary's decisions through the
Army. If I am confirmed, I understand that my actions would be subject
to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the Army.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Army.
Answer. If confirmed, I would establish a close, direct, and
supportive relationship with the Under Secretary of the Army. Within
the Department of the Army, my responsibilities would also involve
communicating the Secretariat and Army Staff advice, views, and plans
to the Under Secretary of the Army and to oversee the implementation of
his decisions falling within my area of responsibility.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Army.
Answer. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Army set strategic
direction by formulating and overseeing policies and programs within
their respective functional areas of responsibility, consistent with
applicable laws and regulations and in accordance with the objectives
and guidance of the Secretary of the Army. If confirmed, I will
establish and maintain close and professional relationships with each
of the Assistant Secretaries and seek to foster an environment of
cooperative teamwork, working together on the day-to-day management and
long-range planning needs of the Army.
Question. The General Counsel of the Army.
Answer. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the
Department of Army. His duties include providing legal and policy
advice to officials of the Department of the Army, as well as
determining the position of the Army on any legal question or
procedure. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close and
professional relationship with the General Counsel of the Army.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness.
Answer. Acting on behalf of the Secretary of Defense, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness performs
responsibilities that require the issuance of guidance to the military
departments. If confirmed, I will communicate openly and directly with
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness in
articulating the views of the Department of the Army. I will have a
close and professional relationship with the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness, characterized by continuous consultation,
communication, and cooperation on matters of mutual interest, in
furtherance of the best interests of the Army and the DOD.
Question. The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness.
Answer. Acting on behalf of the Secretary of Defense and Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Principal Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness performs
responsibilities that require, from time to time, the issuance of
guidance to the military departments. If confirmed, I will communicate
openly and directly with the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness in articulating the views of the
Department of the Army. I will work closely with the Principal Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to ensure that
the Department of the Army is administered in accordance with the
guidance and direction issued by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
Answer. Acting on behalf of the Secretary of Defense and Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs performs responsibilities that
require, from time to time, the issuance of guidance to the military
departments regarding the Reserve component. If confirmed, I will
communicate openly and directly with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Reserve Affairs in articulating the views of the Department of the
Army. I will work closely with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Reserve Affairs to ensure that the Department of the Army is
administered in accordance with the guidance and direction issued by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army.
Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Army is the Secretary's senior
military advisor in all matters and has responsibility for the
effective and efficient functioning of Army organizations and commands
in performing their statutory missions. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the Chief of Staff to supervise the implementation of the
Secretary's decisions through the Army staff, Army organizations, and
commands. I anticipate working closely and in concert with the Chief of
Staff.
Question. The Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army for Personnel.
Answer. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, serves as the principal
military advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs and formulates, manages, evaluates, and executes military and
civilian personnel plans and programs for the Army for peacetime,
contingency, and wartime operations. If confirmed, I will establish a
close, professional relationship with the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1
(Personnel). I will consult with him frequently and communicate with
him directly and openly as he performs his prescribed duties. I expect
that, if I am confirmed, he and I will work together as a team on a
daily basis.
Question. The Surgeon General of the Army.
Answer. The Surgeon General is a special advisor to the Secretary
of the Army and to the Chief of Staff on all matters pertaining to the
military health service system. In that role, The Surgeon General
assists the Secretary and the Chief in carrying out their
responsibilities by ensuring a medically ready force as well as a
trained and ready medical force. If confirmed, I intend to work closely
with The Surgeon General to ensure that the Army's health care systems
and medical policies support the Army's objectives, responsibilities,
and commitments effectively and uniformly across the total force.
Question. The Chief, National Guard Bureau.
Answer. The Chief, National Guard Bureau, is the principal advisor
to both the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army, and to the
Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force on all matters relating
to the National Guard and the National Guard of the United States.
Because the National Guard is a key element of the Reserve component,
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs
must work closely with the Chief, National Guard Bureau, to provide
overall supervision of National Guard matters across all aspects of
Army business. If confirmed, I will establish a close, professional
relationship with the Chief, National Guard Bureau. I will communicate
with him directly and openly as he performs his prescribed duties.
Question. The Director of the Army National Guard.
Answer. The Director, Army National Guard, is responsible to the
Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army for assisting the Chief,
National Guard Bureau, in carrying out his functions as they relate to
the Army National Guard. Because the National Guard is a key element of
the Reserve component, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs must work closely with the Chief, Army Reserve, to
provide overall supervision of Reserve matters across all aspects of
Army business. If confirmed, I will establish a close, professional
relationship with the Director of the Army National Guard. I will
communicate with him directly and openly as he performs his prescribed
duties.
Question. The Chief, Army Reserve.
Answer. The Chief, Army Reserve, is the principal advisor to both
the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the Army on all Army
Reserve matters. Because the Army Reserve is a key element of the
Reserve component, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs must work closely with the Chief, Army Reserve, to
provide overall supervision of Reserve matters across all aspects of
Army business. If confirmed, I will establish a close, professional
relationship with the Chief, Army Reserve. I will communicate with him
directly and openly as he performs his prescribed duties.
Question. Soldiers and their families.
Answer. The Army owes its success to the versatile young Americans
who answer the call to duty. These soldiers serve as the centerpiece of
the Army. Caring for soldiers and the Army families through effective
quality-of-life programs both demonstrates the Army's commitment to the
total Army family and endeavors to reflect the value of their service
to our Nation. If confirmed, I will work diligently to ensure the needs
of soldiers and their families are addressed across the total Army.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you have that you
believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer. The diversity and complexity of issues confronting the
Department of the Army are such that no one can have in-depth
experience in all of them. However, an Assistant Secretary of the Army
must possess absolute integrity, mature judgment, and strong
interpersonal and leadership abilities. I believe that my background
and diverse legal experiences in both the public and private sectors
have prepared me to meet the challenges of this office.
I have more than 45 years of organizational experience, executive
leadership and distinguished service, both in the public and private
sectors. I believe that my human capital background and experience,
including my most recent service as the Chief Human Capital Officer for
the Department of Homeland Security, a legal career in the private
sector focusing on employment, labor, and regulatory law cases, and a
myriad of professional assignments at various levels of government,
have prepared me to meet the challenges of this office.
I started my professional career by honorably serving as an officer
in the U.S. Army. I received my undergraduate degree from the
University of Missouri, a Masters of Arts from the Southern Illinois
University, and my law degree from American University Law School. For
the previous 3 years, I have served the Department of Homeland
Security, primarily as the Senior Human Capital Officer, and my duties,
among others, included serving as the Senior Policy Advisor to the
Secretary of Homeland Security on management, personnel, and employee
relations. Before that, I worked for 26 years in the private sector,
culminating in my service as a partner in a law firm that counseled and
represented national and international clients in regulatory, labor,
and employment matters. Additionally, I have served at both local and
national levels of government. Locally, I served as a Director on
Commission of Human Rights and then an Assistant County Prosecutor in
the State of Iowa. At the national level, I have served in diverse
positions at numerous agencies and organizations throughout the Federal
Government: as an Analyst at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; a
Special Assistant to the Counselor to the President and Director of
Office of Economic Opportunity; a Trial Attorney at the Department of
Transportation; an Assistant General Counsel at the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission; and the Administrator for the Wage-Hour
Division of the Department of Labor.
If I am confirmed, I pledge my best effort every day to be worthy
of the trust placed in me and to uphold the proud tradition of selfless
service and duty that characterizes the United States Army.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance expertise to perform the duties of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. Based on over 45 years of private sector experience and
public service in both the legislative and executive branches of
government, I believe I have the requisite management abilities and
leadership skills to serve as the Army Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Assistant Secretary. I look forward to learning about and addressing
the full array of manpower and Reserve affairs' issues associated with
Army operations. If I am confirmed, I will work diligently to further
my understanding and knowledge of the Army, its people, the resources
necessary to sustain and transform it, and the challenges it faces. I
will take advantage of the many educational programs available to
senior Army officials and draw on the wealth of knowledge and
experience available from dedicated professionals, civilian and
military, in the DOD and throughout the Army family. I will seek advice
and counsel from the many and diverse stakeholders dedicated to the
success of the Army, including Members and staff of Congress.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges and problems
confronting the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs?
Answer. In my view, the fundamental challenge facing the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs is manning the
force. I view the recruitment and retention of high caliber citizens to
man the Active, Reserve, and civilian ranks as an important aspect of
maintaining Army readiness. The Army's ability to staff the Army fully
with military members (Active and Reserve), and civilians necessary to
execute the complex and challenging missions of the Army today, and in
the future, presents unprecedented challenges. The Army will continue
to have a compelling need to garner support for soldiers, obtain
sufficient funding to achieve critical recruiting and retention goals,
and maintain the financial investment in the quality-of-life programs
that help to sustain the All-Volunteer Force. I believe that the Army
must continue to actively engage in proactive advertising campaigns,
pursue robust and attractive initiatives and incentives, and continue
to seek ways to improve health and well-being programs. If confirmed, I
would candidly assess the Army recruiting and retention posture and
work to initiate or enhance programs of the type and quality most
likely to support the Army's recruiting and retention needs.
Second, I believe that the Army's ability to prevail in the war on
terror and to sustain global commitments is critical. The Army must
continue to maintain the momentum of transformation by adapting the
Army forces and balancing the employment of Active and Reserve
component units and soldiers. If confirmed, I would lead and partner on
efforts to formulate policies that will help facilitate the
Department's adaptation to the changing operational environment.
Finally, among the major challenges I would face, if confirmed, is
the need to foster and maintain an environment in which soldiers and
civilian employees, regardless of race, creed, or gender, can serve
free of discrimination and harassment and pursue assignments and
advancement, that while responsive to the needs of the Army, are based
on individual qualification and performance.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will focus immediately on these matters,
review those actions that are underway, and join with other civilian
leaders and with my counterparts in uniform to resolve them to the best
of my ability.
end strength
Question. The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report recommended
stabilizing the Army's end strength at 482,400 Active personnel and
533,000 in the Army Reserve components (consisting of 333,000 in the
National Guard and 200,000 in the Army Reserve) by 2011. Subsequently,
after an expression of bipartisan concern in Congress and by the
Governors, senior Army leadership committed to retaining the Army
National Guard at its current end strength of 350,000, if the Army
National Guard could recruit to that level. Recently, strains on Army
manpower have been demonstrated by extending the tour of at least one
major ground combat unit serving in Iraq beyond 12 months, and
additional troops have augmented forces in Iraq in an effort to stem
sectarian violence. What is your opinion of the long-term Active-Duty
end strength necessary to support ongoing operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan?
Answer. It appears to me that there is general agreement on the
need to increase the size of the pool of soldiers available for world-
wide deployments. I understand that the Army leadership has developed a
plan to increase the number of high demand soldiers and capabilities
through a temporary increase in Active component end strength and
transformation of all three components of the Army. Included in this
plan is the increase in the size of the Active component operational
force from 315,000 to 355,000. It will require careful execution and
sustained support and funding to be successful. The Army has been
evaluating force requirements within the end strength plan outlined by
the Secretary of the Army in August 2005. If confirmed, I will
undertake to review the Army's end strength plan to ensure that it is
appropriate to building an expeditionary, campaign quality force,
capable of meeting a broad and complex array of challenges, while
ensuring its forces remain the preeminent land power and ultimate
instrument of national resolve.
Question. Based on demands on the National Guard and the Army
Reserve, what is your opinion of the optimal end strength for the Army
National Guard and Army Reserve?
Answer. I understand that the Army is working to balance force
capabilities within and across the Active, Guard, and Reserve to
develop a total force with greater capabilities and greater
accessibility. This rebalancing is designed to create a larger
operational Army, improve readiness, and reduce the impact on Reserve
component structure. Based on my initial review, I support the current
plan calling for Army Reserve end strength of 205,000, with 58
supporting brigades and to fund the Army National Guard to the level it
can recruit, up to its congressionally mandated end strength of
350,000.
Question. How many troops have been shifted from the institutional
Army to the operational Army in order to increase the number of
soldiers who can be deployed without increasing end strength, and what
is your understanding of how the Army will make up for the loss of
manpower in the institutional Army?
Answer. I understand that the Army's plan incorporates military-to-
civilian conversions and business transformation efforts to accomplish
the necessary changes. The Army plan will build the operational force
up to 355,000, a growth of nearly 40,000 spaces over the fiscal year
2004 total through a combination of military-civilian conversions, Base
Realignment and Closure and Global Defense Posture realignments, and
business transformation. I have been advised that the Army is currently
embarked on a holistic business transformation effort that relies on
continuous process improvement techniques (using Lean Six Sigma) aimed
at increasing quality, productivity, reliability, and safety, while
reducing costs and cycle time.
reserve and national guard deployments
Question. Current policy of the Department provides that under
section 12302 of title 10, U.S.C., members of Reserve components shall
not be required to involuntarily deploy more than 24 months
cumulatively in response to the existing national emergency. This
policy has exempted thousands of members of the Selected Reserve from
additional involuntary call ups in support of overseas operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
What is your understanding of the current number of members of the
Army Reserve who are unavailable for deployment as a result of the 24-
month policy?
Answer. I have been informed that to date, more than 425,000 Army
National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve soldiers have served in the global
war on terror. It is my understanding that there are currently 263,000
National Guard and Reserve soldiers still in uniform who are or have
served a portion or all of the 24 months associated with this policy. I
understand that 40,000 soldiers have served between 18 and 24 months.
Question. What is your assessment of the Army's ability to support
scheduled troop rotation planning beyond 2006, particularly in combat
support and combat service support missions, given the 24-month policy?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Reserve component
contributions to next rotations for overseas global war on terror
missions have almost all been sourced and are on track for deployment.
Discussions on sourcing solutions for later in 2007 and beyond are
ongoing and I am not familiar with the details of that planning. If
confirmed I would work toward ensuring that the Army's Reserve
components can continue to serve alongside their Active component
brothers and sisters by developing and executing robust manning
strategies, including recruiting and retention programs, that enhance
the Guard and Reserve capabilities to continue the fight.
Question. What is your understanding of the measures that are being
taken in the Department to respond to operational requirements for low
density, high demand units and personnel whose skills are found
primarily in the Reserve components, e.g., civil affairs, special
operations, military police, truck drivers?
Answer. I have been advised that the Army is pursuing several ways
to ensure low density, high demand Reserve component units are
available for operational missions. First, the Army is implementing the
Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) readiness process, the structured
progression of increased unit readiness over time, resulting in
recurring periods of availability of trained, ready, and cohesive units
prepared for operational deployment in support of civil authorities and
combatant commander requirements.
Second, the Army has implemented the Active component/Reserve
component rebalance initiative which is an incremental process that has
evolved over time in a series of phases to hasten the transformation of
post-cold war Army into a force capable of efficiently and effectively
addressing the global war on terror. I have been advised that to date,
the cumulative effects of all phases have resulted in a rebalance or
programmed rebalance of more than 234,000 of force structure spaces
across all three components.
Third, I also understand that the Army has transferred the U.S.
Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command from U.S. Army
Special Operations to the U.S. Army Reserve Command. The transfer was
intended to integrate Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations units
into conventional operations, while maintaining support for special
operations.
mobilization and demobilization of national guard and reserves
Question. In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001,
the National Guard and Reserves have experienced their largest and most
sustained employment since World War II. Numerous problems have been
identified in the past in the planning and procedures for mobilization
and demobilization, including inadequate health screening and medical
readiness monitoring, antiquated pay systems, limited transitional
assistance programs upon demobilization, and, most recently, lack of
money to transport by Air National Guardsmen returning from deployment
to their home station.
What is your assessment of advances made in improving mobilization
and demobilization procedures, and in what areas do problems still
exist?
Answer. The Army's Reserve component soldiers are an essential
element in the global war on terror. It is my understanding that there
is little difference in the processes and standards used to deploy
Active or Reserve soldiers which results in a homogeneous force in
theater. It is also my understanding Reserve soldiers are also afforded
the same demobilization processes and procedures as Active soldiers.
The Army recognizes the inherent differences between the components and
makes necessary adjustments in mobilization and demobilization
procedures to accommodate the differences.
I understand the Army has made progress in policy, health
screening, and medical readiness tracking. Individual Medical Readiness
has been made a measure of unit readiness.
Another example of improvement is TRICARE Reserve Select which is a
medical insurance program tailored specifically for the Reserve
component. I have been informed that the Federal Strategic Health
Alliance contract has been very successful and serves as a critical
tool for medical screening of Army Reserve component soldiers. If
confirmed, I will continue to seek opportunities to improve the medical
screening of Reserve component soldiers.
I understand that one area currently being improved is the
automated systems that will improve and expedite the delivery of
services to soldiers and families, and provide commanders, at all
echelons, visibility of the status of their soldiers throughout the
mobilization and demobilization process. The Army is taking the lead to
field the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System which will
provide more timely and accurate recordkeeping and the delivery of
compensation, benefits, and entitlements.
Question. What do you consider to be the most significant enduring
changes to the organization and policies affecting the Reserve
components aimed at ensuring their readiness for future mobilization
requirements?
Answer. The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve are crucial to
the success of the Nation in fighting and winning the global war on
terror. This fight places a high demand on the Reserve component. To
best manage and meet these requirements, the Army is implementing the
ARFORGEN process. Fundamentally, ARFORGEN is a cyclic training and
readiness process that synchronizes strategic planning, prioritizing,
and resourcing to generate trained and ready modular expeditionary
forces tailored to joint mission requirements. In addition to providing
the right force mix in support of the National Military Strategy, I
understand that ARFORGEN provides soldiers and their families with
needed predictability, enabling them to foresee and plan out their
future, which benefits recruiting and retention. I have been advised
that ARFORGEN will also provide a means to integrate and prioritize
medical and dental screening throughout the deployment cycle.
Question. To your knowledge, what measures have been taken to avoid
situations which would require demobilizing reservists to travel by bus
from Camp Atterbury and other demobilization sites to distant home
stations?
Answer. I understand that this event was an anomaly in the
demobilization and home station transportation process. A delay in the
unit's movement from theater back to the United States compressed the
demobilization timeline in such a way that the originally planned air
travel to home station was not sufficient to meet homecoming events
already scheduled in Massachusetts. The 1st Army and supporting
garrison are examining this particular event to see what lessons can be
learned and applied to future cases as they may arise. I understand
that the Army's demobilization process is constantly reviewed to
introduce improvements that will ensure that each soldier is provided
the best transition service and is reunited with families and
communities in the most expeditious way. Soldiers' well-being and
benefits should not be compromised in the interest of saving time or
resources.
recruiting
Question. The Active-Duty component of the Army missed its fiscal
year 2005 recruiting goal of 80,000 by about 6,600. The Active Army's
goal for fiscal year 2006 is another 80,000. What is your assessment of
the Army's ability to reach its active-duty recruiting goal in fiscal
year 2006 and 2007?
Answer. Based on initial briefings I have had, I understand that
the Army is optimistic about meeting its recruiting goal for all three
components for fiscal year 2006. The Army is facing a similar challenge
for fiscal year 2007 given the relatively strong economy and the
continued deployments in support of the global war on terror. I believe
that the Army must continue to implement innovative recruiting
programs, improve recruiter productivity, and offer attractive
incentives to meet the challenges.
Question. What is your view about the appropriate assignment and
overall numbers, if any, of ``Category IV'' recruits in the Army, i.e.,
those individuals who score below the 31st percentile on the Armed
Forces Qualification Test (AFQT)?
Answer. The Army has entrance standards for all specialties based
on scores taken from the AFQT. These standards are used to screen
applicants and assign recruits to specialties commensurate with their
ability. Given all of the circumstances, I believe it is appropriate to
give an opportunity to a portion of those scoring below the 31st
percentile to serve. The 4-percent standard is probably the right
percentage based on the DOD goal.
Question. What is your understanding of trends in the Army with
respect to incidents of recruiter sexual misconduct with potential
recruits, and, if confirmed, what actions, if any, would you take to
prevent such incidents?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure that Army programs and
policies focus on preventing recruiter sexual misconduct and fully
investigating all allegations. If confirmed, I would monitor this area
closely to ensure that policies and practices are effective.
implementation of tricare for reservists
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006 authorized new categories of eligibility for TRICARE for members
of the Selected Reserve, which are required to be implemented by
October 1, 2006. What is your assessment of the Army's ability to
timely implement the new benefits and the challenges it will have to
overcome?
Answer. I understand that on October 1, 2006, the Army will
implement the TRICARE Reserve Select benefits required by the National
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2006. I understand that the
Army has published a plan for each Army component which establishes
policies and procedures for administration of the TRICARE Reserve
Select program. I have been advised that the Army will be able to meet
the challenges associated with TRICARE Reserve Select implementation.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in leading the
Army's efforts implementing these new benefits?
Answer. If confirmed, I would fulfill my responsibilities as the
Secretariat's principal advisor on all military health affairs. This
includes providing the programming and oversight responsibility for
implementing the TRICARE Reserve Select benefits required by the
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2006. Additionally,
the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs assumes
planning and marketing coordination responsibility for programs
affecting medical readiness, force protection, and Army maintenance of
the TRICARE Reserve Select program for the military health system. If
confirmed, I will support any appropriate health care benefits which
assist contingency efforts and positively impact readiness,
recruitment, and/or retention for soldier and their family members.
employment of military spouses
Question. In your view, what progress has been made, and what
actions need to be taken in the Army to provide increased employment
opportunities for military spouses?
Answer. I understand over the last 4 years great progress has been
made in providing increased employment opportunities for military
spouses. In December 2002, the Chief of Staff of the Army hosted a
summit with private and public sector senior executives to establish a
framework for a collaborative partnership that would increase
opportunities for spouse employment and career advancement. In October
2003, the Army formally established the Army Spouse Employment
Partnership (ASEP) by signing a Statement of Support with 13 Fortune
100 and 500 companies and 2 military agencies who pledged their best
effort to increase employment and career opportunities for Army
spouses. I understand that ASEP has 21 partners and that, through this
program, more than 11,000 spouses have been hired. The Army continues
to recruit additional partners and plans to enter into a memorandum of
agreement with a nonprofit agency dedicated to providing career
opportunities and job portability for military spouses.
officer shortages
Question. A report issued by the Congressional Research Service
(CRS) in July 2006 found that the Army projects an officer shortage of
nearly 3,000 in fiscal year 2007, with the most acute shortfalls in the
grades of captain and major with 11 to 17 years of service. Unless
corrective action is taken, CRS found that shortages will persist
through 2013 unless accessions are increased and retention improves.
What is your understanding of the reasons for the current
shortfall, and what steps is the Army taking to meet this mid-career
officer shortfall?
Answer. I have been advised that the shortage of officers is a
result of increased officer force structure at the mid-grade ranks
(senior captain and major ranks). With the increase in end strength
(482,000 to 512,000), the Active component picked up an additional
8,000 officer authorizations. Most of the growth (88 percent) was in
the mid-grade officer ranks.
Because it takes 10 years to ``grow'' a major, the immediate
addition of force structure creates officer shortages which the Army
estimates total approximately 3,000 by fiscal year 2008.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure
adequate numbers of highly qualified captains and majors are serving on
active duty over the next 10 years?
Answer. Clearly, the Army must retain more of the ``best and
brightest'' officers to meet future manning requirements. I believe
that the Army needs to continue to look at innovative ways to achieve
this. If confirmed, I would pursue initiatives that include a balance
between monetary and non-monetary incentives.
medical personnel shortfalls
Question. The Army Surgeon General has stated that the Health
Professions Scholarship Program is failing to attract critically needed
medical personnel. Shortfalls in health professional recruiting
endanger future medical readiness for all the Services.
If confirmed, what approach would you take to address this looming
problem for the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I would evaluate current recruiting
approaches and partner with my counterparts in other Services, DOD, the
private sector, and Members of Congress and their staffs to ensure that
the Army has relevant and competitive programs in today's market place
without endangering other existing programs.
national security personnel system
Question. Congress enacted broad changes in the DOD civilian
personnel system in 2004 to provide the Department with more flexible
tools for the management of its civilian workforce in support of
national security. Although the Department is presently enjoined from
implementation of a new labor-relations system, the Department is
planning to move ahead in the implementation of a new pay-for-
performance system for its non-union employees.
Based on your experience, what are the critical factors for
successful implementation of a total transformation of workforce
policies and rules, including performance-based pay?
Answer. Trust, leadership, communication, and training are vital to
successful implementation of this new system. DOD is making fundamental
changes to its pay and performance system, moving away from a one-size-
fits-all, longevity-based approach, to one that is based on performance
and results. There are challenges associated with ensuring the
credibility and transparency of this system. DOD is mitigating this
challenge by taking a deliberate, spiraled implementation approach,
permitting the early identification of problems in early spirals and
facilitating the correction of those problems before the system is
implemented throughout the entire department. Training employees and
managers on the behavioral and functional aspects of National Security
Personnel System (NSPS) is key to the system's success. Participants
need to be informed and educated about the NSPS and trust and value it
as a system that fosters accountability, respects the individual, and
protects rights under the law. Senior leadership commitment and
involvement is critical to ease the transition process and to help
create an environment where people can excel every day.
Question. If confirmed, how would you monitor the acceptance of the
NSPS and what role would you expect to play in managing the NSPS
implementation in the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to play a critical role in
monitoring the acceptance of NSPS and managing NSPS implementation in
the Army. Managers must be held accountable and evaluated on how well
they perform their NSPS responsibilities and their effectiveness should
affect their pay increases. As the Department moves away from the
General Schedule System, it will become more competitive in setting
salaries. A more flexible, mission-driven human resources system will
provide a more cohesive total force. DOD's senior leaders must
carefully monitor workforce data to ensure that the Department has
leveraged the flexibilities and advantages that NSPS offers. Ongoing
evaluation, as well as workforce surveys, will be critical to ensuring
that the system is credible, trusted, and transparent. Employee
perceptions of the new system are important.
If confirmed, I will seek to leverage authorities within NSPS to
promote a performance culture in which the performance and
contributions of the civilian workforce are more fully recognized and
rewarded. The NSPS will allow the Army to be more competitive in
setting salaries and to attract and retain skilled, talented, and
motivated people. The NSPS will provide greater opportunities for Army
civilians by easing the administrative burden routinely associated with
the current system and providing incentives for managers to turn first
to civilian employees to accomplish certain vital tasks. This will free
Army soldiers to focus on matters unique to the military.
If confirmed, I will help lead the Army in adopting the NSPS by
providing reliable and consistent information to all employees, and
ensuring ongoing communications to the workforce. Additionally, I will
develop and implement methodologies for measuring, evaluating, and
improving Human Capital results to ensure mission alignment, effective
Human Resources management programs, efficient Human Relations
processes, and merit-based decisionmaking in compliance with laws and
regulations.
management and development of the senior executive service (ses)
Question. The transformation of the Armed Forces has brought with
it an increasing realization of the importance of efficient and forward
thinking management of senior executives. What is your vision for the
management and development of the Army senior executive workforce,
especially in the critically important areas of acquisition, financial
management, and the scientific and technical fields?
Answer. The Army should carefully manage and develop the senior
executive workforce to meet the evolving workforce challenges facing
the Department. With transformation, members of the SES are
increasingly being looked to as military replacements in critically
important areas of acquisition, financial management, and the
scientific and technical fields. To support this effort, I understand
the Army is reviewing the quality and potential of the existing senior
executive pool, reallocating positions to ensure senior executives are
aligned with evolving business strategy. Since January 2006, 22 senior
executives have been reassigned within the Department of Army to fully
utilize their capabilities to lead and manage complex organizations
during the transformation of the Armed Forces. I understand that the
current Army's senior executive program also includes periodic
education and development opportunities and performance-based
evaluations.
Question. If confirmed, what role will you, as Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, have in the management of
the Army's SES personnel?
Answer. I understand that the Army has centralized the day-to-day
management of its senior executives in a new office that reports
directly to the Secretary of the Army. Therefore, if confirmed, I would
not directly manage the Army SES personnel program. However, if
confirmed, I would have the responsibility for management, development,
and mentoring of senior executives assigned in the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
It is the Army's intent to develop these executives in a manner
similar to that in which it has historically developed general
officers. This includes implementing a systemic and progressive
assignment pattern leading to positions of greater responsibility. The
Civilian Senior Leader Management Office, reporting to the Secretary of
the Army, manages the development and assignment of the Army's senior
executive workforce and ensures that succession planning is an integral
part of the management process.
support for severely wounded soldiers
Question. The committee has been concerned by reports that some
severely-wounded or ill soldiers who do not remain on active duty have
encountered significant problems in obtaining needed health care, and
rehabilitative and employment related services upon separation from
active duty service and that the Army's Wounded Warrior (AW2) program
is insufficiently resourced to adequately perform its mission. What is
your understanding of the sufficiency of the manning and resources
devoted to the AW2 program?
Answer. The Army has established the U.S. AW2 program as an
outreach-driven program to provide severely-wounded soldiers and their
families with a system of advocacy and personal support from the time
of initial notification to return to military service or to the
civilian sector. From what I have learned thus far, this program has
been effective. Although I have not been briefed on the details of
manning and resources for this program, if confirmed, I will be
committed to ensuring that injured soldiers receive the best care
possible and receive support to address their needs and issues
throughout the recovery process and beyond. I will continually assess
the effectiveness of this program.
Question. What suggestions do you have for improving the Army's
support for severely-wounded soldiers?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with Department leaders,
Department of Veteran Affairs, and Congress to seek innovative
approaches to this critical challenge. The Department must also
continue strategies that will result in health care advances and
promote rehabilitation research for its soldiers with traumatic
injuries. Additionally, private industry should be engaged in pursing
strategies for expanded employment opportunities.
individual ready reserve recall policy
Question. A recent July 2006 report by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies recommended that the Army revitalize its
Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) program by culling existing IRR
databases and ensuring that the Army has valid contact information on
IRR members who may be recalled to serve.
What has the Army done to clarify the mobilization policy that
applies to both officer and enlisted members of the IRR?
Answer. I am informed that the Army continues to mobilize members
of the IRR in accordance with statute and existing DOD and Army
policies. My understanding is that the Army has made changes in
enlistment contracts to emphasize, in greater detail, the totality of
mandatory service obligations undertaken. Army Transition Centers now
brief soldiers who are completing their initial enlistments or service
obligations on their future service options, to include membership in
the IRR. Current selection criteria for mobilizing the IRR eliminates
from mobilization consideration those soldiers who are within 9 months
of completing their military service obligation and those officers that
are within 3 months of completing their military service obligation.
Those IRR soldiers and officers that are called back to active duty are
afforded the opportunity to request exemption from mobilization through
a Delay and Exemption Board.
Question. What has the Army done to update its IRR mobilization
database?
Answer. As part of the recent Secretary of the Army approved IRR
Transformation Plan, the Army Human Resources Command (HRC) is making
progress to capture and record IRR member records. The IRR database is
constantly evaluated to ensure it accurately reflects the status of the
IRR as a viable mobilization asset.
interservice transfers
Question. At the same time that the Army and Marine Corps are
working harder than ever to achieve recruiting goals, the Navy and the
Air Force are planning for significant reductions in Active-Duty and
Reserve military personnel. Under section 641 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, an interservice bonus of $2,500
for transfer was authorized and recently has been implemented.
What is your assessment of the adequacy of existing incentives for
interservice transfers?
Answer. I understand that the response to the interservice bonus
has been positive. The number of interservice transfers increased from
11 in fiscal year 2004 to 156 for fiscal year 2006.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to enhance the
number of ``Blue-to-Green'' interservice transfers?
Answer. I have been advised that the interservice monetary
incentive will increase to $10,000 for fiscal year 2007. If confirmed,
I will work with the other military departments to garner continued
support for the ``Blue-to-Green'' program. I will continually monitor
its progress and I will ensure the Army continues to research and
address any shortcomings or issues that may cause a lack of
attractiveness of the interservice transfer option.
diversity in the army
Question. In its policies and practices, the Army is committed to
the principles of equal opportunity and promoting fairness, justice,
and equity, eliminating unlawful discrimination, and building teamwork
and readiness. What is your understanding of the Army's current
policies regarding affirmative action and achievement of diversity with
respect to race, gender, and ethnic origin?
Answer. I believe that Army policies and programs must be committed
to ensure that the Department's diverse workforce is valued and is
afforded equal opportunity to reach its potential and to help execute
the Army's mission. Although the Army is already a diverse institution
in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender, the true value of workforce
diversity can best be achieved by removing any identified obstacles,
barriers, or practices that may compromise the organizational vision of
equal opportunity treatment of all individuals consistent with legal
requirements. I understand that the Army recently established the Army
Diversity Office to develop and coordinate policy, plans, and programs
that support the Army mission.
Question. Do the Army's published regulations on equal opportunity
reflect this policy?
Answer. In my initial assessment, I believe that the Army's equal
opportunity policy and program are effective in ensuring fair treatment
for all persons based solely on merit, fitness, and capability in
support of the Army mission. I understand that the Army policies are
aligned with DOD directives and instructions. If confirmed, I would
work diligently toward ensuring Army policies and programs are
effective in eliminating discriminatory behaviors and practices that
undermine teamwork, mutual respect, loyalty, and shared sacrifice.
Question. What is your view of the proper use of affirmative action
plans and measures aimed at achieving or nurturing diversity in the
Army?
Answer. An affirmative action plan is a management tool intended to
assist in overcoming the present effects of discriminatory treatment as
it affects equal opportunity, upward mobility, and the quality of life
for all qualified personnel, consistent with the law.
Question. In your opinion, how, if at all, should considerations
relating to gender and minority status with respect to race, ethnicity,
and national origin be addressed in the guidance provided by the
Secretary of the Army to promotion selection boards and how have
Federal court decisions involving the Army affected that decision?
Answer. It is my opinion that the Army, consistent with DOD policy,
is making every effort to encourage service by individuals from all
backgrounds by providing for the equal treatment and equitable
consideration of all personnel considered for promotion.
Question. What is your understanding of the manner in which
considerations relating to gender and race, ethnicity, and national
origin are used in selection processes for the U.S. Military Academy
(USMA), and do you agree with this approach?
Answer. I understand that the USMA has implemented an admissions
strategy carefully tailored to expand interest on the part of a number
of highly-qualified candidates, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity,
or national origin. The admissions office has a minority outreach
section whose specific focus is to inspire quality minority candidates
to apply to USMA and nurtures these candidates throughout the
admissions process. If confirmed, I would support an approach that
ensures that qualified individuals regardless of their background have
an opportunity for commissioning in the Army through the USMA.
sexual assault
Question. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Personnel conducted a hearing on policies and programs
of the DOD for preventing and responding to incidents of sexual assault
in the Armed Forces at which the Service Vice Chiefs endorsed a ``zero
tolerance'' standard. Subsequently, in response to congressional
direction, the Department developed a comprehensive set of policies and
procedures aimed at improving prevention of and response to incidents
of sexual assaults, including appropriate resources and care for
victims of sexual assault.
What is your understanding of the practices currently in use in the
Army to ensure awareness of and tracking of the disposition of reported
sexual assaults?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army recently implemented a
comprehensive Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program. A key
element of this program is the awareness training developed and taught
at every level of the Army's institutional training--from initial entry
to the Army War College. Additionally, unit refresher training is an
annual requirement for all Army units. As part of this program, the
Army collects and analyzes selected sexual assault incident data which
is provided for quarterly and annual reports to the DOD for
consolidation into the Secretary of Defense's annual report to
Congress.
Question. What progress has been made in ensuring that adequate
numbers of sexual assault victim advocates are available in Army units
worldwide?
Answer. I understand that the Army has taken significant steps to
improve the assistance to victims of all sexual assaults, with enhanced
recognition of the special circumstances that apply to deployments. The
Army recently implemented a comprehensive Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Program. I understand that a key element of the program is the
victim advocacy component which is led by Sexual Assault Response
Coordinators at every Army installation. These Sexual Assault Response
Coordinators are supported by a cadre of full-time, professional
Installation Victim Advocates and Unit Victim Advocates who interact
directly with victims of sexual assault. Deployable Sexual Assault
Victim Coordinators and Unit Victim Advocates provide advocacy services
in a deployed environment. Deployable Sexual Assault Response
Coordinators are soldiers trained and responsible for coordinating the
sexual assault prevention and response program in a specified area of a
deployed theater. Current Army policy requires one deployable Sexual
Assault Response Coordinator at each brigade level unit and higher
echelon. Unit Victim Advocates are soldiers trained to provide victim
advocacy as a collateral duty while deployed. Army policy requires two
Unit Victim Advocates for each battalion sized unit. If confirmed, I
will stress the importance of ensuring that the Army is taking
appropriate steps to provide help to soldiers who are victims of sexual
assault, both in garrison and in deployed locations.
Question. If confirmed, what oversight role, if any, would you
expect to play?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure compliance with established
policies, procedures, and program implementation at all levels of
command, including those at the Army National Guard and U.S. Army
Reserve.
u.s. military academy
Question. The Service Academy 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault
Survey found that even with the implementation of corrective measures,
sexual assault and harassment continue to be factors negatively
affecting female cadets at the military academies.
What is your evaluation of the conclusions and recommendations of
the Service Academy 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault Survey and the
Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at
the Military Service Academies?
Answer. The Academy must continue to evaluate and shape its culture
to create an environment in which the cadets understand that sexual
harassment and sexual assault is in opposition to everything the Army
stands for and will not be tolerated. If confirmed, I will support the
Academy's progress toward this goal. This important survey has
identified several critical problems that must be addressed, and, if
confirmed, I will work with Academy officials to ensure that policies
and programs are in place to correct them.
Question. What actions would you expect to take, if confirmed, to
address the problems of sexual assault and sexual harassment at the
USMA and with respect to the Army's programs in this regard?
Answer. I understand that the USMA has developed a comprehensive
action plan to address the findings and recommendations from the 2005
Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at
the Military Service Academies. I have been advised that the
Superintendent provides quarterly reports to the Secretary of the Army
on the progress the Academy has made with respect to its action plan.
If confirmed, I will ensure that the USMA leadership continues to take
this mission seriously and aggressively pursues actions to better
educate cadets and to foster a climate geared to eliminating the
behaviors that may lead to incidents of sexual assault. If confirmed, I
will work to ensure that the Superintendent of the USMA has the
resources and support necessary to advance the Army's commitment to
attacking this problem.
Question. What do you consider to be the policy and procedural
elements that must be in place at each of the Service Academies in
order to prevent and respond appropriately to sexual assaults and
sexual harassment and to ensure essential oversight?
Answer. I have been advised that the USMA policy is consistent with
that of the Army and the DOD: sexual assault and sexual harassment will
not be tolerated. Taking care of victims and holding offenders
accountable are essential elements of their programs.
religious practices in the army
Question. What is your assessment of policies within the Army aimed
at ensuring religious tolerance and respect?
Answer. I have been informed that the Army's policies support
religious tolerance and respect and are consistent with the First
Amendment. If confirmed, I would make it an objective to continue the
Army's firm commitment to upholding the Constitutional tenets of the
``free exercise'' and ``establishment'' clauses. I am informed that as
they now stand, Army policies require chaplains to support all unit
personnel, regardless of their beliefs.
women in combat
Question. Section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 requires the Secretary of Defense to report to
Congress not later than March 31, 2006, on his review of the current
and future implementation of the policy regarding assignment of women
in combat. In conducting the review, the Secretary of Defense is
directed to closely examine Army unit modularization efforts and
associated personnel assignment policies to ensure their compliance
with the DOD policy on women in combat that has been in effect since
1994.
What is your view of the appropriate combat role for female
soldiers on the modern battlefield?
Answer. It is my view that women have been and will continue to be
an integral part of the Army team, performing exceptionally well in all
specialties and positions open to them. Men and women serving in combat
service and combat service support branches are performing in an
outstanding manner, particularly given the complexity and ambiguity of
combat. Female soldier duty performance in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operations Enduring Freedom has been exemplified by competence,
dedication, and bravery.
Question. In your opinion, is the current and planned future Army
personnel assignment policy for women consistent with the DOD ground
combat exclusion policy in effect since October 1994?
Answer. I have been advised that the Army policy is consistent with
the DOD policy, and if confirmed, I will continue to monitor the
execution of this assignment policy to ensure the Army maintains
compliance.
Question. How do you anticipate you will participate in the review
of the policy required by section 541?
Answer. I am informed that the Office of the Secretary of Defense
has undertaken to complete the comprehensive review requested by this
committee and Congress. It is an important study of complex issues
critical to the Department. The Army, DOD, and Congress must work
together closely on this issue. If confirmed, I will work to provide
the Secretary with cogent advice regarding implementation of this
policy.
foreign language transformation roadmap
Question. A Foreign Language Transformation Roadmap announced by
the Department on March 30, 2005, directed a series of actions aimed at
transforming the Department's foreign language capabilities, to include
revision of policy and doctrine, building a capabilities based
requirements process, and enhancing foreign language capability for
both military and civilian personnel.
What is your understanding of steps being taken within the Army to
achieve the goals of the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap?
Answer. I understand that the Army's Senior Language Authority
(Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7 and Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2) offices
led the Army's efforts to accomplish actions required by the Defense
Language Transformation Roadmap, working in accordance with validated
requirements and approved resourcing. I have been advised that the Army
will continue to integrate its efforts for increasing cultural
understanding, regional awareness, and language proficiency while
supporting the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap goals. The Army
is actively pursuing a number of directed measures, while continuing to
refine its strategic vision of leader skill needs. Some examples of
these measures are improving the foreign language testing system,
providing language support to warfighters in theater, and expanding
immersion opportunities for Military Academy Cadets, foreign area
officers, and the professional linguist corps. The most critical
challenge facing the Army appears to be determining what will be needed
10-20 years from now in terms of foreign language, cultural awareness,
and regional expertise. Currently, language familiarization and
cultural awareness training are integrated into every phase of pre-
deployment training.
Question. What is your assessment of an appropriate timeframe
within which results can be realized in this critical area?
Answer. I have been advised that there are several areas that meet
the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap timeline, such as the
expansion of the Translator Aide Program, on-line language training for
the entire force, and web-delivered Defense Language Proficiency
testing. I understand that the Army is striving to fulfill the actions
required by the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap with the
introduction of programs and processes that brings us closer to DOD
goals within resource availability. I fully appreciate that this is a
dynamic requirement that changes as the challenges of global war on
terror moves from region to region, demanding different language
skills.
military quality of life
Question. In May 2004 the Department published its first
Quadrennial Quality-of-Life Review, which articulated a compact with
military families on key qualify of life factors, such as family
support, child care, education, health care, and morale, welfare and
recreation services.
How do you perceive the relationship between qualify of life and
your own top priorities for recruitment, retention, and readiness of
Army personnel?
Answer. To sustain an All-Volunteer Force composed of highly
competent soldiers, I believe the Army must ensure soldiers and their
families are provided a high quality of life. Caring for soldiers and
Army families through tangible quality-of-life programs provides a
sense of belonging and sustains motivation for continued service. This
will be one of my high priorities if I am confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, what further enhancements to military
quality of life would you make a priority, and how do you envision
working within the Army to achieve them?
Answer. My understanding is the Army Well-Being programs provide
Army's leaders a variety of ways to care for soldiers and their
families. If confirmed, I will partner with other Army leaders in their
commitment to enhance numerous programs such as soldier and family
housing, education, health care, morale, welfare, and recreation;
family programs, and the U.S. AW2 Program which will have an enduring
effect on soldiers' morale and contribute immeasurably to the Army's
ability to sustain a volunteer force.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
senior executive service corps
1. Senator Warner. Mr. James, I note that there has been
significant movement and reassignment of Senior Executive Service (SES)
positions in the Army. Please give the committee your views on where
the Army is going with this process and what the desired end state is
with the distribution of SESs throughout Army organizations.
Mr. James. I believe that it is the Army's intent to develop its
civilian senior executives in a manner similar to that in which they
have historically developed their general officers. As the Army
continues their systemic and progressive assignment pattern, the
desired end state will generate an executive talent pool of adaptive,
multi-skilled leaders capable of filling increasingly more complex
senior executive positions vital to supporting the Army's joint,
interagency, and multinational operations.
2. Senator Warner. Mr. James, do you think the SES corps should
routinely be organizationally and geographically reassigned every few
years, as military officers are?
Mr. James. I think that the SES corps should periodically be
reviewed and evaluated for organizational and, as applicable,
geographical reassignments in support of SES development and the Army
mission. This systemic and progressive reassignment pattern the Army
leadership has implemented aligns with and reinforces succession
planning goals, it provides professional career development of senior
executives similar to that of general officers, and it facilitates
interchangeability of general officers and civilian executives, when
necessary and where practicable. It also reinforces the concept of
``One Army.''
3. Senator Warner. Mr. James, the committee understands that there
are different categories of senior civilian leadership--SES, ST, and
SL--which typically are comprised of supervisory managing engineers
(SES), and nonsupervisory scientific specialists (ST) (the SL category
is apparently not widely used). We also are aware that the Army
leadership wants to replace SES program management positions with
nonsupervisory ST positions, at the same pay level. Does this make
sense to you?
Mr. James. I believe that it is imperative for leadership to
utilize its resources in a manner that aligns with and reinforces the
organization's mission. I understand that the Army is taking a critical
look at the distinct functions and roles of the SES, ST, and SL
positions and ensuring that these resources are appropriately utilized
and aligned. Therefore, when appropriate, Army would replace SES with
or intermix ST or SL positions strategically in areas involving the
performance of high-level research and development, such as physical,
biological, medical, and engineering sciences, and special assistant
and/or highly specialized work. I further understand that the Army
intends to manage its executive and senior professional positions in a
manner consistent with the business transformation goals and
objectives.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
army manpower capability
4. Senator Akaka. Mr. James, in your advanced testimony you state
that the Army's ability to be fully staffed remains one of the most
complex and challenging missions of the Army today and in the future. I
am concerned that ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have had
an adverse impact on this Nation's ability to respond to crises in both
the Middle East and other regions. Given that the Army's manpower
capability is already stretched thin, to what extent do you believe
that an All-Volunteer Army will be able to effectively respond to
additional conflicts?
Mr. James. For the first time in our country's history, we are
fighting a protracted war with an All-Volunteer Army. During this
ongoing war on terrorism both recruiting and retention have remained
strong. In fact the Army has experienced some of its strongest
retention rates over the past 3 years. We have experienced some
problems but overall both recruiting and retention continue to meet and
exceed goals. Our Army is sustaining combat operations and meeting its
obligations worldwide. Soldiers serving combat tours continue to
reenlist at high rates. Today's Army is the finest Army in the history
of our country. The All-Volunteer Force is strong and capable and has
the ability to respond to our Nation's needs.
5. Senator Akaka. Mr. James, what contingency plans have been put
into place in order to effectively respond to new crises?
Mr. James. The Army, as a member of the Joint Force, is fully
capable for executing the missions assigned to it by the Secretary of
Defense or the President. The Army is rebalancing its force structure
to increase capacities for Special Operations Forces and general
purpose forces while transforming to a more modular force to improve
its agility to be decisive against any potential threat. We are
implementing the Army Force Generation Model to create predictable,
sustainable force readiness for steady state and surge requirements.
Also, we are continually reviewing the status of recruiting and
retention to ensure that we have the necessary skill sets for future
capabilities as documented in the force structure.
______
[The nomination reference of Ronald J. James follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 21, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Ronald J. James, of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army,
vice Reginald Jude Brown.
______
[The biographical sketch of Ronald J. James, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Ronald J. James
On May 19, 2003, Ronald James joined the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) when he was appointed as the first Chief Human Capital
Officer (CHCO). The CHCO serves as the Department's lead executive for
all matters relating to Human Resource management, including policy,
strategic planning, learning and development, recruitment, performance
management, compensation, benefits, union relations, employee
relations, and other areas. Mr. James served in this position until
September 2005 when he was asked by the Secretary to serve as a special
advisor on human resource issues. Mr. James agreed to return to the
position of CHCO in an acting capacity as of June 12, 2006, until a new
CHCO is selected.
Prior to joining DHS, Mr. James was a partner at the international
law firm of Squire Sanders and Dempsey in Cleveland, Ohio, where he
specialized in regulatory, labor, and employment matters. He was
appointed by former President Ford and confirmed by the U.S. Senate to
the position of Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S.
Department of Labor, where he managed the enforcement activities,
procedures, and standards of 300 offices nationwide,
He graduated from the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri,
with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and received a Master of
Arts in Economics and Political Science from Southern Illinois
University in the Washington, DC, extension. He also earned a Juris
Doctor from American University Law School in Washington, DC.
Mr. James also served as a lieutenant in the 101st Airborne
Division Artillery in the United States Army.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Ronald J.
James in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Ronald J. James.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary--Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Department of
the Army.
3. Date of nomination:
July 21, 2006
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 8, 1937; Centerville, Iowa.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Patricia S. (O'Donnell) James.
7. Names and ages of children:
Kevin D. James, 44; Ronad James, Jr., 42; Kelly A. James, 30;
Shannon M. James, 32; Catlin James-Stewart, 25.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Southern Illinois University, Master of Arts, September 1972.
American University School of Law, Juris Doctorate, June 1966.
University of Missouri, Bachelor of Arts, August 1959.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Chief Human Capital Officer, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, June 2006-Present.
Senior Policy Advisor to the Under Secretary for Management,
Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, September 2005-May
2006.
Chief Human Capital Officer, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 2003-August 2005.
Partner, Squire Sanders & Dempsey, International Law Firm,
Cleveland, OH, March 1977-May 2003.
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 Staff, Donald Rumsfeld.
Assistant County Attorney, Blackhawk County, Iowa.
Staff, Congressman Donald Rumsfeld (IL).
Staff, Congressman Jim Bromwell, (IA).
Regional Attorney-Chicago, EEOC.
Administrator, Wage & Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
American Bar Association.
Iowa Bar Association.
Member, Delta Sigma Rho, National Speech Honor Society.
Catholic Youth Organization, Soccer Coach.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
Republican.
Volunteer, Presidential Campaign, Nelson Rockefeller, 1959.
Volunteer, Presidential Campaign, John McCain, 2000.
Congressional Campaign Worker, James Bromwell, R-Iowa, 1964.
(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, Centerville High School, Centerville, Iowa.
Numerous soccer coaching, volunteer awards, e.g. Catholic Youth
Organization.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Please see attached list.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes, I agree.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Ronald J. James.
This 30th day of August, 2006.
[The nomination of Ronald J. James was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on September 28, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on September 29, 2006.]
NOMINATIONS OF SCOTT W. STUCKY TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES; AND MARGARET A. RYAN TO BE A JUDGE OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
----------
MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner and Levin.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk; and
Catherine E. Sendak, special assistant.
Majority staff members present: Regina A. Dubey,
professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff
member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff member; Sandra E.
Luff, professional staff member; Derek J. Maurer, professional
staff member; David M. Morriss, counsel; Stanley R. O'Connor,
Jr., 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; Jonathan D. Clark, minority counsel;
Gabriella Eisen, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling,
minority counsel; Peter K. Levine, minority counsel; and
William G.P. Monahan, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: David G. Collins and Benjamin L.
Rubin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good afternoon, everyone. The committee
will now come to order.
I'm very pleased to have before the committee this morning
Scott Stucky and Margaret Ryan, who have been nominated to be
judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces (USCAAF).
We welcome Mr. Stucky, his wife, Jean, and their children,
Mary-Clare and Joseph, who have joined us today, and I wonder
if you'd introduce, Mr. Stucky, at this time, the rather large
group that you, fortunately, are having to backstop this
nomination? [Laughter.]
Mr. Stucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In addition to my immediate family, I have here my sister,
Judi Jacobson, from Kansas City; my sister-in-law, Catherine
Seibert, her husband, Fred, and their daughter, Emma, from
Bethesda, Maryland; my brother-in-law, Dick Joyce, and my
sister, Valerie Stucky, retired Federal employees, who live in
Fairfax, Virginia; my father-in-law, Ed Seibert, from Oxon
Hill, Maryland; my wife's cousin and a good friend, Phil
Seibert, from Cincinnati--Phil served in the 1st Cavalry in
Vietnam and was awarded the Bronze Star for Valor--and his son,
Chad.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
I think it's so important when families come. I'll address
it later, but we take note that you join a court that's
presided over by a chief judge, who, like you, was a member of
the staff of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Stucky. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. I think it's very important, from time to
time, that the extraordinary staffs that we have on this
committee, a number of whom are here today to pay their
respects to you, Mr. Stucky and your family, are selected by
the President to hold down positions of great importance
outside of Congress, drawing on their extensive experience that
they've had with this committee.
It is often said that our committee--and I say this with a
sense of humility, and I'm sure my distinguished friend, and
the oncoming chairman, will share with me--this committee is
recognized in the institution of the Senate as having one of
the finest combined professional and personal staff members of
any committee of the United States Senate. You are an
extraordinary representative of that distinguished pool, Mr.
Stucky.
Mr. Stucky. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. We welcome Ms. Ryan and her husband,
Michael Collins, and their family and friends. Would you kindly
introduce your family for the record?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
My husband, Michael Collins; my father, Dan Ryan, and my
mother, Suzanne Ryan; my mother- and father-in-law, Cathy and
Tom Collins, from Westchester, Pennsylvania; my dear friends,
Kate and Gordon Todd, from Alexandria, Virginia; and my
colleague and friend, Fred Fielding--also from Virginia.
Chairman Warner. I will put into the record, of course, the
detailed biography of each of you, but I note, Ms. Ryan, you've
had a very distinguished career in the United States military,
coupled with your legal career, and we're fortunate to have the
benefit of that experience. We thank you and your family for
undertaking this, now, a new chapter in your otherwise
distinguished career. Thank you.
The USCAAF was established in 1951 under the provisions of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Since then, the
court has become firmly established as the guardian and
provider of civilian oversight over the military justice system
and has produced a body of jurisprudence that the legal
profession and all judge advocates can point to with great
professional pride. It is a great honor to be nominated to
serve as a judge on the USCAAF, and I commend both of you for
having received that recognition.
In light of your respective resumes of service and legal
achievement, I believe that the President has chosen wisely and
that you will take your place among the distinguished members
of this court and continue to uphold its highest professional
traditions.
Mr. Stucky is a graduate of Wichita State University and
the Harvard Law School, holds an LL.M. from George Washington
University, and served on Active-Duty with the Air Force as a
judge advocate from 1973 to 1978, including a year-long
assignment in Thailand in support of the operational forces.
After leaving Active-Duty, Mr. Stucky continued to serve in the
Air Force Reserve for over 21 years, rising to the rank of
colonel. In a memorable ceremony in the Caucus Room in November
2003, Mr. Stucky retired from the military service with the Air
Force, receiving the Legion of Merit Award.
You've also served as a civilian attorney with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and with the Department of the Air Force
for over 13 years before joining the professional staff of our
committee as general counsel in 1996.
In that decade of service, you played a vital role in the
committee's achievements, and demonstrated your mastery of the
law. That's a pretty big word, ``mastery of the law.''
[Laughter.]
I think I'll strike that and say your ``understanding of
the law.'' [Laughter.]
None of us have mastered it, not even those of us who sit
here and write it. [Laughter.]
The unique rules and practices of the Senate and the
congressional history and precedents on which we rely. Mr.
Stucky is known for his integrity, his unerring wisdom and
advice, and his generosity of time and spirit in serving all of
the Senate and staff who have worked with him on this
committee. We thank you and your family for your dedicated
service on this committee and to the Senate.
Mr. Stucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Now, Ms. Ryan attended Knox College and
the University of Notre Dame and served as a law clerk for
Judge Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, and for Justice Clarence Thomas on the United
States Supreme Court. That's quite an achievement. I was
privileged to serve as a law clerk to a Federal Circuit Court
of Appeals judge, and I'm fully aware of the competition and
the challenge to serve in those positions.
Ms. Ryan served on Active-Duty in the Marine Corps from
1987 through 1999 as a communications officer. I, likewise,
served in the Marine Corps, first as an infantry officer, then
as a communications officer. That was before you were born.
[Laughter.]
She served as judge advocate, and served as a company
commander, platoon commander, operations officer, and trial
attorney. She deployed to the Philippines and to Saudi Arabia
during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Her last tour
on Active-Duty was as aide-de-camp to General Charles Krulak.
That was a challenge under the former Commandant of the Marine
Corps. [Laughter.]
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. I have the highest regard for General
Krulak, and was privileged to know his father, who was a
lieutenant general in the Marine Corps, and he was quite a
challenge, also. [Laughter.]
We received a letter from General Krulak supporting your
nomination. Without objection, I, with great respect for the
general, place it in today's record of proceedings.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Warner. I congratulate you and your family, and
thank you for your continued willingness to be a public
servant.
Senator Levin?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First let me join you in welcoming our nominees, Mr. Stucky
and Ms. Ryan, for these very important judgeships. We join our
chairman, who was also around before I was born. [Laughter.]
That's not quite true. He's only a couple of years older
than me, but, nonetheless, we exaggerate a little bit when it
comes to age. Usually we exaggerate both our ages downward.
[Laughter.]
It's been a joy to work with our chairman, and a joy to
work with you, Mr. Stucky.
Mr. Stucky. Thank you, sir.
Senator Levin. I thank your families for coming here, and
all your friends. Your support for the public service of these
nominees, may I just tell your family and your friends, is
absolutely essential to their well-being and to those who they
serve. We thank you for your support of these nominees over the
years.
The USCAAF is an essential component of the military
justice system. This court, which is sometimes referred to as
the ``Supreme Court for the Military,'' is, in most cases, the
final arbiter of the fairness and correct application of the
UCMJ. This court consists of civilian judges who ensure that
servicemembers receive the due process and the fair trials that
they are entitled to while taking into account the military's
unique requirement for good order and discipline. Through their
independent judicial review of military justice matters, they
provide critical civilian oversight to the military justice
system, and it takes talented judges to strike the correct
balance. It appears to me that the nominees before us today
have the skill and the background for these positions.
As our chairman has pointed out, Mr. Stucky has served as
general counsel and minority counsel of this committee for the
last 10 years. He has very ably advised the committee on a wide
array of legal issues, including issues involving the
application of the UCMJ. He has worked in a bipartisan manner
with Senators and staffs--in other words, he's worked with
staff and members on both sides of the aisle--ensuring the
smooth operation of the committee.
The chairman made reference to your unerring wisdom. I'm
not sure I'd go that far about anybody, but you have shown,
indeed, wisdom and balance and fairness in all of your
activities in the committee, and we're grateful for that.
So, Scott, you can be proud of your service on this
committee. We're very proud of you and proud of it.
Mr. Stucky. Thank you, sir.
Senator Levin. You've also had more than 25 years of
experience in dealing with military law, including 4 years as
an appellate counsel and 7 years as an appellate judge on the
Air Force Court of Military Review.
Ms. Ryan is similarly well-qualified. Her Active-Duty
service in the Marine Corps, both as a line officer and as a
judge advocate, will give her a unique perspective on military
justice issues as one who was subject to the UCMJ, a commander
who used the UCMJ to maintain good order and discipline, and as
a judge advocate. She's also very familiar with appellate
issues and procedures as a result of her experience as a law
clerk for two Federal appellate judges, as our chairman has
pointed out.
So, Mr. Chairman, I commend the President on these
nominations, and I look forward to hearing from our nominees.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
I also wish to recognize the presence of Mr. Fred Fielding.
I have been associated with and known Mr. Fielding for many
years, a distinguished public servant and a partner to Ms. Ryan
in that law firm.
The committee has asked Mr. Stucky and Ms. Ryan to answer a
series of advance policy questions. Those have been responded
to. Without objection, I'll make the questions and responses a
part of today's record.
I also have certain standard questions we ask of nominees
who appear before the committee, and I ask Mr. Stucky and Ms.
Ryan, please respond to each question.
You have written these questions through the years, Mr.
Stucky; now it's up to you to answer them, and answer them
properly.
Have you, Mr. Stucky and Ms. Ryan, adhered to applicable
laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest?
Mr. Stucky. Yes, sir.
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which
would appear to presume the outcome of this confirmation
process of the United States Senate?
Mr. Stucky. No, sir.
Ms. Ryan. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications, to the
extent that that is appropriate in your unusual positions to
which you're going?
Mr. Stucky. Yes, sir.
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Now, I call on both nominees to provide
their opening remarks to the committee.
Mr. Stucky?
STATEMENT OF SCOTT W. STUCKY, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
Mr. Stucky. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, it is a great
privilege to appear before the committee as the President's
nominee to be a judge of the USCAAF.
I would first like to thank the President for his
confidence in me. If confirmed and appointed, I will do my very
best to vindicate that confidence.
Mr. Chairman, I am profoundly grateful to you for your
unfailing support of me throughout this process, and, in
particular, for holding this hearing in such a timely manner.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, my wife, Jean, my
children, Mary-Clare and Joseph, and all my relatives and
friends who are here today. Your love and support have made
this day possible.
I would also like to thank my parents, Joe and Emma Clara
Stucky, of Pretty Prairie, Kansas, who cannot be here today. It
was from them that I first learned the values of duty and hard
work. I would not be here today if it were not for them and
their influence.
Mr. Chairman, the administration of military justice under
law is one of the most important legislative responsibilities
of this committee. Our country is a democratic republic that is
also a world power, which maintains large Armed Forces without
resorting to conscription. In such a situation, a successful
system of military justice must carefully balance the absolute
necessity of good order and discipline with due process and the
rights of the accused. History teaches that Armed Forces that
lack good order and discipline are not only incapable of
protecting the liberties of the people, but are a positive
danger to those liberties. At the same time, to be acceptable
in a republic of free citizens who serve voluntarily, such a
system must not only be fair, it must be seen to be fair. A
great responsibility, therefore, lies upon everyone who labors
in the vineyards of military justice, from the junior judge
advocate drafting charges and specifications, or the junior
enlisted person preparing paperwork, to the judges of the Court
of Appeals.
Mr. Chairman, you stated, in a different context earlier
this year, that ``Congress must get this right.'' Fifty-five
years ago, this committee and Congress got it right when it
enacted the UCMJ. While nothing human is perfect, the fact that
the code has endured since the Korean War with only two major
amendments, and is in daily use today in circumstances vastly
different from those that obtained in the Armed Forces when it
was enacted, is proof of that fact.
One of the major innovations of the UCMJ was the
introduction of an independent civilian court, originally
called the Court of Military Appeals, to provide final review
of courts-martial. One who studies the history of the court
will find that there existed a substantial amount of opposition
to the idea of an independent court at the top of the military
justice system. Even after the code was enacted, there was some
question as to what the court would become, a real court, or
some sort of administrative body within the Department of
Defense. To the great credit of the early judges of that court,
it soon became apparent that this would be a true court of
appeals, acting as such within the jurisdiction that Congress
gave to it. No one today denies or questions the court's
status. If confirmed and appointed, I intend to build on the
work of the first judges and those who came after them,
continuing the tradition of judicial independence and
jurisprudence that has marked the court since those early days.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal opening statement. I
cannot close, however, without saying one other thing. I have
served as the general counsel or minority counsel of this
committee for 10 years. To have worked under chairmen like you
and Senator Thurmond; under staff directors like Les Brownlee,
Judy Ansley, and Charlie Abell; with colleagues like Dick
Walsh, Diana Tabler, Patty Lewis, Dave Morriss, and Ann
Mittermeyer; and with minority staff of the caliber of Peter
Levine, Rick DeBobes, and Gary Leeling has been one of the
great privileges of my life. If confirmed, I look forward to
the challenges of the future, but I will never forget the
experience that I had here. This committee is proof that
bipartisan cooperation in the interest of the Nation works.
Legislation at the level at which this committee operates can
only be done in that spirit. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, you
have exemplified that spirit.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I await your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you for a very thoughtful statement,
Mr. Stucky.
I would say to my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin,
in the years to come I would hope that I can reciprocate for
the strong support that you've given this nomination and
persons perhaps of your choice in the years to come.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. They are most deserving, our staff people.
Now, Ms. Ryan?
STATEMENT OF MARGARET A. RYAN, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
Ms. Ryan. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Levin, thank you for the honor and
privilege of appearing before you as nominee to be a judge on
the USCAAF.
Like Mr. Stucky, I want to express my thanks to the
President for his confidence and trust in nominating me for
this position. If I'm confirmed by the Senate, I pledge to do
everything I can to live up to that confidence and trust.
To my friends and family that traveled to be here with me
today, thank you very much. To my mother and father, Dan and
Suzanne Ryan, you raised six children to be honest, to give
their best efforts to every job that they had, and to have
compassion for others. I thank you for those lessons.
I spent over 12 years in the United States Marine Corps in
diverse roles and places. The Marine Corps values of integrity,
honor, courage, and commitment define a way of life, and it's a
life that I am thankful for having had the opportunity to
embrace. Over the course of my career in the military, as a law
clerk, and as a practitioner, I have had the privilege and
opportunity to work for, and learn from, some very exceptional
and fine people. I am humbled and grateful for the examples and
opportunities that I have been given.
If I am confirmed, I welcome the opportunity for additional
public service on the USCAAF. The men and women of this
Nation's Armed Forces are people, men and women, of integrity
and intelligence, and they are people who sacrifice so much for
us every day.
The USCAAF serves an important role in maintaining the rule
of law in our system of military justice and in ensuring public
confidence in that system. If I am confirmed, I pledge to
undertake this grant of public trust with integrity and
humility, to approach each case with an open mind, and to fully
and fairly analyze the legal arguments presented, and decide
each case according to the rule of law. The men and women of
this Nation's Armed Forces deserve nothing less.
Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today, and I
will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Warner. Thank you for your statement; likewise,
with Mr. Stucky, it was a well-prepared and well-delivered and
a meaningful statement.
I must say I thank you for the recognition of what the
Marine Corps did for you. It certainly did the same for me. I'm
sure that all who are privileged to serve in the uniform of our
country look back upon that as a valued chapter in their own
careers. I appreciate that recognition that you gave; likewise,
both of you, to your parents.
So, I'll start off the questions here.
Each of you has served as a judge advocate on Active-Duty
and has a wealth of experience with the Armed Forces, the
military justice system, and the men and women who proudly
serve in the uniform of our forces. Do you believe that the
rights afforded to servicemembers who are tried by court-
martial are comparable and equal to the rights of individuals
who are tried in civilian courts?
Mr. Stucky?
Mr. Stucky. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. In many respects, the
rights afforded the accused under the UCMJ are better protected
and better secured than those afforded the accused in, say, a
typical State criminal justice system. For one thing, the
accused is guaranteed competent, trained, free defense counsel,
provided at Government expense. The accused is tried in a
system that is protected statutorily and by the oversight of
the USCAAF from unlawful command influence. The accused is
tried in a system where the necessary resources are available
so that the pressure to plea bargain cases, to settle cases, is
not present, as it is in many civilian court systems. So, I
would state, Mr. Chairman, that the rights of the accused are
at least as well--and, in many respects, better--secured under
the UCMJ than in your average State criminal system.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Ms. Ryan?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I join the comments of Mr.
Stucky and would simply add that I believe that the Article 31
rights that are afforded to our servicemembers give them
greater protection against interrogations than people have in
the civilian world, and that there's also a greater ability to
have access to information at the investigatory stage, and to
participate in an Article 32 investigation before any serious
charges could be referred to a general court-martial. I think
that that's a very different system than the grand jury system
that you find in the civilian world.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Are there any aspects of the military justice procedures of
criminal law that you feel should be examined by Congress and
perhaps appropriate legislation placed in the code?
Ms. Ryan, why don't you lead off on that.
Ms. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, based on the information that I
have today, I am confident that the military justice system, as
it is currently established, is working and functioning as it
is intended to. I also understand that there are annual reviews
of the military justice system and of the UCMJ, and believe
that, if any changes are necessary, that they will be brought
to the attention of this committee, and that the change will be
made through the legislative process.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. I would invite you to either
incorporate in such opinions as you may write those views,
should they change.
Ms. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Stucky?
Mr. Stucky. I would agree with Ms. Ryan, and I would simply
say, Mr. Chairman, that one of the great benefits of this
court's status is the fact that it receives meaningful, and, I
would say, expert oversight, from this committee and the staff
of this committee in ways that the Article 3 courts don't. As
Ms. Ryan pointed out, under Article 146 of the code there is a
Statutory Code Committee that is supposed to conduct an annual
survey of the code and make legislative recommendations to
Congress. There is also a nonstatutory Joint Service Committee
made up of experienced military justice practitioners within
the Services that does the same thing. The Judge Advocates
General and the Department annually recommend such changes as
they think are necessary to the code.
Chairman Warner. The jurisdiction of the USCAAF is set
forth in the UCMJ, but, under our system of federalism, each
State has the authority and responsibility to establish its own
criminal code to be applied to the National Guard of the
respective States. A model UCMJ has been drafted, at
congressional direction, but implementation has been slow to
change that. Would there be advantages of a UCMJ for the
National Guard? What role, if any, do you think the USCAAF
should play in generating that support?
Mr. Stucky. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Mr. Stucky. A few years ago, in the National Defense
Authorization Act, this committee and the House committee
produced legislation that, to some extent, cleaned up the very
ancient statutes in title 32, U.S.C., that governed courts-
martial in the Guard when not in Federal service. Report
language accompanying that statutory amendment called on the
Department to develop such a model code for the States, which
the Department has done, and has forwarded to the States.
My personal opinion is that the States, while this is under
our Federal system, this is a matter for the State
legislatures--is that the States would benefit from adoption of
such a code. I have not reviewed the model State code, but I
believe that the States would benefit from more uniformity in
this area.
Because of the court's status, I don't see the court acting
as a legislative proponent for this kind of thing with the
States. That's something the Department would have to do, but I
do think that the States would benefit from greater uniformity
in this area, if their legislatures see fit to adopt it.
Chairman Warner. Counselor Ryan?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Stucky that
this is a matter for the State legislatures to decide, and that
there would certainly potentially be some benefit to uniformity
with respect to the National Guard units, but that that's a
matter for the State legislatures and one over which the USCAAF
would not have any input or jurisdiction.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ryan, in response to your advance policy questions, you
identified three areas as weaknesses in the military justice
system: unlawful command influence, the commander's role in the
military justice system, and the potential for significant
variances in treatment of similar offenses by different
commands. Commanders serve in several roles in the military
justice system. The lower-level commanders routinely profer
charges and recommend the type of court to adjudicate the
charges. More senior commanders refer charges to various levels
of courts, select court members, conduct post-trial reviews,
and either approve or reduce sentences adjudged by courts-
martial. Which of the roles, in particular, cause you concern
and tell us why, if you would.
Ms. Ryan. Senator Levin, I don't have a particular concern
about unlawful command influence or about the role of the
commander in any particular phase of the military justice
system. I think that my answer is pointing out the fact that if
you look at the military justice system, and if you look at
places where there would be potential for concern, that those
were the three that I identified. I understand that there is a
lot of public discussion about the issue of the commander
having a role in every aspect of the military justice system,
and I would simply respond, sir, that those decisions were made
by the legislature and are set forth within the UCMJ, which is
intended to allow commanders to deal with legal issues in
matters of command discipline at the lowest level possible.
Senator Levin. Could each of you give us your opinion on
how well the military Services are doing in preventing unlawful
command influence?
Mr. Stucky?
Mr. Stucky. Senator Levin, my impression from reading the
advance sheets of the USCAAF and from my service on the Air
Force court is that the Services and the USCAAF are extremely
attuned to the danger of unlawful command influence. Certainly,
the USCAAF is very awake to the danger of it, and, in cases in
which unlawful command influence is alleged, is very eager to
look at these things.
I believe the Services do a good job at trying to put down
unlawful command influence, but, because of the nature of the
beast, and, because, as you point out, the commanders at
various levels are interwoven throughout the system, the
potential always exists; and, therefore, everyone, particularly
everyone in a supervisory responsibility in the military
justice system, has to keep eternally alert for evidence of
unlawful command influence in particular cases.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Ms. Ryan?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, Senator Levin. I agree with Mr. Stucky that
there is certainly a concern about unlawful command influence
at every level of the military. I believe that the men and
women that serve in our Armed Forces, across the board, are men
and women of intelligence and integrity, but I also understand
that there are times when people don't always do what is right.
Certainly, the decisions of the USCAAF have dealt very
carefully with the issue of unlawful command influence, which,
of course, we all understand is not just the commander, but is
behavior by any person that is subject to the code that
attempts to coerce or influence the results of the courts-
martial. Because the USCAAF has dealt with instances of
unlawful command influence firmly and with results that I'm
sure that commanders were not happy with, I would expect that
they have been educating themselves and their subordinates to
try and deal with the issue at those levels, as well.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
I've been calling you ``Stucky'' for 10 years or ``Mr.
Stucky.''
Mr. Stucky. Sir, most people do. [Laughter.]
Senator Levin. So, it's kind of hard to call you ``Mr.
Stooky.'' [Laughter.]
I gather when you introduced your dad, your pronounced his
name ``Stooky.'' I turned around and checked with the staff
here, and said, ``Have I been mispronouncing your name for 10
years?'' So have they. So, will you forgive, not only me, but
the entire staff for mispronouncing your name for all these
years? [Laughter.]
Mr. Stucky. Indeed, sir.
Senator Levin. So, now I'm going to call you ``Mr.
Stooky,'' for the first, and probably the last, time that we'll
be talking. [Laughter.]
As general counsel for this committee, Mr. Stucky, you've
advised Senators on the shaping of legislation, including
changes to the UCMJ. Is there some aspect of your work on this
committee that might disqualify you from acting on certain
cases?
Mr. Stucky. Sir, I think the definitive essay on that very
question can be found in volume 48 of Military Justice (MJ)
Reporter and was written by my predecessor, Chief Judge Andrew
Effron, when faced with a similary situation in a case called
United States v. Gorski. The rule, as I understand it, sir, is
that involvement with a justice issue in a legislative context,
without involvement in a particular matter that may come before
the court, is not disqualifying. In other words, working on
military justice issues, even working on a specific military
justice issue that may eventually be construed by the court, is
not, in and of itself, disqualifying, but handling any sort of
particular matter, as might be done in casework or that kind of
thing, would require recusal. Now, if presented with an issue
in which I thought there was any danger of not only a conflict
of interest, but the appearance of a conflict of interest that
might raise questions about my status on the court, I would err
on the side of caution and probably recuse myself. But Judge
Effron was faced with that very question, and he wrote a very
elegant essay on the question, which you can read.
Senator Levin. What about interpreting or ruling on the
constitutionality of legislation that you helped to shape,
would that fall in the recusal area?
Mr. Stucky. Again, sir, absent involvement in a particular
matter, as a member of the legislative staff, I don't believe
so.
Senator Levin. Let me ask this to both of you. When
Congress considered the military commissions bill in September,
we considered giving appellate jurisdiction to the USCAAF, the
court that you will be soon, hopefully, confirmed to. We
decided to do something differently, and, rightly or wrongly,
in one sense, I guess--this is overtaken by events, but--in
your view, would the court have the appropriate qualifications
and expertise to handle such jurisdiction? Should we change
course?
Mr. Stucky. Sir, if what is contemplated is simply taking
direct review of final decisions of the commissions from the
D.C. Circuit and placing it in USCAAF, in my opinion USCAAF has
the personnel and the organization to do that. If what were
contemplated were something more, like taking the whole
Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) habeas process and
moving it, that would, in my judgment, completely change the
character of the court, and would place in it administrative
litigation of a kind it's never seen. That would be a different
matter. Your question went to resources and ability. I'm not
sure that, if the whole CSRT thing were placed over there, the
court would be set up to handle that.
Senator Levin. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Ryan?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, Senator Levin. I'm not familiar with the
scope of persons or the number of cases that we're talking
about that would be subject to the Military Commissions Act, so
I can't comment, in that respect, with respect to resources,
but I can say that, with respect to the judges that are
currently sitting on the USCAAF, and with respect to my review
of Mr. Stucky's qualification--``Mr. Stooky's''
qualifications----[Laughter.]
--that they all certainly appear to have the requisite
integrity, intellectual capability, and other abilities and
resources to handle those matters.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I look forward to a prompt
vote on their confirmations.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, my distinguished friend and
colleague.
I'll ask but one question, then I'll put two into the
record for purposes of a response by the nominees.
This intrigues me. The assignments of career-minded judge
advocates in each of the Services of our Department of Defense
often involve a wide variety of legal and sometimes operational
and leadership responsibilities. In other words, he doesn't, or
she doesn't, have the luxury, as Mr. Fielding--are you still
paying attention there, Mr. Fielding? [Laughter.]
--of staying in his office and practicing law, and going to
and from the courthouse and the library, and he doesn't have to
wake up and conduct a parade one day, and perhaps a lot of
other activities. Yet we must recognize that their development
professionally can be no less than what is afforded in the
private sector. That is, your level of expertise and
professional competence must match those of your civilian
counterparts. So, therefore, my question is, what challenges do
you see for the Services in ensuring sufficient members of
judge advocates who are adequately trained in the profession of
law and so forth, and, at the same time, they have to perform
these other duties? Perhaps you could comment on that, Colonel,
since you, perhaps, most recently have departed the uniform.
Mr. Stucky. Sir, there's no question that in the area of
trial advocacy in the military justice system, all of the
Services have a problem that was not the case 20 to 30 years
ago, when those of us who came out of the Vietnam period as
JAGs served. In those days, one didn't lack for opportunities
to prosecute or defend, because, in those days, the base office
did both--to prosecute or defend accused in courts-martial.
There were lots of courts-martial. There were lots of
administrative boards, discharge boards, and the like, where
one could also get relevant experience.
If you look at court-martial statistics over the last 30 to
35 years, in all Services, they have declined a great deal.
Some of that's due to the fact that the Services have gotten
smaller. Some of that's due to the fact that we no longer have
conscription. But a lot of it's due simply to the fact that the
court-martial rate per thousand personnel, or however you want
to take it, even given into account the reduction in the size
of the Services, has gone way down. Young judge advocates in
the Services do not get the opportunities they once had to try
courts-martial, or to defend the accused in courts-martial. I
know the Services have done a variety of things to deal with
this. Their academic endeavors at the JAG schools are far more
professional than they once were, but it is a continuing
problem, and it's something the Services have to watch and, I
know, are very acutely aware of.
Chairman Warner. Counselor Ryan?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My view of the training that
is received by judge advocates, which is one part of the
question I think you're asking--and the other part is, their
need to do additional things to be part of the military--is
perhaps slightly different than Mr. Stucky's. As someone who
had been a line officer in the Marine Corps, when I became a
judge advocate I think that those experiences as a line officer
helped me very much in terms of dealing with convening
authorities and working on cases and understanding where to go
to find the information I needed to. The lawyers that came in
that did not have the line experience, the only way that they
could get that same sort of understanding and respect of their
peers was to participate in the military aspects of being on
Active-Duty in the military, even though they were judge
advocates. But I absolutely agree that those create tensions
between the things that they need to do, in terms of their job,
and their need to be an Active-Duty military member or military
officer. My view is that the training that is received by judge
advocates in the military is certainly in excess of what you
need to go and begin practicing law in a private law firm. So,
for example, though I had graduated from Notre Dame and done
very well there, the Marine Corps did not say that I could
simply go and start working on courts-martial, it required me
to go to Naval Justice School. If I had stayed on Active-Duty,
there were additional schools that were available. My view,
based on the experiences I had as a judge advocate in the
military, is that the staff judge advocates that were in charge
of the different legal centers did everything that they could
to ensure that the young lawyers that were in their charge had
every opportunity to learn a great deal about the military
justice system, and to get on their feet, if that's what they
were interested in doing.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. I think that will
have to bear constant oversight by this committee.
If you have no further matters, colleague, this committee
will now stand in recess. We'll forward these nominations, as
soon as the full committee has had an opportunity to vote on
them, to the floor.
I thank all of the family members and others who have
joined in this most important chapter in the distinguished
careers of our two nominees.
Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:18 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Scott W. Stucky by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. Subchapter XII of chapter 47 of title 10, U.S.C.,
establishes the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
(USCAAF) and provides for its organization and administrative
procedures.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of USCAAF
and its judges?
Answer. Congress established USCAAF (then known as the Court of
Military Appeals) in 1950 to provide appellate review of courts-martial
by a specialized civilian court that possessed both judicial
independence and the requisite expertise, in order to promote good
order and discipline in the Armed Forces while ensuring that justice
was done in individual cases.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have more than 25 years of experience with military law;
indeed, if the term is broadly defined, my entire career, other than my
time in private practice from 1978 to 1982, has been engaged in
military law. With respect to the appellate review of courts-martial, I
served for 4 years (1987-1991) as a Reserve appellate government
counsel in the Air Force, writing more than 100 briefs for the
government in appeals before the Air Force Court of Military Review and
the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. I then served for 7 years (1991-
1995, 1997-1998, 2001-2003) as a Reserve appellate military judge on
the Air Force Court of Military Review (later the Air Force Court of
Criminal Appeals), one of the Service courts directly below USCAAF in
the military justice system. During this time, I wrote approximately 75
judicial opinions on a wide variety of issues.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of a judge on the USCAAF?
Answer. I have attempted to keep abreast of developments in
USCAAF's jurisprudence by regularly reading the Court's advance sheets.
I do not believe that there are other actions that I need to take at
this time.
relationships
Question. What are the respective roles of each of the following
with respect to the military justice system and, if confirmed, what
would your relationship be with:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Secretary of Defense, under 10 U.S.C. 113, exercises
``authority, direction, and control'' over the Department of Defense.
He normally would not be involved in particular military justice
matters, but is ultimately responsible for policy in all areas of the
Department.
Article 141 of the UCMJ provides that USCAAF ``is located for
administrative purposes only in the Department of Defense.'' Thus, my
relationship with the Secretary would be that of a member of an
independent judicial establishment within the Department. The drafters
of the Code and subsequent Congresses clearly intended that the
military justice system, including USCAAF, be truly independent of
command influence (see Article 37). In practice, colorable examples of
interference with the system by senior officials of the Department (as
opposed to local commanders) have been very rare. See, e.g., United
States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review v. Carlucci, 26 M.J.
328 (C.M.A. 1988). Nevertheless, it is essential that the judges of
USCAAF be ever vigilant to guard the system against any such
possibility, as the Court of Military Appeals did in the Carlucci case.
Question. The Chief Judge of the USCAAF.
Answer. Under Article 143 of the UCMJ, the Chief Judgeship of
USCAAF is determined by seniority of commission. The Chief Judge has
certain administrative responsibilities, but is essentially first among
equals with respect to the other judges of the Court. I would expect
that my relationship with the Chief Judge would be one of mutual
respect and collegiality, such as should be the case in an appellate
court. The fact that the present Chief Judge is a friend for whom I
have always had the highest respect would only serve to strengthen the
relationship.
Question. Judges of the USCAAF.
Answer. Except for the administrative duties lodged in the Chief
Judge, the judges of USCAAF are equal, differing only in seniority. I
would expect that my relations with my fellow judges would be marked by
that mutual respect and collegiality that should characterize relations
among judges on any well-functioning appellate court.
Question. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
Answer. Under 10 U.S.C. 140(b), the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense is the chief legal officer of the Department, and
performs such duties as the Secretary may prescribe. The General
Counsel is not normally involved in the day-to-day operation of the
military justice system, but is substantially involved in the
formulation of the Department's legal policy and its legislative
recommendations to Congress. Subject to the caveats on the independence
of USCAAF mentioned above in the context of the Secretary of Defense, I
would anticipate that my relationship with the General Counsel would be
one of respect, but would not be marked by frequent interaction. It
should be noted that the judges of USCAAF serve on the Statutory Code
Committee established by Article 146 of the UCMJ, which is charged with
the responsibility of making an annual survey of the operation of the
UCMJ. As members, the judges may have interaction with the General
Counsel in making recommendations for statutory amendments to the UCMJ.
Question. The Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps.
Answer. Under Article 6 of the UCMJ, the Judge Advocates General
are statutorily responsible for the administration of military justice
within their respective Armed Forces. The relationships of the judges
of USCAAF to the Judge Advocates General must therefore, while
remaining mutually respectful, always maintain the distance essential
to the appearance, as well as the actuality, of judicial neutrality and
independence.
legal issues
Question. What do you anticipate would be the most significant
legal issues you will face if confirmed as a judge of the USCAAF?
Answer. The very significant growth in sex offenses, particularly
those involving children and child pornography, continues unabated.
USCAAF continues to decide cases involving the Child Pornography
Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2252A, e.g., United States v. Cendejas, 62
M.J. 334 (2006), and may be expected to continue to do so.
The USCAAF recently entered the field of privacy rights in e-mail
sent and maintained on a government server, see United States v. Long,
64 M.J. 57 (2006). This area will no doubt be productive of litigation
for years to come.
Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel continue to occupy
a substantial amount of the USCAAF's attention. See, e.g., United
States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (2006); United States v. Osheskie, 63
M.J. 432 (2006); United States v. Edmond, 63 M.J. 343 (2006).
The question of whether Article 125 of the UCMJ (the sodomy
article) is constitutional in light of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
(2003), in the absence of facts such as those present in United States
v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198, and its progeny, remains unresolved.
Question. What challenges, if any, do you anticipate that the Armed
Services and the USCAAF will encounter in implementing the changes to
article 120 of the UCMJ regarding the offense of rape by October 1,
2007, as provided in section 552 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006?
Answer. The revised article 120 was based upon a draft uniform
State code which has been enacted, as I understand, by several States
in whole or in part. Thus there should exist some body of precedent
upon which the USCAAF may draw, as it sees fit, in construing article
120. Since virtually all the substantive offenses under the new article
could have been charged under the UCMJ prior to its enactment, I do not
anticipate any major changes in substantive offenses.
The revised article 120 may present problems in implementation for
the Armed Forces, at least initially. Congress in the UCMJ has
traditionally enacted rather broad statutory language and then left the
details of implementation to the Executive in the Manual for Courts-
Martial. It has been thought that this approach preserved the ability
of the Executive to take into account the exigencies of military
operations. The highly-detailed nature of the revised article will
likely reduce the area for Executive discretion in the Manual, thus
prompting a different approach to its implementation.
jurisdiction of the uscaaf
Question. In your view, has the USCAAF fulfilled the expectations
of Congress when the Court was established in 1951?
Answer. Yes.
Question. In your view, are there any legislative changes needed
regarding the role and responsibilities or the jurisdiction of the
USCAAF?
Answer. No. Section 552 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 amended article 2 of the UCMJ to
clarify the applicability of court-martial jurisdiction to persons
accompanying the Armed Forces in the field in time of declared war or a
contingency operation. Section 4(a) of the Military Commissions Act of
2006 amended that article to clarify the applicability of such
jurisdiction to lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war. I
do not believe that further modification of court-martial jurisdiction
in general, or USCAAF's jurisdiction in particular, is necessary at the
present time.
decisions of the uscaaf
Question. Please describe the three decisions of the USCAAF since
2001 which you believe to have been the most significant.
Answer. United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (2001) (status of legality
of an order as question of law; application of political question
doctrine to courts-martial).
United States v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (2004) (constitutionality of
article 125 of the UCMJ as applied, in light of Lawrence v. Texas, 539
U.S. 558 (2003)).
United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (2006) (due process
implications of excessive delays in post-trial review; applicability of
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) to courts-martial).
Question. What is your view of the role of stare decisis in terms
of prior decisions of the USCAAF?
Answer. Consistency in decisionmaking and respect for precedent are
essential to any appellate court. Indeed, the need for stability in
doctrine over time was the principal reason that this committee cited
for the expansion of USCAAF from three judges to five in 1989. While
USCAAF must retain the flexibility to meet changed circumstances, the
doctrine of stare decisis should normally be followed. In the rare case
when an applicable precedent is overruled, the USCAAF owes to the lower
courts and to practitioners in the military justice system a clear
explanation of its rationale for doing so.
Question. In view of article 36 of the UCMJ, what is your view as
to the hierarchy of sources of law that must be applied by the USCAAF
in determining appropriate rules of evidence and procedure in courts-
martial?
Answer. As in all judicial decisionmaking in the United States, the
Constitution comes first. Next is Federal statutes, primarily the UCMJ
but also other Federal laws that may be applicable in a particular case
(for example, the statutes concerning child pornography, which have
been construed by USCAAF on a number of occasions). Then come the rules
and procedures set out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which is an
executive order. In the military justice system, the Manual is
particularly important, since Congress in the UCMJ has usually chosen
to employ broad statutory language and left implementation up to the
President. The rules of evidence and much of the procedure of courts-
martial are to be found in the Manual. Next would be DOD and Service
regulations.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate standard for
determining when the USCAAF should apply a rule that is different from
the rule generally applied in the trial of criminal cases in the
Federal district courts?
Answer. Article 36 of the UCMJ provides that the President may
prescribe rules which, so as he considers practicable, shall apply the
principles of law and rules of evidence applicable in the U.S. district
courts, but which may not be contrary to or inconsistent with the UCMJ.
Thus, the rule prescribed by the President in the Manual for Courts-
Martial will normally take precedence, whether or not it is the same as
that applied in the district courts. If the Manual is silent on a
particular question, then recourse should be had to the rule applicable
in the district courts, if one exists and it is not contrary to the
UCMJ. If a Manual rule itself contravenes the Constitution or the UCMJ,
then the rule applicable in the district courts (if it differs from the
Manual rule and is not subject to the same infirmities) should be
applied.
military justice system
Question. In your view, what are the major strengths and weaknesses
of the military justice system?
Answer.
Strengths:
Free, trained, defense counsel are provided to the accused at
both the trial and appellate levels.
Article 31 of the UCMJ affords the accused greater protection
against self-incrimination than most civilian criminal justice
systems.
An elaborate system of appellate review is provided, both
within each Service and by USCAAF, with certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
The independence of defense counsel and trial and appellate
judges against command influence is carefully secured by law,
regulation, and judicial oversight.
Sufficient resources are available to ensure that each case
receives proper attention, without the pressure to plea-bargain
that is common in civilian courts.
Weaknesses:
The public does not have a good understanding of the workings
of the system, and sometimes perceives it to afford fewer
rights than it does, or to be an instrument of command
influence.
Occasional incidents of actual (or attempted) command
influence sully the reputation of the system.
The role of the commander as convening authority continues to
be controversial, since it combines judicial and disciplinary
functions in ways that are foreign to civilian criminal justice
systems.
Question. What is your view of the relationship between the rights
of Service personnel and the disciplinary role of commanders?
Answer. Congress, in the UCMJ, provided a subtle and largely
successful balancing of the two. On the one hand, public and
professional reaction to the operation of military justice during World
War II necessitated the construction of a uniform system that would
afford the accused substantially more rights, and secure them more
firmly, than the old Army and Navy systems. On the other hand, Congress
also recognized that the imperatives of war require that the Armed
Forces be different from civilian society. Commanders must have the
authority to enforce good order and discipline, both to maintain morale
and to ensure readiness for combat. Thus, the UCMJ retained the
commander's role as the convening authority with respect to referring
charges, selecting court members, and post-trial review, while
providing statutory protection against command influence and ultimate
review of serious cases by a civilian court insulated from command. The
fact that the UCMJ has had only two major overhauls since its enactment
in 1950, and is being used successfully in Armed Forces and in
situations far removed from those of that time, illustrates the success
of Congress in balancing these equities.
Question. Do you think that changes to the military justice system
are called for in light of the experiences of the armed services in
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom?
Answer. My perception is that the system has adapted successfully
to the exigencies of the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The
committee should carefully consider any proposals for changes suggested
by the Judge Advocates General in light of these experiences, if such
suggestions are made.
command influence
Question. The problem of command influence, including instances
involving judge advocates as well as commanders, is a constant threat
to the military justice system.
What is your view as to the role of the USCAAF in addressing this
problem?
Answer. The USCAAF stated in United States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 388
(C.M.A. 1986) that ``command influence is the mortal enemy of military
justice.'' Indeed, the problem of command influence under the pre-UCMJ
systems was one of the principal reasons for the establishment of an
independent civilian court in the UCMJ. Accordingly, USCAAF has a
continuing responsibility carefully to supervise the military justice
system and to take action whenever unlawful command influence threatens
the rights of individuals and the integrity of the system. My reading
of recent cases strongly supports the conclusion that the USCAAF takes
allegations of such influence very seriously.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
convening authorities and accountability
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Stucky, unlawful command influence by
commanders has rightly been called the ``mortal enemy of military
justice.'' There can be situations, however, in which commanders in
their role as convening authorities decide not to take court-martial
action when, arguably, it is appropriate to do so. Under these
circumstances, the requirements of good order and discipline may not be
met. Do you think that it could be helpful to have an independent
authority in the military justice system whose role it could be to
formally review prosecutorial decisions by convening authorities?
Mr. Stucky. The establishment of such an authority would represent
a major departure for the military justice system, which has always
relied on the discretion of the convening authority to make these
decisions. While the convening authority's decisions on these matters
are normally unreviewable, it should be pointed out that a superior
authority may direct that charges, whether or not referred for trial,
be forwarded to that authority for further consideration, including
referral, if deemed appropriate. (R.C.M. 601(f)). Given that the role
of the convening authority is the most frequently criticized feature of
the system, any measure of this sort should, in my opinion, be part of
a more general review by Congress of the role of the convening
authority in the system.
personal experiences
2. Senator Warner. Mr. Stucky, you served on Active-Duty as a judge
advocate performing military justice duties. What were your most
memorable experiences and challenges while serving as a judge advocate
performing military justice duties?
Mr. Stucky. My most memorable experience as a judge advocate
performing military justice duties, narrowly defined, was my service as
a Reserve appellate military judge on the Air Force Court of Criminal
Appeals. It was in this capacity that I first learned the art and craft
of appellate judging, and realized how well my abilities and
temperament fit into service on an appellate court. More broadly, my
most memorable experience and challenge was my service as a young judge
advocate at U-Tapao Airfield, Thailand. My principal duty there was
foreign criminal jurisdiction--handling the cases of servicemembers who
were accused of violations of local law and tried in the local courts.
To deal with a completely different legal system, based upon different
assumptions and using different procedures, and protect the rights of
our personnel, called upon all the abilities and knowledge that I
possessed.
3. Senator Warner. Mr. Stucky, what did you consider to be the
greatest strengths and weaknesses of the military justice system as you
observed it?
Mr. Stucky. The two greatest strengths of the system are: (1) the
availability of free, trained, defense counsel to the accused at all
levels of the system; and (2) the availability of sufficient resources
to preclude the pressure to plea-bargain cases simply to clear dockets,
as often occurs in civilian criminal justice systems.
The greatest weakness is the perception that the role of convening
authority, especially in appointing members to courts-martial, combines
prosecutorial and judicial functions in an undesirable way.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
misconceptions about military justice
4. Senator Thune. Mr. Stucky, one of the biggest misconceptions
about the military justice system is that it affords fewer protections
to criminal defendants than the civilian justice system. As you note in
your prepared answers to the committee's advance policy questions, the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) actually affords criminal
defendants greater protection against self-incrimination than most
civilian criminal justice systems. Could you explain for the record the
rationale behind giving our soldiers who are criminal defendants
greater protections against self-incrimination within the military
justice system than exist in the civilian system?
Mr. Stucky. The system affords the protections it does at least in
part because interrogations in the Armed Forces are frequently
conducted by persons who are not only acting as interrogators, but who
are also the military superiors of the accused, clothed with the power
to issue orders that have the sanction of law. This situation may be
seen as inherently coercive, and these protections are designed to
counteract that coercion.
5. Senator Thune. Mr. Stucky, does it represent an effort to
counteract the risk of any unlawful exercise of command influence?
Mr. Stucky. Yes, at least in part.
6. Senator Thune. Mr. Stucky, what, in your estimation, contributes
to the misconception of the military justice system extending fewer
rights to a criminal defendant?
Mr. Stucky. A number of factors may contribute to this
misconception, including uninformed or inaccurate stories in the media
and the fact that fewer American families have any direct experience
with military service, let alone experience with the military justice
system.
rise in sex offenses
7. Senator Thune. Mr. Stucky, in your answers to the committee's
advance policy questions, you note that there has been significant
growth in sex offenses, particularly those involving children and child
pornography. While this is probably also true in the civilian sector, I
wonder if you could elaborate on the data regarding sex offenses within
the military. Could you give the committee a broader picture of the
problems of sex offenses within our armed services?
Mr. Stucky. While the statistics on courts-martial for such
offenses present a mixed picture, the subject of sex offenses in the
Armed Forces has certainly attracted more public attention in recent
years. Widely publicized allegations of such misconduct at the Air
Force Academy, for one, prompted Congress to include in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 a requirement that the
Secretary of Defense report to the Armed Services Committees with
recommendations for legislative changes in the UCMJ provisions dealing
with such offenses. The Secretary did so, and in the Fiscal Year 2006
Act Congress enacted a broad rewrite of Article 120 of the Code, which
is now a comprehensive sexual offense statute. Because Congress delayed
the effective date of these amendments to October 1, 2007, in order to
give the President time to amend the Manual for Courts-Martial, there
is not yet any experience with the revised statute.
8. Senator Thune. Mr. Stucky, are the number of courts-martial for
sex offenses increasing from year to year?
Mr. Stucky. Statistics from the Services present a mixed picture.
Courts-martial for such offenses in the Army were virtually the same
(between 120 and 130 annually) from 2001 to 2003, but them rose by over
20 percent, to 162, in 2004, and rose again to 183 in 2005. In the Air
Force, courts-martial for such offenses rose from 96 in 2003 to 129 in
2004, but then fell to 115 in 2005 and to approximately 103
(annualized) in 2006. Sex offense courts-martial in the Air Force have
represented 10-11 percent of total courts-martial for the past 4 years,
except in 2004 when they were 12.6 percent of the total.
______
[The nomination reference of Scott W. Stucky follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
November 15, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Scott Wallace Stucky, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for the term of 15 years
to expire on the date prescribed by law, vice Susan J. Crawford, term
expired.
______
[The biographical sketch of Scott W. Stucky, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Scott W. Stucky
Scott W. Stucky is the General Counsel of the Senate Committee on
Armed Services. He has served as General Counsel from 1996 to the
present, except for the period of Democratic control of the Senate in
2001-2003. In his present capacity, he is responsible for all legal
matters for the committee majority. From 1987 to 1996, he was the Chief
of the Legislative Branch, General Law Division, Office of The Judge
Advocate General, Headquarters U.S. Air Force. He was the principal
legislative counsel and statutory analyst for the Department of the Air
Force.
Mr. Stucky was born on 11 January 1948 in Hutchinson, Kansas. He
attended Wichita State University, where he was president of the
Student Government Association and of Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity, and
was a member of Phi Alpha Theta, Omicron Delta Kappa, and Phi Kappa
Phi. He was awarded an Air Force ROTC scholarship, and was graduated in
1970 with a B.A. in history, summa cum laude, and a commission as a
Reserve second lieutenant, USAF. He then entered Harvard Law School,
where he was president of the Republican Club and vice-president of his
moot court club. He received his J.D. from Harvard in 1973. Mr. Stucky
also holds the M.A. in history from Trinity University in San Antonio
(1980), and the LL.M. in international law, with highest honors, from
George Washington University (1983). He is a 1988 graduate of the
Federal Executive Institute, a 1990 graduate of the Harvard Program for
Senior Officials in National Security, and a 1993 graduate of the
National War College.
Mr. Stucky served on Active-Duty as an Air Force judge advocate
from 1973 to 1978, including a year in Southeast Asia. His duties
included international law, military justice, administrative law,
claims, government contracts, medical affairs, and general civil legal
assistance. Upon leaving Active-Duty, he joined the firm of Ginsburg,
Feldman, and Bress in Washington, DC, practicing in the field of
transportation regulation. In 1982, he joined the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission as Chief of the Docketing and Service Branch,
where he remained until joining the Air Force's Legislative Division in
1983.
He is a retired colonel in the Air Force Reserve; his last
attachment was as the Senior Individual Mobilization Augmentee to the
Chief Judge of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. He is a
graduate of the Air War College and the Air Command and Staff College.
His military decorations include the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious
Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Commendation
Medal with one oak leaf cluster, the Air Force Achievement Medal, the
National Defense Service Medal, and the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with
silver hourglass.
Mr. Stucky is admitted to the Kansas and District of Columbia bars.
He is a past Commander in Chief of the Military Order of the Loyal
Legion of the United States (a national Civil War commemorative
society) and is member of the Federal Bar Association, the Judge
Advocates Association, the Reserve Officers Association, and the Army
and Navy Club.
Mr. Stucky is married to the former Jean Seibert of Oxon Hill,
Maryland, who is Contractor Labor Counsel for the U.S. Department of
Energy. The Stuckys have two children, Mary-Clare, 14, and Joseph, 11.
They live 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 Scott W.
Stucky 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.)
Scott W. Stucky.
2. Position to which nominated:
Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
3. Date of nomination:
15 November 2006.
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:
11 January 1948; Hutchinson, Kansas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to the former Jean Elsie Seibert on 18 August 1973.
7. Names and ages of children:
Mary-Clare Frances Seibert Stucky, 14; and Joseph Edward Wallace
Seibert Stucky, 11.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Pretty Prairie Rural High School, Pretty Prairie, KS (Diploma,
1966).
Wichita State University, Wichita, KS (B.A. in History, summa cum
laude, 1970).
Harvard Law School (J.D., 1973).
Trinity University, San Antonio, TX (M.A. in History, 1980).
George Washington University (LL.M. in International and
Comparative Law, with highest honors, 1983).
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
General Counsel, Senate Committee on Armed Services, 1996-2001 and
2003-present (Minority Counsel, 2001-2003).
Chief, Legislative Branch, General Law Division, Office of the
Judge Advocate General, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 1987-1996 (located
at the Pentagon).
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Deputy Chief (1984-1987) and Attorney-Advisor (1983-1984),
Legislative Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, HQ U.S. Air
Force (located at the Pentagon) Chief, Docketing and Service Branch,
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1982-1983)
(located at 1717 H Street, NW).
Captain, U.S. Air Force, Judge Advocate General's Department
(Active-Duty). Served at Brooks AFB, TX (1973-1975); U-Tapao Royal Thai
Naval Airfield, Thailand (1975-1976), and Hancock Field, NY (1976-
1978).
U.S. Air Force Reserve (judge advocate), 1982-2003. Served at the
Pentagon; Bolling AFB, DC; and at the former Lowry AFB, CO. Retired in
2003 as a colonel.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Director, Adoption Service Information Agency, Silver Spring, MD
(1998-2002 and 2004-present) (nonprofit adoption agency).
Director, Omicron Delta Kappa Society, Lexington, KY (2006 -
present) (nonprofit college leadership society).
Both of these positions are uncompensated.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Federal Bar Association
Judge Advocates Association
District of Columbia Bar
Air Force Retired Judge Advocates Association
Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the U.S.
Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War
Sons of the American Revolution
General Society, Sons of the Revolution
St. Andrew's Society of Washington, DC
Army and Navy Club of Washington, DC
Military Order of Foreign Wars of the U.S.
Military Order of the World Wars
Wichita State University Alumni Association
National War College Alumni Association
Reserve Officers Association
American Legion
Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
I gave $750 to the Republican National Committee early in 2002.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Air Force ROTC Scholarship and several other scholarships at
Wichita State.
OPM LEGIS Fellow for Senator John Warner, 1986-1987.
Phi Alpha Theta (history honorary society).
Phi Kappa Phi (scholastic honorary society).
Omicron Delta Kappa (leadership honorary society).
Phi Delta Phi (law honorary society).
Legion of Merit.
Meritorious Service Medal (3 awards).
Air Force Commendation Medal (2 awards).
Air Force Achievement Medal.
National Defense Service Medal (3 awards).
Armed Forces Reserve Medal with silver hourglass.
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.
NWC Alumni Association Writing Award, National War College, 1993.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``A Year in Thailand,'' 27 The Reporter (June 2000) at 31.
``Joint Operations in the American Civil War,'' in Essays on
Strategy (Volume XI) (National Defense University Press, 1994),
excerpted in Joint Force Quarterly 92 (Autumn/Winter 1994-1995).
``The Paquete Habana: A Case History in the Development of
International Law,'' 15 U. Baltimore L Rev. 1 (1985).
``Elkison v. Deliesseline: Race and the Constitution in South
Carolina, 1823,'' 14 N.C. Central L.J. 361 (1984).
Note, ``Federal Tort Claims Act Liability for False Arrest and
Imprisonment Under 10 U.S.C. 808,'' 20 A.F.L. Rev. 316 (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.
I have given a number of speeches, but I never write them out ahead
of time; rather, I speak from rather sketchy notes. Therefore, I have
nothing to provide to the committee.
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.
Scott Wallace Stucky.
This 21st day of November, 2006.
[The nomination of Scott W. Stucky was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on December 5, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on December 9, 2006.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Margaret A. Ryan by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. Subchapter XII of chapter 47 of title 10, U.S.C.,
establishes the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
(USCAAF) and provides for its organization and administrative
procedures.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of USCAAF
and its judges?
Answer. It is my understanding that the function of the USCAAF is
to provide civilian oversight of the military justice system through
independent judicial review of the intermediate military courts, in
accordance with its jurisdiction. The scope of the USCAAF's
jurisdiction is set forth in article 67 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), and includes mandatory review of all cases in which the
sentence, as affirmed by a Court of Criminal Appeals, extends to death;
cases reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals that a Service Judge
Advocate General orders sent to the USCAAF for review; and
discretionary review of cases reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals,
upon petition of the accused. The USCAAF also has jurisdiction to
consider petitions for extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act, 28
U.S.C. 1651.
The duty of the USCAAF's judges is to ensure independent civilian
oversight of the military courts through appellate review of the
decisions of the criminal courts of appeal, and to provide guidance to
the military trial courts and criminal courts of appeal through the
opinions of the USCAAF.
The judges of the USCAAF have another statutory duty, which is
advisory rather than judicial in nature. The judges of the USCAAF are
part of the Code Committee, prescribed by article 136 of the UCMJ. The
Code Committee is tasked with providing an annual report to this
committee and to the Secretary of Defense, among others. The report
includes information on the number and status of pending cases and. any
recommendations relating to the uniformity of policies as to sentences
or proposed amendments to the UCMJ.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. My background and experience includes service in the U.S.
Marine Corps as a communications officer, a company and platoon
commander, a judge advocate, and the Aide de Camp to the 31st
Commandant of the Marine Corps (General Charles G. Krulak); service as
a law clerk to two Federal appellate judges (the Honorable Clarence
Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,
and the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit); and representation of private sector
clients in a variety of litigation forums throughout the United States,
currently as a Partner in the litigation and appellate practices at the
law firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP. At all times, I have endeavored
to perform these services and duties to the highest standards of
excellence and with the civility, fairness, and integrity that are the
hallmarks of the judicial temperament that I believe a member of the
USCAAF should possess.
Due to the dual interests that underlie the UCMJ--namely, the
protection of the rights of service personnel and the disciplinary role
of commanders--I believe that a familiarity with the military and the
military justice system is also ideal, keeping in mind that Article 142
of the UCMJ specifically provides that each judge of the USCAAF is to
be appointed from civilian life by the President, with the advice and
consent of the Senate. Through my military service, I became familiar
with the military justice system both as a client, from my time as a
commander, and as an advocate, from my duties as a judge advocate.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of a judge on the USCAAF?
Answer. Any position, particularly one as important as a judge on
the USCAAF, requires ongoing efforts to improve one's own abilities. If
confirmed, I would review and stay abreast of amendments to the UCMJ,
the Rules for Courts-Martial, and the Military Rules of Evidence. I
would also continue to read cases rendered by the USCAAF and relevant
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. If confirmed,
communicating with judges on the USCAAF and other courts, reviewing
analogous cases by other Federal appellate courts, and reviewing
scholarly articles on the military justice system would be key ways to
continue to enhance my perspective as a judge.
relationships
Question. What are the respective roles of each of the following
with respect to the military justice system and, if confirmed, what
would your relationship be with:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. As set forth in article 141 of the UCMJ, the USCAAF falls
under the Department of Defense for administrative purposes only and is
wholly independent of the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of
Defense is responsible for the formulation of policy related to all
matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense. In part at
least, that responsibility for military justice policy is exercised
through the Joint Services Committee. The Joint Services Committee
reviews the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) and the UCMJ annually to
ensure that they fulfill their function as a comprehensive body of
criminal law and procedure, and recommends legislation or other
changes.
The Secretary of Defense is directly involved in the military
justice system in other ways. For example, he is authorized to be a
convening authority for a general or special courts-martial and also
has the ability to promulgate orders and regulations, violations of
which may be actionable under the UCMJ. If confirmed, I would perform
my duties independently, and with the expectation that I would not have
any direct relationship with the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Chief Judge of the USCAAF.
Answer. The Chief Judge of the USCAAF is senior in commission among
the judges of the court who have not previously served as the chief
judge, and serves in that position for a term of 5 years. The Chief
Judge has precedence and presides at any session he attends, and it is
my understanding that he oversees the administrative functioning of the
USCAAF. If confirmed, my relationship with the Chief Judge would be
independent on any issue requiring or related to a vote on a petition,
argued case, or writ, and my expectation is that the relationship would
be collegial and professional.
Question. Judges of the USCAAF.
Answer. If confirmed, my relationships with the other judges on the
Court would be independent on any issue requiring or related to a vote
on a petition, argued case, or writ, and my expectation is that the
relationships would be collegial and professional.
Question. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
Answer. As set forth in article 141 of the UCMJ, the USCAAF falls
under the Department of Defense for administrative purposes only and is
wholly independent of the Department of Defense. The General Counsel of
the Department of Defense is the chief legal officer of the Department
of Defense. He performs such functions and delegated duties with
respect to the military justice system as the Secretary of Defense may
prescribe. As one example of his delegated duties, the General Counsel
is responsible for coordinating any recommended legislation or changes
recommended by the Joint Services Committee. If confirmed, my
relationship with the General Counsel of the Department of Defense
would be independent, and my expectation is that the relationship would
be collegial and professional.
Question. The Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps.
Answer. The USCAAF is independent of both the Department of Defense
and the Services. Each Service Chief has a Judge Advocate General, who
both provides advice on military justice matters to the Service Chief
and oversees the judge advocates throughout that Service. In addition,
each Judge Advocate General has specific duties under the UCMJ and
Rules for Courts-Martial with respect to the military justice system.
For example, each Judge Advocate General is responsible for: (1)
ensuring field visits, either personally or through senior
representatives, to supervise the administration of military justice;
(2) the professional supervision of military judges and counsel; and
(3) review of and action on certain records of trial. A Judge Advocate
General may also certify questions to the USCAAF after a decision of a
Criminal Court of Appeals. Moreover, each of the listed Judge Advocate
Generals are members of both the Joint Services Committee and the Code
Committee.
If confirmed, my relationship with each Judge Advocate General
would be independent, and my expectation is that the relationships
would be collegial and professional.
legal issues
Question. What do you anticipate would be the most significant
legal issues you will face if confirmed as a judge of the USCAAF?
Answer. It is of great importance that the USCAAF continues to
serve the function for which it was created and remains vigilant
against unlawful command influence. Every legal issue faced by USCAAF
is significant, both as to the individual appellant in a given case,
and because it gives guidance to the trial and criminal courts of
appeal. The specific legal issues USCAAF will face in the future will
be determined by decisions of the criminal courts of appeal, the issues
presented to USCAAF, and the petitions granted.
Question. What challenges, if any, do you anticipate that the armed
services and the USCAAF will encounter in implementing the changes to
article 120 of the UCMJ regarding the offense of rape by October 1,
2007, as provided in section 552 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006?
Answer. My understanding is that article 120 of the UCMJ was
amended in regard to the definition of the offense of rape, among other
changes. As with any amendment to a criminal statute, the challenges of
implementing article 120 will be revealed through its application and
interpretation in specific cases. I expect that some of those issues
may ultimately reach the USCAAF.
jurisdiction of the uscaaf
Question. In your view, has the USCAAF fulfilled the expectations
of Congress when the Court was established in 1951?
Answer. I believe that the USCAAF has fulfilled the expectation of
Congress that it would provide independent judicial review of the
military courts and civilian oversight of the military justice system.
Question. In your view, are there any legislative changes needed
regarding the role and responsibilities or the jurisdiction of the
USCAAF?
Answer. None that I am aware of at this time.
decisions of the uscaaf
Question. Please describe the three decisions of the USCAAF since
2001 which you believe to have been the most significant.
Answer.
United States v. Wiesen, 56 M.J. 172 (C.A.A.F. 2001)--
analyzing challenge for cause based on implied bias of a member
and recognizing that implied bias undermines public confidence
in the military justice system.
Diaz v. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 59 M.J. 34
(C.A.A.F. 2003) emphasizing that the petitioner's right to a
full and fair review of findings and sentence under article 66
embodies the concomitant right to have that review conducted in
a timely fashion, and that these rights must be recognized,
enforced, and protected by the government, by the appellate
attorneys, and by the USCAAF.
United States v. Lewis, 63 M.J. 405 (C.A.A.F. 2006)--
reemphasizing that unlawful command influence is the mortal
enemy of military justice and that, where it is found to exist,
judicial authorities must take those steps necessary to
preserve both the actual and apparent fairness of criminal
proceedings.
Question. What is your view of the role of stare decisis in terms
of prior decisions of the USCAAF?
Answer. Stare decisis, or adherence to principles of law set forth
in prior decisions, is a fundamental judicial principle. Adherence to
precedent promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent
development of legal principles; fosters reliance on judicial
decisions; and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the
judicial process. Stare decisis is a well-recognized principle of
judicial decision-making, but an appellate court may re-evaluate
previous decisions if, for example, the precedent at issue has been
called into question by subsequent legal developments.
Question. In view of Article 36 of the UCMJ, what is your view as
to the hierarchy of sources of law that must be applied by the USCAAF
in determining appropriate rules of evidence and procedure in courts-
martial?
Answer. As a general matter, cases subject to the UCMJ, to which
Article 36 applies, have applied the rules of evidence and procedure
set forth in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which includes the Rules
for Courts-Martial, governing pretrial, trial, and post-trial
procedures, and the Military Rules of Evidence. The USCAAF should apply
these rules unless it concludes that they are inconsistent with the
Constitution of the United States or the UCMJ. The USCAAF is also
guided by its own precedent and bound by the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate standard for
determining when the USCAAF should apply a rule that is different from
the rule generally applied in the trial of criminal cases in the
Federal district courts?
Answer. Where the Rules for Courts-Martial and Military Rules of
Evidence are not contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution, the
UCMJ, or controlling precedent, they should be applied. If they are
silent on an issue, or set forth a rule contrary to or inconsistent
with the Constitution or the UCMJ, it is appropriate to look to
analogous rules applied in the Federal district courts. Military Rule
of Evidence 101 provides that where no rule governs an evidentiary
issue, the rule of evidence generally applicable in the trial of
criminal cases in the Federal district courts applies. Where both
sources are silent, the Military Rules of Evidence, much like the
Federal Rules of Evidence, applies the rule of evidence applicable at
common law.
military justice system
Question. In your view, what are the major strengths and weaknesses
of the military justice system?
Answer.
Major Strengths:
Greater protections against self-incrimination under Article
31.
Ability to participate in pre-trial proceedings in front of
an impartial investigating officer under article 32, including
the right of accused and defense counsel to be present, and the
right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
The right of every defendant to qualified defense counsel at
every phase of trial, post-trial, and appellate proceedings.
Major Weaknesses:
Actual or perceived instances of unlawful command influence.
Perception that commanders play too great a role in the
military justice system.
Potential for significant variances in the treatment of
similar offenses between different commands.
Question. What is your view of the relationship between the rights
of service personnel and the disciplinary role of commanders?
Answer. The military justice system is intended to protect both the
rights of service personnel and the disciplinary role of commanders, as
the preamble to the Manual for Courts-Martial recognizes. The UCMJ
seeks to ensure fairness to servicemembers, while ensuring that
commanders maintain the ability to ensure good order and discipline
necessary for national security. It is crucial to morale and public
confidence that the military justice system vigorously protect the
right of servicemembers, and both be fair and perceived to be fair. It
is also necessary for the good order and discipline of the military
that commanders are able to enforce standards of behavior not
applicable in civilian society.
Question. Do you think that changes to the military justice system
are called for in light of the experiences of the armed services in
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom?
Answer. The military justice system is intended to operate in a
decentralized fashion and to contain the flexibility necessary to
adjust to operations and deployments. I am not aware of any changes
that are needed in light of the experiences of the armed services in
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom based on the knowledge I
have at this time. However, the Services, the Joint Services Committee,
and the Code Committee are charged with annual review of the UCMJ and
the military justice system. I am confident that if changes are needed,
recommendations for change will be made to or by the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
command influence
Question. The problem of command influence, including instances
involving judge advocates as well as commanders, is a constant threat
to the military justice system.
What is your view as to the role of the USCAAF in addressing this
problem?
Answer. It has long been recognized that unlawful command influence
is the mortal enemy of military justice. Article 37 of the UCMJ
prohibits unlawful command influence; the USCAAF, comprised of civilian
judges, is a further bulwark against unlawful command influence. As
such, USCAAF has, and must continue: to be vigilant against the taint
of unlawful command influence at any stage of legal proceedings; to
ensure that allegations of unlawful command influence have been
properly litigated at trial and on appeal; and to ensure remedies
appropriate to the circumstances of the particular case.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
convening authorities and accountability
1. Senator Warner. Ms. Ryan, unlawful command influence by
commanders has rightly been called the ``mortal enemy of military
justice.'' There can be situations, however, in which commanders in
their role as convening authorities decide not to take court-martial
action when, arguably, it is appropriate to do so. Under these
circumstances, the requirements of good order and discipline may not be
met. Do you think that it could be helpful to have an independent
authority in the military justice system whose role it could be to
formally review prosecutorial decisions by convening authorities?
Ms. Ryan. As with any system of justice, within the military
justice system there are elements of discretion as to when individuals
will be charged and on what charges. As a practical matter, those
decisions are initially made by the servicemember's commander in his or
her role as convening authority. While the initial decision is the
commander's, it is my understanding that the men and women who serve as
commanders in the Armed Forces generally seek the counsel of Judge
Advocates on the appropriate disposition in any given case. The
appropriate disposition will likely depend on many factors, including
the admissible evidence available, the need for a defendant to testify
against others potentially more culpable, and the commander's view of
both the seriousness of the offense and the disposition necessary to
maintain good order and discipline within his or her command. The Rules
for Courts-Martial appear to provide a viable mechanism for the
situation described: A decision by a commander not to take court-
martial action ordinarily does not bar a different disposition by a
superior authority. See R.C.M. 401(c), 601(f). Based on all of these
factors, I do not currently have reason to believe that an independent
prosecutorial review authority is necessary. If that policy decision is
made, it will be both made and implemented by the legislative and
executive branches and require amendments to the UCMJ and the Rules for
Courts-Martial.
personal experiences
2. Senator Warner. Ms. Ryan, you served on Active-Duty as a judge
advocate performing military justice duties. What were your most
memorable experiences and challenges while serving as a judge advocate
performing military justice duties?
Ms. Ryan. I welcome the opportunity to comment on how much I
enjoyed my time as a Judge Advocate in the United States Marine Corps.
I met many wonderful attorneys while on Active-Duty. Each of us--trial
counsel and defense counsel--Ioved our work and was zealous in
representing our client, whether it was the United States or a
defendant. But there was a civility between lawyers on the opposite
sides of the case in the military. My most memorable experiences
revolve around the outstanding attorneys and support staff with whom I
had the opportunity to work while on Active-Duty and the opportunities
I had, as a brand new attorney, to work as a trial counsel representing
the United States on serious felony cases. The greatest challenges I
recall were two. One was that when I arrived on Okinawa, Japan, by
virtue of my seniority in rank, I became the Chief Trial Counsel,
although I had relatively little litigation experience. In contrast,
the Senior Defense Counsel was a seasoned court room veteran. The
learning curve was very steep, but I believe I met that challenge and
ably served my client. The second challenge that is most memorable to
me was the responsibility of working with victims of personal crimes
such as rape and child sexual abuse.
3. Senator Warner. Ms. Ryan, what did you consider to be the
greatest strengths and weaknesses of the military justice system as you
observed it?
Ms. Ryan. Based on my experience, I believe that the greatest
strengths of the military justice system were the fact that the overall
protections provided to defendants are greater than those provided in
the civilian world and my observation that commanders and judge
advocates understood the requirements of the UCMJ and Rules for Courts-
Martial and did their very best to comply. I did not personally observe
any weaknesses in the military justice system, although I am aware of
the potential for unlawful command influence, among other potential
weaknesses. Like any commander on the ground, there were times that I
recall being frustrated with the process when trial level cases or
administrative discharge boards did not seem to move quickly. However,
taking a larger view, I believe that such cases and boards in the
military justice system generally proceed along a timeline that
comports with the needs and concerns of the defendant, as required by
the UCMJ, Rules for Courts-Martial, and the U.S. Constitution.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
variances in treatment of cases
4. Senator Thune. Ms. Ryan, I note from one of your answers to the
committee's advance policy questions that you believe one of the
weaknesses of the military justice system is the ``potential for
significant variances in the treatment of similar offenses between the
different commands.'' Do significant variances in the treatment of
similar offenses currently exist in the system?
Ms. Ryan. I do believe the potential exists for a situation where
servicemembers with different convening authorities and/or from
different Services might all be involved in the same alleged incident
and there could be significant variances in the way the commands dealt
with the servicemembers. However, I am not aware of specific instances
where such significant variances in the treatment of similar offenses
from the same incident exist within the system.
5. Senator Thune. Ms. Ryan, is there a way to remedy these
potential variances through legislation, such as instituting uniform
guidelines for the treatment of similar offenses between the different
commands?
Ms. Ryan. As with any system of justice, within the military
justice system there are elements of discretion as to when individuals
will be charged and on what charges. As a practical matter, those
decisions are initially made by the servicemember's commander in his or
her role as convening authority. While the initial decision is the
commander's, it is my understanding that the men and women who serve as
commanders in the Armed Forces generally seek the counsel of Judge
Advocates on the appropriate disposition in any given case. The
appropriate disposition will likely depend on many factors, including
the admissible evidence available, the need for defendant to testify
against others potentially more culpable, the commander's view of the
seriousness of the offense and the disposition necessary to maintain
good order, and discipline within his or her command. I am not aware of
specific instances where such significant variances in the treatment of
similar offenses from the same incident exist within the system. If
such variances were to arise, any policy decision aimed at addressing
them will be both made and implemented by the legislative and executive
branches and require amendments to the UCMJ and the Rules for Courts-
Martial.
military appellate process
6. Senator Thune. Ms. Ryan, the military justice system has two
levels of intermediate review, which makes it distinct from the
civilian Federal justice system, which has one level of intermediate
review. Generally, a soldier convicted at a court-martial may appeal to
his Service branch's court of criminal appeals, such as the Army Court
of Criminal Appeals, and subsequently may also appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces. Do two levels of intermediate review
function as another way that the military justice system provides extra
protection of a criminal defendant's rights compared to the civilian
justice system? Or do two levels of intermediate review make the system
inefficient?
Ms. Ryan. The military justice system has many levels of review,
all of which, in my view, provide extra protection to criminal
defendants' rights compared to those accorded criminal defendants in
the civilian system. For example, in the military justice system the
convening authority, the Staff Judge Advocate, and in many cases the
Staff Judge Advocate General of the relevant Service, review the
findings and sentence, along with any clemency matters submitted by the
servicemember, before the case ever reaches the Service's court of
criminal appeals. As a result of these reviews, action can be, and in
some cases is, taken to disapprove the findings and/or disapprove or
mitigate the sentence. The two levels of appellate review ensure that:
(a) all eligible cases are reviewed by a military appellate court; and
(b) that discretionary review of any case is potentially available by a
civilian court, which oversees all the military appellate courts. I am
not aware that this extra protection creates any inefficiencies in the
system.
7. Senator Thune. Ms. Ryan, are there ways to improve upon the
current appellate process within the military's justice system?
Ms. Ryan. There are always ways in which any process can be
improved. But based on the information I have available to me at this
time, I am not aware of any specific way in which the current appellate
process within the military justice system should be improved. The
Services, the Joint Services Committee, and the Code Committee are
charged with annual review of the UCMJ and the military justice system.
I am confident that if changes to the appellate process are needed
recommendations for change will be made to or by the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
______
[The nomination reference of Margaret A. Ryan follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
November 15, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Margaret A. Ryan, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for the term of 15 years to
expire on the date prescribed by law, vice Herman F. Gierke, term
expired.
______
[The biographical sketch of Margaret A. Ryan, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Margaret A. Ryan
Margaret A. Ryan has been nominated by President Bush to be a Judge
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Ms. Ryan is currently a Partner in the litigation and appellate
practices of Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, which is located in Washington,
DC. Before joining Wiley Rein & Fielding, she was a litigation Partner
and Associate at the law firm of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott
LLP in Denver, Colorado, and an Associate in the litigation and
appellate practice at Cooper Carvin & Rosenthal LLP in Washington, DC.
Ms. Ryan served as a law clerk to the Honorable Clarence Thomas,
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and to the
Honorable J. Michael Luttig, while he served as a judge on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Ms. Ryan served on Active-Duty in the United States Marine Corps
before entering the private sector. As a Communications Officer, Ms.
Ryan served in units within the II & III Marine Expeditionary Forces as
a Staff Officer, Company Commander, Platoon Commander, and Operations
Officer. Ms. Ryan's tours included deployments to the Philippines,
during a coup attempt, and to Saudi Arabia during Operations Desert
Shield and Desert Storm.
Ms. Ryan attended law school under the Marine Corps Law Education
Program at the University of Notre Dame, where she was a member of the
Notre Dame Law Review, received the William T. Kirby Legal Writing
Award, and was the recipient of the Colonel William J. Hoynes Award for
Outstanding Scholarship for graduating first in the class. As a judge
advocate, Ms. Ryan served within the Military Justice System as a Trial
Counsel and Chief Trial Counsel in Okinawa, Japan, and Quantico,
Virginia. Ms. Ryan was then selected by the 31st Commandant of the
Marine Corps, General Charles C. Krulak, to serve as his Aide de Camp.
Ms. Ryan obtained her B.A. cum laude from Knox College in 1985 and
her J.D. summa cum laude from the University of Notre Dame Law School
in 1995. Ms. Ryan was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, Navy
Marine Corps Commendation Medal (Two Awards), and the Navy Marine Corps
Achievement Medal by the Marine Corps. She is admitted to practice in
Virginia, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, and before the
Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the Supreme Courts of Virginia and
Colorado. She resides with her husband, Michael J. Collins, and their
Soft Coated Wheaten Terriers, Fiona, Reagan, and Dagny, in Arlington,
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 Margaret A.
Ryan 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.)
Margaret Ann (``Meg'') Ryan.
2. Position to which nominated:
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces,
for the term of 15 years.
3. Date of nomination:
November 15, 2006.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
May 23, 1964; Chicago, Illinois.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Michael J. Collins.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Homewood-Flossmoor High School, 1978-1981, no degree.
Knox College, 1981-1985, B.A., cum laude, in Political Science.
University of Chicago, 1985-1986, no degree.
University of Notre Dame Law School, 1992-1995, J.D., summa cum
laude.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
8/04-present: Partner, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, 1776 K Street NW,
Washington, DC.
8/02-6/04: Partner, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, 1899
Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO.
7/01-7/02: Law Clerk to the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate
Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, One First Street, NE,
Washington, DC.
6/00-6/01: Law Clerk to the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, Circuit
Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 401
Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA.
7/99-6/00: Associate, Cooper Carvin & Rosenthal, 1500 K Street NW,
Washington, DC.
11/97-6/99: Aide de Camp to the 31st Commandant of the Marine
Corps, The Pentagon.
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.
Commissioned Officer on Active-Duty in the United States Marine
Corps from October 1987 through August 1999 as a Communications Officer
and Judge Advocate.
Enlisted Member of the United States Marine Corps Reserve from
October 1986 through October 1987.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Partner, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP.
Trustee, Daniel P. Ryan Trust.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, Greater Denver Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier Club.
Member, Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier Club of America.
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.
11/4/02......................... $250.............. Wayne Allard for
United States
Senate Committee
1/22/04......................... $2,000............ Bush/Cheney 04
10/13/05........................ $150.............. Jim DeMint
1/24/06......................... $200.............. Rely on Your
Beliefs Fund
6/23/06......................... $200.............. Spencer Bacchus
9/12/06......................... $200.............. Tom Davis
9/13/06......................... $200.............. Mike McGavick
9/22/06......................... $500.............. RNC
10/18/06........................ $200.............. Bob Corker
10/18/06........................ $400.............. Lincoln Chafee
10/30/06........................ $200.............. Richard Pombo.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Knox College (1985): Pi Sigma Alpha; B.A. degree cum laude.
USMC Communications Electronics Officers School (1988): Honor
Graduate; recipient of the Armed Forces Communications Electronics
Association Award.
University of Notre Dame Law School (1995): Notre Dame Law Review
Editorial Board; Colonel William J. Hoynes Award for outstanding
scholarship (for graduating first in the class); William T. Kirby Legal
Writing Award; J.D. degree summa cum laude.
Naval Justice School (1995): Graduated with Honors.
Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medal.
Navy Marine Corps Commendation Medal (two awards).
Meritorious Service Medal.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Margaret A. Ryan.
This 27th day of November, 2006.
[The nomination of Margaret A. Ryan was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on December 5, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on December 9, 2006.]
NOMINATION OF ROBERT M. GATES TO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe,
Roberts, Sessions, Collins, Talent, Graham, Dole, Cornyn,
Thune, Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Bill
Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Dayton, Bayh, and Clinton.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: William M. Caniano,
professional staff member; Regina A. Dubey, professional staff
member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff member; Gregory T.
Kiley, professional staff member; Sandra E. Luff, professional
staff member; Derek J. Maurer, professional staff member;
Elaine A. McCusker, professional staff member; David M.
Morriss, counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff
member; Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff member; Sean G.
Stackley, professional staff member; Diana G. Tabler,
professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Jonathan D. Clark, minority counsel;
Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional staff member; Madelyn R.
Creedon, minority counsel; Gabriella Elsen, professional staff
member; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff member; Richard W.
Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Creighton Greene,
professional staff member; Michael J. Kuiken, professional
staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel; Peter K.
Levine, minority counsel; Michael J. McCord, professional staff
member; William G.P. Monahan, minority counsel; Michael J.
Noblet, research assistant; and Arun A. Seraphin, professional
staff member.
Staff assistants present: David G. Collins, Micah H.
Harris, and Jill L. Simodejka.
Committee members' assistants present: Christopher J. Paul,
Richard H. Fontaine, Jr., and Paul C. Hutton IV, assistants to
Senator McCain; John A. Bonsell and Jeremy Shull, assistants to
Senator Inhofe; Libby Burgess, assistant to Senator Roberts;
Arch Galloway II, assistant to Senator Sessions; Mark Winter,
assistant to Senator Collins; D'Arcy Grisier, assistant to
Senator Ensign; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator
Chambliss; Matthew R. Rimkunas, assistant to Senator Graham;
Greg Gross and Arjun Mody, assistants to Senator Dole; Russell
J. Thomasson, assistant to Senator Cornyn; Bob Taylor and
Stuart C. Mallory, assistants to Senator Thune; Sharon L.
Waxman and Mieke Y. Eoyang, assistants 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; Richard Kessler and Darcie
Tokioka, assistants to Senator Akaka; William K. Sutey,
assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Eric Pierce, assistant to
Senator Ben Nelson; Luke Ballman, assistant to Senator Dayton;
Todd Rosenblum and Robert J. Ehrich, assistants to Senator
Bayh; and Andrew Shapiro, assistant to Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good morning, everyone.
Dr. Gates, I think I can safely say, on behalf of the
citizens of our country, we are very pleased that you have
accepted another challenge, another chapter in public service,
subject to the confirmation of the Senate. We are very pleased
to have you before us this morning.
Dr. Gates has a long and distinguished record of service to
the Nation. After establishing a firm, educational foundation
at the College of William and Mary in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, he served in the United States Air Force from 1966
through 1969. Dr. Gates then joined the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), where he spent over 26 years, a quarter of a
century, as an intelligence professional, including a period of
nearly 9 years assigned to the National Security Council.
Dr. Gates has served as Deputy Director of the CIA from
1986 to 1989, subsequently as Assistant to the President and
Deputy National Security Advisor from 1989 until 1991, then
nominated by President George Herbert Walker Bush to be the
15th Director of the CIA in June 1991.
In September and October 1991, the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, under the leadership of Senator David Boren,
who's joined us here this morning, and Senator Frank Murkowski,
conducted hearings on Dr. Gates' nomination. The committee took
the testimony of some 21 witnesses, compiled a record of over
2,500 pages of testimony, and favorably reported Dr. Gates'
nomination to the full Senate. On November 15, 1991, Dr. Gates
was confirmed by the Senate and served with distinction
throughout the remainder of former President Bush's term.
During the Senate floor debate on Dr. Gates' nomination on
November 4, 1991, I complimented Senator Boren on the very
thorough way in which you, as the chairman of that Intelligence
Committee--and I think I'm the only one remaining in the Senate
who was on the committee at that time--for what you did. I
stated on the floor that, ``Bob Gates is a very thoughtful man,
an honest man, an experienced official, a good analyst, a no-
nonsense manager, and a man with a vision of the future
direction of the role of U.S. intelligence.'' I repeat those
comments and stand by them this morning.
I would note that Dr. Gates' additional experience in
government and the private sector since his departure from CIA
in 1993, and his continuing academic and scholarly pursuits,
have enhanced his qualifications to perform the duties of
Secretary of Defense.
Dr. Gates, I'd like to address for a few moments the
challenges that you will face, if confirmed.
From 1969 to 1974, I had the privilege of serving in the
Department of Defense (DOD)--specifically, the Department of
the Navy--under three Secretaries of Defense. Subsequently,
I've had the opportunity to work as a member of this committee
with each of the nine men who have followed that period. Upon
returning from my eighth visit to Iraq with my good friend and
colleague, the ranking member, and the future chairman of this
committee--when we came back from Iraq, in October of this
year, I said the following at a press conference: ``But I
assure the country that, in 2 or 3 months, if this thing hasn't
come to fruition, and if this level of violence is not under
control, and if the government under Prime Minister Maliki is
not able to function, then it's the responsibility of our
Government, internally, to determine, is there a change of
course that we should take? I wouldn't take any option off the
table.''
I further observed that the situation was drifting
sideways. Regrettably, the levels of violence have continued to
escalate in Iraq, and the ability of Prime Minister Maliki and
his government to exercise, fully, the range of sovereignty
remain an enormous challenge.
Yesterday, I was present at an open forum when General
Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was asked the
question, ``are we winning the war?'' His response was as
follows, and I quote him, ``We're not winning, but we're not
losing.'' There seems to me a parallel between what I said when
I got back and that distinguished chairman's observation
yesterday.
I commend the President, who, for the past 2 months, has
directed the appropriate Cabinet officers to perform a complete
review of all issues relating to Iraq and Afghanistan, and our
future policies, and asked his able executive branch to apply
their best judgment in determining the way ahead, specifically
in Iraq. Further, he's met with and indicated that he looks
forward to receiving the Baker-Hamilton Report, which we, here
in Congress, will receive tomorrow. This committee has invited
the members of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) to a hearing at 9:30
on Thursday. As yet, I don't think--Senator Levin, they haven't
replied to our letter. The ISG, of which you were a member,
will formally present its findings and recommendations. I
commend the members of that group for their public service. I
think it will be a very important contribution to this critical
debate at this critical time in our history.
Additionally, General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
has his ongoing review. He does that pursuant to his statutory
authority, exploring all options. That is a continuing advisory
role that he provides for the President and yourself, assuming
you're confirmed as Secretary of Defense, and to Congress.
Most importantly, however, the American people expressed
their judgment on November 7 that change is needed. The
President has responded and stated that he desires to obtain
``fresh eyes'' on the situation in Iraq. Your nomination is
confirmation of the President's desire to that approach.
Our committee will continue to look at every option as I
conclude my chairmanship and the distinguished Senator from
Michigan assumes his.
After the President has had the opportunity to review these
very important reports, I respectfully--and I repeat,
respectfully--suggest to the administration that he privately
consult with the bipartisan leadership of the new Congress,
members who have responded to the mandate of the people, before
making his final decisions. It is my hope that the executive
and legislative branches will formulate a bipartisan consensus
on the way forward. To me, this fulfills a moral obligation
that our Government--executive and legislative--has to the
brave men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States,
and their families, who have sacrificed very heavily in this
fight to preserve our freedom.
Dr. Gates, let me remind you of your own words from your
book, ``From the Shadows,'' about the study of those who serve
in the executive branch to keep Congress informed in a timely
and candid manner. I quote from that book, ``I sat in the
Situation Room in secret meetings for nearly 20 years, under
five Presidents. All I can say is that some awful crazy schemes
might well have been approved had everyone present not known,
and expected, hard questions, debate, and criticism from the
Hill.''
Second, from the same book, ``And when, on a few occasions,
Congress was kept in the dark and such schemes did proceed, it
was nearly always to the lasting regret of the Presidents
involved. Working with Congress was never easy for Presidents,
but then, under the Constitution, it was not supposed to be
easy. I saw too many in the White House forget that.''
I urge you, my friend--and we have been friends and
acquaintances for these many years--to pursue your
responsibilities in a manner consistent with these salient
observations as you undertake the duties of Secretary of
Defense, if confirmed. You have been nominated for one of the
most important positions in Government. You will be an
important part of the new review process in determining the
strategy and the direction this country, together with our
partners in the coalition, must pursue. I urge you not to
restrict your advice, your personal opinions, regarding the
current and future evaluations in these strategy discussions.
In short, you simply have to be fearless--I repeat,
fearless--in discharging your statutory obligations as ``the
principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to
DOD.'' Good luck.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming Dr.
Gates to the committee. Dr. Gates, we appreciate your
willingness to return to public life after more than a decade
in what is supposed to be a quieter academic area. Sitting next
to Senator Boren, who is also in that quiet academic area, I'm
not sure I can accurately describe it as being that quiet, but
we do welcome your willingness to return.
If confirmed as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates will
face the monumental challenge of picking up the pieces from
broken policies and mistaken priorities of the past few years.
First and foremost, this means addressing the ongoing crisis in
Iraq.
The situation in Iraq has been getting steadily worse, not
better. Before the invasion of Iraq, we failed to plan to
provide an adequate force for the occupation of the country or
to plan for the aftermath of major combat operations. After we
toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, we thoughtlessly disbanded the
Iraqi army and also disqualified tens of thousands of low-level
Ba'ath Party members from future government employment. These
actions contributed to the chaos and violence that followed and
to alienating substantial portions of the Iraqi population.
We have failed, so far, to secure the country and defeat
the insurgency. We have failed to disarm the militias and
create a viable Iraqi military or police force. We have failed
to rebuild the economic infrastructure of the country and
provide employment for the majority of Iraqis. The next
Secretary of Defense will have to deal with the consequences of
those failures.
Iraq is not the only challenge that you will face. We're
going to be faced by a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan; an
unpredictable nuclear power in North Korea; an Iran that seems
to be aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons and causing
problems throughout the region; an Army and Marine Corps in
need of tens of billions of dollars to replace and repair
equipment that has been damaged and destroyed in the course of
ongoing operations; the military's nondeployed ground forces
that have a declining level of readiness to meet their wartime
missions; weapons programs that, despite the expenditure of
more than $100 billion a year, are increasingly unaffordable; a
military that faces constant challenge in recruiting and
retaining the troops that it needs; military families suffering
from the increased strains of repeated deployments and a
sustained high operational tempo; and a Department whose image
has been tarnished by the mistreatment of detainees in Abu
Ghraib, in Guantanamo, and elsewhere.
Despite these problems, the next Secretary of Defense will
lead a military that is, by far, the most powerful in the
world. Our DOD not only has the most capable weapons systems
ever deployed, but we are blessed with an extraordinarily
talented and committed military and civilian workforce.
Unfortunately, the Department's effectiveness has been reduced
by a civilian senior leadership that has too often not welcomed
differing views, whether from our uniformed military leaders,
the Intelligence Community, the State Department, American
allies, or Members of Congress of both political parties.
The next Secretary will have to work hard to heal these
wounds and address the many problems facing the Department and
the country. Success will require more than total commitment;
it will require an individual who is creative, fair, and
openminded, and, above all, an individual who can listen to,
learn from, and work with others. It will also require an
individual who is willing to speak truth to power and encourage
others to do the same.
Among other things, that means ensuring that the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is able, on his own behalf and on
behalf of the other members of the Joint Chiefs and the
combatant commanders, to give unvarnished direct military
advice to the Commander in Chief. The next Secretary will not
only need to respect the Goldwater-Nichols law, which assures
that such advice will be given directly to the President and
the National Security Council, he will also need to respect
that advice himself.
It is no secret that I voted against Dr. Gates' nomination
to be Director of Central Intelligence in 1991. I did so
because I thought that he had been less than candid about the
role that he played in the Iran-Contra affair. As I have said
before, however, I, for one, intend to take a fresh and fair
look at Dr. Gates' record.
In that regard, I find many of Dr. Gates' responses to the
committee's prehearing policy questions to be reassuring. For
example, Dr. Gates stated that two lessons we should learn from
the war in Iraq are that war planning should be done with the
understanding that the post-major-combat phase of operations is
critical and that the Intelligence Community should not
exaggerate its capabilities or minimize the uncertainty that
plagues assessments.
In those prehearing responses, he also stated that there is
no purely military solution in Iraq. He stated that we should
not be afraid to engage in direct discussions with our
adversaries, as we did, ``in the worst days of the Cold War,''
when the United States maintained a dialogue with the Soviet
Union and China. He has reassured the committee that the DOD
policies and actions relative to detainees must comply not only
with the revised Army Field Manual on interrogations, but also
with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Last, but not
least, Dr. Gates has said that he will cooperate with committee
requests for information or documents, and that he will comply
with legislation requiring that known costs of ongoing
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan be funded through the normal
budget process rather than through emergency supplementals.
These are all reassuring statements that you have made to
the committee.
I look forward to the testimony of our nominee. Again, I
thank him for his willingness to leave a job that he loves to
undertake a heavy and a demanding responsibility. I also want
to thank Senators Dole and Boren, who are such deeply respected
members of this body and are such good friends of all of us,
and whose endorsement of you, Dr. Gates, has significance for
all of us.
Finally, this hearing has a special meaning for members of
this committee, because it may well be Senator Warner's last
hearing as chairman of this committee. Senator Warner has
always chaired this committee with unfailing fairness, dignity,
and civility, reflecting his passion for the security of this
Nation. His devotion to the well-being of our men and women in
uniform who have dedicated their lives to the service of our
country has been a hallmark of his chairmanship, as has the
bipartisan way in which he has worked with all of us and our
staffs. He has truly been one of the great chairmen of the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
I thank you.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, Senator Levin, for those kind
remarks. I thank each of my colleagues, whom I've had the
privilege to serve here these many years. Twenty-eight years
ago, we came here together, and I pass the gavel to you in but
a week or so. Good luck to you, my friend.
Senator Dole, you have been an absolute tower of strength
in the institution of the United States Senate. As you were the
majority leader at one time, you have just a bare notch of
seniority over our colleague, Senator Boren, so we'll let you
lead off.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT DOLE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF KANSAS
Senator Robert Dole. Mr. Chairman, I'm probably here by
accident, because the phone rang at home, and I picked it up,
and the person on the other end said, ``Senator Dole, would you
mind introducing me at the hearing?'' I said, ``yes.'' Then I
learned, later, they were calling for Elizabeth. [Laughter.]
Senator Robert Dole. So I appreciate the fact that she's on
the committee, but I appreciate this opportunity, and I'll be
very brief.
President John Adams once said, ``If we do not lay out
ourselves in the service of mankind, whom should we serve?''
Bob Gates truly understands this. Granted, I may be a little
biased, owing to his Kansas roots. It was Kansas where he first
learned the meaning of service, while growing up in Wichita.
His appreciation for the interests of others grew as a student
at William and Mary and throughout his years as a career
intelligence official and through his subsequent leadership of
our intelligence services, and, most recently, in his
stewardship at Texas A&M, one of our Nation's outstanding
universities. Through it all, Bob Gates has given of himself in
this great tradition to our Nation and our people.
Mr. Chairman, as we convene, our Nation's defense policy is
dominated by a single issue: the war in Iraq. Even those
critics of the war who want us to withdraw soon or cut our
forces substantially acknowledge that the stakes are high. I
believe we can agree with our President, who has said, ``This
is a massive and difficult undertaking. It is worth our effort,
it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The
failure of Iraq democracy would embolden terrorists around the
world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish
the hopes of millions in the region.''
At this critical hour, Mr. Chairman, you and your committee
have gathered for an exceedingly rare act, the confirmation of
a new Secretary of Defense in wartime. The last time this
happened was in 1968, when President Johnson nominated Clark
Clifford to replace Bob McNamara. Make no mistake about it,
history is being made here today.
Today, Bob Gates is poised to take the helm at the Defense
Department at a time of intense debate over the war. Some
contend that, with sufficient time and dedication, victory is
assured. Yet, there is no denying that, having overthrown
Saddam Hussein, we have not secured the peace, that Iraqi's
borders remain porous, that the interests and destabilizing
involvement of Iran and Syria have not been adequately
addressed, and that the current power vacuum creates risk of an
even larger scale sectarian conflict. At the same time, those
who have been calling for withdrawal or massive date-certain
drawdowns should acknowledge that these are tactical shifts,
not a radical overhaul of our policies, that the removal of
Saddam from power opened the door to democracy, and that to
realize these are goals worthy of sacrifice and that defeat is
not an option, but the quality of life in many parts of the
country is better than it was 4 years ago.
In the American experience, wars that enjoy equivocal
support from our people usually end with equivocal outcomes.
This is why our country must unite behind a strategy for a
successful military mission, a viable exit plan, and a
recognizable vision for Iraq's future. I agree with the
President that Bob Gates is the man to make this happen. He is
a person of uncommon resolve, intellect, and strength of
character. He has the force of will to exercise civilian
control over the military, but be sensitive to respect the
wisdom and counsel of our generals and admirals, and the men
and women who serve under them.
A famous Kansan, Dwight Eisenhower, once said of General
George C. Marshall that he typified all that we call on or that
we look for in what we call an American patriot. The same may
be said of Bob Gates. It is my honor to introduce him formally
to this committee, and urge you not only to confirm him as our
next Secretary of Defense, but also to give him your full
support in the difficult days and months ahead.
Thank you, and God bless America.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Dole. You've had a long
and distinguished career, beginning as a combat soldier and
platoon leader in the closing months of World War II. We have
the highest regard for your contributions here this morning.
Senator Boren, former chairman of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence at the time that this fine American
came before us, we're delighted to have you, and have you
return to the Senate.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID L. BOREN, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Boren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me the
privilege to join with my colleague Senator Bob Dole to present
Dr. Robert Gates, the President's nominee for Secretary of
Defense.
Mr. Chairman and members, I also have a statement with me
of former Senator Sam Nunn, the former distinguished chairman
of this committee, that he asked that I submit for the record.
It's a strong statement of endorsement of the nomination of Dr.
Gates.
Chairman Warner. Without objection, so admitted.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boren. Mr. Chairman and members, I sincerely
believe that, at this critical moment, Dr. Gates is the best
possible choice for this position. In my entire adult lifetime,
our country has never been faced with more dangerous
challenges. With only 6 percent of the world's population, we
face economic growth in other nations and regions which is
likely to bring them into economic parity with the United
States in a relative short time, and military parity, as well,
if they decide to use their resources for that purpose. We are
militarily spread thin in areas of the world where serious
threats exist, and there are no easy options for extricating
ourselves from our military involvement in Iraq.
At the end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold
War, we also faced threats that could have overwhelmed us. How
we responded then provides us with an excellent guide for the
present.
First, we brought together people of exceptional talent,
like Bob Gates, to serve us without regard to political party
affiliation.
Second, leaders like President Truman, a Democrat, and
Senator Vandenberg, a Republican, adopted a truly bipartisan
blueprint that provided us with a consistent policy for over 40
years, without regard to which party controlled the White House
or Congress.
Third, we did not bear all of the burdens of leadership by
ourselves. We formed strong alliances and partnerships with
other nations based upon mutual respect. We struck the right
balance between diplomacy, dialogue, and military strength. We
made sure that we were always strong enough to act alone, if we
had to do so, but we were wise enough to avoid that situation.
We must do exactly the same thing now. Partisan
polarization, if allowed to continue, will destroy our
economic, military, social, and moral influence in the world,
and it will ultimately destroy the fabric of our own country
itself.
During his 26 years of service at the CIA and at the
National Security Council, Bob Gates demonstrated his sincere
commitment to bipartisanship. He served as Deputy Director of
the CIA under Republican Presidents with Democratic majorities
in both Houses of Congress. During the 6 years that I chaired
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I watched him
effectively work to build a consensus on sensitive issues.
Democrats and Republicans had equal seats at the table. During
those 6 years, in no small part because of his bipartisan
spirit and his respect for the oversight and policymaking role
of Congress, our committee, as you remember, Mr. Chairman, had
only a tiny handful of rollcall votes, and not one of them was
even close. We simply worked with each other and with the
executive branch, often represented by Dr. Gates, until a
consensus was reached.
I came to respect Bob Gates as a realist who faced up to
the facts and adjusted to changing situations. He rejected
inflexible ideological positions and worked hard to fashion
practical solutions. We badly need those qualities right now.
Most recently, as a fellow university president, I have
watched with admiration his leadership in bringing faculty
members, students, and alumni together to increase the strength
and diversity of Texas A&M, where he serves as president. Bob
Gates knows how to lead large and complex organizations. He
will hit the ground running as Secretary of Defense at a moment
when we have no time to waste.
I am here today not only because I believe that Bob Gates
has exceptional ability, but also because I have confidence in
his personal integrity and in his sincere desire to serve our
country. It was my responsibility to chair the hearings which
resulted in his confirmation to serve as Director of the CIA,
which has been referenced. His nomination came to our committee
on June 24, 1991. Our scrutiny of this nominee was not
completed until October 18 of that year. All questions which
were raised, even those of doubtful credibility, were
vigorously pursued. Part of the final committee report reads as
followed: ``By any standard, the consideration of this
nomination was the most thorough and comprehensive of any
nomination ever received by the committee. Thousands of
documents were reviewed. Hundreds of witnesses were interviewed
by the committee staff. The nominee testified for 4 long days,
in open and closed sessions, responding to almost 900
questions, and written responses were submitted to an almost
additional 100 questions. In short, these thorough proceedings
confirmed the commitment of Bob Gates to faithful and honorable
public service.''
Today, we have an opportunity to embark upon a new
bipartisan path to protect our national security. The Senate
can do its part by quickly and overwhelmingly confirming this
talented nominee as Secretary of Defense. But confirmation
alone is not sufficient.
The President must also do his part by making sure that he
gives great weight to the bipartisan spirit and realistic
advice which I believe that he will receive from Dr. Robert
Gates.
There are those who say it is an impractical and romantic
idea that we can replace polarization with civility,
cooperation, and partnership. To the doubters, I answer that we
achieved it in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
with the help of Bob Gates, only 15 years ago. It is not only
an option we can achieve with hard work and determination, it
is imperative if the United States is to remain the world
leader. It is for that reason that it is an honor for me to
recommend to this committee the confirmation of Dr. Robert
Gates.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Boren.
We, here on this committee, are faced with the reality that
we have but a few days in this session. I think it's in the
interest of our Nation that we complete our work as a
committee, as a Senate, on the advice and consent role
entrusted to this institution under the Constitution. It is my
intention--and I have been in consultation with the
distinguished ranking member--that we will hold this hearing
throughout this day. As the afternoon approaches, I would hope
that the members of this committee would advise the two leaders
here of their own commitments and desires. But it is our
expectation that, before day's end, we can complete this
hearing. If not, we'll resume tomorrow. But I would urge that
we try and complete it today. We will also have an executive
session today, which is important, to examine the nominee in
the confines of classified material.
So, with that in mind, we thank both of our distinguished
colleagues for joining us this morning.
Dr. Gates, before we proceed to hear from you, I would ask
the indulgence of the committee.
[Recess for a brief business meeting.]
Chairman Warner. Now, Dr. Gates, we're pleased to have your
opening comments.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. GATES, TO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Dr. Gates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is an honor to come before you today for this
confirmation hearing. I'm also deeply honored by, and grateful
to, the President for his confidence and trust in nominating me
for Secretary of Defense.
I want to express my sincere thanks to both Chairman Warner
and incoming Chairman Levin for their speedy consideration of
this nomination. Both of you have been exceedingly gracious to
me during my courtesy calls.
I've long been impressed by the experience and collective
wisdom of this committee. I'm also all too aware that
Secretaries come and go, but the Senate Armed Services
Committee remains. If confirmed, I will seek your counsel, and
take it seriously.
I want to thank my good friends and former Senators, Bob
Dole and David Boren, for introducing me this morning, and for
their kind remarks. I'm also grateful to the former long-term
chairman of this committee, Senator Sam Nunn, for his
introductory words of support.
I would also like to note that I first came before the
Senate for confirmation more than 20 years ago, in April 1986.
On that occasion, and twice more, the chairman of this
committee, Senator Warner, introduced me, and I will always be
grateful for his kindness and courtesy.
Chairman Warner. I thank the nominee.
Dr. Gates. I would be remiss if I also did not thank my
wife of 40 years, Becky, and our two children, Eleanor and
Brad, for their infinite patience as I contemplate a return to
Washington. Becky asked to be excused today, to accompany the
Texas A&M women's basketball team to an away game in Seattle.
The DOD, in peacetime and in wartime, always faces multiple
challenges, many of which were identified in the questions the
committee asked me to answer. If I am confirmed by the Senate,
I will do my best to bring progress in addressing as many of
these challenges as possible.
At the same time, I am under no illusion why I am sitting
before you today: the war in Iraq. Addressing the challenges we
face in Iraq must, and will, be my highest priority, if
confirmed.
I welcome the many alternative strategies and tactics
proposed by Members of Congress and others. More are coming,
most notably from the ISG, of which I was a member until
November 8, led by former Congressman Lee Hamilton and former
Secretary of State James Baker. Other reviews are ongoing
within DOD and elsewhere in government. I am open to a wide
range of ideas and proposals. If confirmed, I plan, urgently,
to consult with our military leaders and our combat commanders
in the field, as well as with others in the executive branch
and in Congress. I would then sit down with the President and
members of the National Security Council to discuss the
situation in Iraq and offer my thoughts and recommendations.
I will give most serious consideration to the views of
those who lead our men and women in uniform. Of course, it is
the President who will decide what, if any, changes are made in
our approach.
While I am open to alternative ideas about our future
strategy and tactics in Iraq, I feel quite strongly about one
point. Developments in Iraq over the next year or two will, I
believe, shape the entire Middle East and greatly influence
global geopolitics for many years to come. Our course over the
next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi
people, and the next President of the United States, will face
a slowly, but steadily, improving situation in Iraq and in the
region or will face the very real risk, and possible reality,
of a regional conflagration. We need to work together to
develop a strategy that does not leave Iraq in chaos, and that
protects our long-term interests in, and hopes for, the region.
I did not seek this position or a return to government. I
am here because I love my country, and because the President of
the United States believes I can help in a difficult time. I
hope you will reach a similar conclusion.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most humbling part of
the position for which this committee is considering me is
knowing that my decisions will have life-and-death
consequences. Our country is at war. If confirmed, I will be
charged with leading the men and women who are fighting it. The
patriots who have volunteered to serve in our armed services
today have no equal in the world and are in the long tradition
of their forebears who have fought our country's wars for the
last 230 years. I offer this committee my solemn commitment to
keep the welfare of our forces uppermost in my mind.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my opening remarks.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Dr. Gates.
I'll now proceed to question you with regard to the
standard procedures this committee has with regard to all
nominations.
The committee asked Dr. Gates to answer a series of advance
policy questions. He's responded to those questions. Without
objection, I'll make the questions a part of the record.
Now, to the standard questions, if you'll respond to each
question, we'll proceed.
Have you adhered to all applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties, or undertaken
any actions, which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Dr. Gates. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff, if
confirmed, will have deadlines established for requested
communications, including questions for the record in hearings,
and meet those requests?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to the committees of Congress of the
United States?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or their briefings?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a
timely manner, when requested by a duly constituted committee
of Congress, or to consult with the committee regarding the
basis for any good-faith delay or denial in providing such
documents?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir, to the limits of my authority.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear that answer.
Chairman Warner. Fine. I'll repeat the question, and we'll
have the answer.
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?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir, to the extent of my authority.
Chairman Warner. Fine. Or, if you desire, consult with the
committee regarding any basis for any good-faith delay or
denial in providing such documents?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
We'll now have our 6-minute round of questions. I would
start off with the following:
The President, in the past 2 months, as the various studies
are being undertaken about an analysis of our future course of
action in Iraq, studies by, internally, the administration, the
Baker-Hamilton Group, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and others,
but, at a number of opportunities, he's made it very clear--and
I will read his quote, as follows. President Bush said, ``I
know there's a lot of speculation that these reports in
Washington mean that there's going to be some kind of graceful
exit out of Iraq. We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job
done as long as the government''--that's the Government of
Iraq--``wants us there.'' Added statements to the effect, we're
going to stay until the mission is completed.
Now, we have to assume that you've had a number of
consultations with the President to determine exactly what his
desires are with regard to the mission being completed, your
understanding of those desires, and your own approach, as best
you can know it at this time, without the benefit of having all
of the studies before you. But the question I have is, did you
understand fully what's in the mind of the President when he
said, ``We're going to stay in Iraq until the mission is
completed''?
Dr. Gates. Mr. Chairman, I have the sense that the
President's view of accomplishing the mission, at this point,
is an Iraq that can defend itself, can sustain itself, and can
govern itself. I also believe that he understands that there
needs to be a change in our approach in Iraq, that what we are
doing now is not working satisfactorily. When he asked me to
take this job, as he put it, he wanted someone with ``fresh
eyes'' to look at the situation and make recommendations.
In my view, all options are on the table, in terms of how
we address this problem in Iraq, in terms of how we can be more
successful and how we can, at some point, begin to draw down
our forces.
I guess the bottom line is that I believe that he wants me
to take a fresh look, and that all options are on the table.
Chairman Warner. At this juncture, in your working with the
President, you're comfortable that the two of you can perform
this arduous task, not just this phase of the war and such
change of strategy as we might take, but evolutions that could
occur in the months to come?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir, I am.
Chairman Warner. On the question of the command and control
of the U.S. forces in Iraq, and command and control of the
Iraqi forces: As you well know, Iraq is now a sovereign nation.
That sovereignty was given to Iraq by the sacrifices of the men
and women of the Armed Forces of our Nation and other nations
that fought courageously to enable them to have their
elections, establish their government, and begin to exercise
the reins of sovereignty. But an incident in October involving
orders from Prime Minister Maliki to abandon checkpoints around
Baghdad concerned me and, I think, many others. The issue is
command and control of the U.S. forces. Now, our forces have
taken risks--indeed, perhaps, in some instances, loss of life
and limb--in establishing the progress, thus far, that we've
made in Baghdad.
Several months ago, the military officers came before this
committee and said Baghdad is the battle that we must win.
We're going to put considerable emphasis on that battle. To
date, I think they would acknowledge the goals that they had
originally established in their minds, the timetable that they
originally thought of has not been met. But this was a very
interesting chapter of command and control, when our forces
took those checkpoints, presumably at the direction of our
commanders, and that direction presumably was in consultation,
in some measure, with the Iraqi Government. Then the Prime
Minister appeared to unilaterally say, ``Take those forces back
down out of those checkpoints.'' It related directly to Sadr
and his forces, and, indeed, that area referred to as ``Sadr
City.''
What is your understanding of how this command and control
is working today and how it will work in the future?
Dr. Gates. Mr. Chairman, I'm only aware of that incident by
virtue of what I've read in the newspaper. I'm not familiar
with the particulars. I think that would be a question that I
would want to address with General Casey early on to see if he
is content with the command and control arrangements, and what
changes he thinks need to be made, if any, in the arrangements
that we have with the Iraqis.
Clearly, as we ask the Iraqis to stand up, they are going
to want to stand up by themselves, increasingly. We want Iraq
to have a sovereign government. But, as long as American men
and women are putting their lives at risk, clearly the command
and control of those forces is very important, and I would take
it as an early priority to get an understanding with General
Casey about his concerns, if he has any, about those
arrangements.
Chairman Warner. That requires a very clear and precise
understanding, because the men and women of the United States
Armed Forces--and I think we can speak for the other coalition
forces--they have to be responsible to the respective heads of
their government.
Dr. Gates. Yes.
Chairman Warner. In our instance, the President of the
United States.
Let me turn to the question of the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI) and your relations, assuming you're
confirmed as Secretary of Defense. During the debate over the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 you
expressed concern about the proper balancing of authorities and
responsibilities among the major elements of the Intelligence
Community. Do you believe that the legislation enacted struck a
correct balance? What areas will you consider to strengthen the
working relationship between the DNI and the Director of CIA
and the Secretary of Defense?
Dr. Gates. Mr. Chairman, I think that the final legislation
addressed some of the concerns that I had with the
establishment of the DNI position. I would have to tell you, I
remain concerned that the law charges the DNI with the
execution of the National Foreign Intelligence Program, and
also with other things, such as ensuring that members of the
Intelligence Community obey the law. But the DNI cannot
personally hire or fire the heads of a single intelligence
agency in the United States Government. As somebody who's led
very large organizations, without having that authority, it
makes it very difficult to exercise your will, and especially
if you're trying to change cultures.
So, I would anticipate, if confirmed, working with the DNI
to see if there are ways in which we can work together to
ensure that he has the authority that he needs to fulfill his
responsibilities.
Chairman Warner. If there is a view that legislation is
required, will you promptly, in consultation with the
President, bring that legislation to Congress?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir. I think that we can probably solve the
problem without legislation, but, should legislation be needed,
I certainly would work with this committee and the intelligence
committees.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gates, do you believe that we are currently winning in
Iraq?
Dr. Gates. No, sir.
Senator Levin. Prime Minister Maliki said on November 27
that ``the crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the
cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the
Iraqi politicians.''
Do you believe that the end to violence in Iraq requires a
political settlement, and that we need to communicate a sense
of urgency to the Iraqis to pressure them to reach a settlement
that only their politicians can reach?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Levin. The chairman has asked you about a comment
of the President that, ``We are going to stay in Iraq as long
as the Iraqis ask us to be there.'' There was something else
added to that which the chairman asked you about, but I'm going
to ask you about that statement of the President, which he's
made twice in recent weeks, ``We are going to stay in Iraq as
long as the Iraqis ask us to be there.''
Doesn't such an open-ended commitment send a message to the
Iraqis that somehow or other it is our responsibility as to
whether or not they achieve a nation, rather than it is their
responsibility to reach a political settlement?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I haven't spoken with the President
about those remarks, so I'm going to have to interpret them
myself. It seems to me that the United States is going to have
to have some presence in Iraq for a long time. The Iraqi forces
clearly have no logistical capability of their own, they have
no airpower of their own. So, the United States clearly, even
if whatever changed approach or strategy we come up with and
the President implements, works, we are still going to have to
have some level of American support there for the Iraqi
military, and that could take quite some time. But it could be
with a dramatically smaller number of U.S. forces than are
there today. So, I would interpret the President's remarks in
this vein, that we are willing to continue to help the Iraqis,
as long as they want our help. I don't think that it implies
that we will be there at the level of force we have, or doing
the things that we are doing in a major combat way, for the
indefinite future.
Senator Levin. Secretary Rumsfeld, in a memo that was
recently published, outlined options that the President should
consider relative to Iraq. Some of the options were above the
line, as he put it, and some were below the line. The ones
above the line, he basically felt, were worthy of
consideration. The ones below the line, he did not think were
worthy of consideration. Two of the options above the line were
the following: ``Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and coalition
forces, so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step
up, and take responsibility for their country.'' Do you believe
that option is worthy of consideration?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir. As I indicated, I think that all
options are on the table.
Senator Levin. Dr. Gates, former Secretary of State George
Schultz wrote a book in which he was critical of you, when you
were the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. He said that
he told you the following, that, ``I don't have any confidence
in the Intelligence Community. I feel you all have very strong
policy views. I wouldn't trust anything you guys said about
Iran, no matter what. I feel you try to manipulate me. You deal
out intelligence as you deem appropriate. I feel an effort is
made to manipulate me by the selection of material that you
send my way.''
Would you comment now on those written comments of
Secretary Schultz, comments that he said he addressed to you
when you were William Casey's deputy at the CIA?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir. It's a significant question, and I
think that it deserves a detailed response.
First, let me say that I believe George Schultz was one of
the greatest Secretaries of State in American history. I would
also tell you that he was probably one of the best, and most
avid, users of American intelligence of any senior official I
worked with in my entire career, and I have very high regard
for him.
The reality is that I think Secretary Schultz's views of
intelligence were influenced, in no small measure, by his
personal relationship with Director Casey. It was an open
secret in Washington that the two didn't get along. Director
Casey was perceived as having his own independent foreign
policy that he pursued, independent of the Secretary of State.
He was perceived as not differentiating, in meetings, between
his personal opinions and the views of the CIA's experts. He
consistently tried to give advice to the Secretary of State on
how to do his job, which I am sure was not appreciated.
Finally, in the fall of 1986, Director Casey wrote the
President of the United States and recommended that the
Secretary of State be fired. So, I think it's fair to say that
they did not have a warm, personal relationship. I think that
bad blood, frankly, influenced Secretary Schultz's view of
intelligence.
I would tell you that I had a dialogue with Secretary of
State Schultz over a 6-year period on the quality of
intelligence and the support that we gave him. Frankly, the
relationship was much more positive, in realtime, than he
portrays it in his book. He drew heavily on the CIA for
intelligence relating to arms control verification,
developments in the Soviet Union, the Pakistani nuclear
program, a variety of negotiations he was involved in. As I
said at the outset, he was a very avid user of intelligence
information.
At the same time, in this dialogue--and we would meet
almost weekly--he told me that he felt that the CIA was too
pessimistic about too many issues--El Salvador, Lebanon,
Angola, and various others--from one time to another. We
disagreed on developments in the Soviet Union. Sometimes he was
right, sometimes we were right. Sometimes we were wrong, also.
I think that there was a high correlation, frankly, between
his criticism of the intelligence and when the intelligence was
focused on issues in which he was engaged in negotiations, and
particularly when that intelligence analysis provided
ammunition to his critics inside the administration or here on
the Hill, or where he felt they complicated his negotiations.
From a personal standpoint, he was always friendly to me.
As I said, we met frequently throughout that 6-year period. I
would tell you that I do not recall him, at any time during
that 6 years, ever questioning my personal integrity or saying
that I personally was manipulating the intelligence. We would
have big meetings, and we would have small meetings. In the
small meetings--for example, on Angola--he was convinced that
CIA was trying to manipulate the intelligence on Angola, and I
kept trying to persuade him that what he was getting was the
unvarnished views of the intelligence analysts in the CIA, and
that Director Casey hadn't seen anything that he was receiving,
in terms of the analysis on Angola. But I think he remained
skeptical.
So, we had this dialogue for a long time. I think, as I
suggest, his views in his memoir, frankly, were much starker
and much more negative than the working relationship that we,
and other intelligence analysts from the CIA, had with him at
the time.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Dr. Gates. Your acknowledgment
that we're not winning in Iraq, frankly, is a necessary,
refreshing breath of reality that is so needed if we're going
to look at ways of changing course in Iraq to maximize the
chances of success. I thank you for that and the other candid
responses that you've given here.
My time is up.
Chairman Warner. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gates, thank you for your willingness to serve this
Nation again. We are very grateful. We know you left a very
comfortable life in Texas to serve this Nation again, and we
are grateful. I'd like to offer my congratulations and
condolences for your appointment. [Laughter.]
I'd like to follow on just what Senator Levin said. We are
not winning the war in Iraq. Is that correct?
Dr. Gates. That is my view, yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Therefore, the status quo is not
acceptable.
Dr. Gates. That is correct, sir.
Senator McCain. I know you did a great deal of work with
the ISG, and there is a general consensus of opinion now, in
hindsight, that we didn't have sufficient number of troops, at
the time of the invasion, to control Iraq, either Anbar
Province, the looting, and most importantly the weapons and
ammunition depots that were looted at the time. When anarchy
prevails, it's very difficult to gain control of a country. Do
you agree that, at the time of the invasion, we didn't have
sufficient troops to control the country, in hindsight?
Dr. Gates. I've had to deal with hindsight in some of the
decisions that I've made, Senator McCain, and sometimes it's
not very comfortable. I suspect, in hindsight, some of the
folks in the administration probably would not make the same
decisions that they made, and I think one of those is that
there clearly were insufficient troops in Iraq, after the
initial invasion, to establish control over the country.
Senator McCain. Yet, at this particular point in time, when
the suggestion is made, as the situation deteriorates and the
status quo is not acceptable, that we reduce troops, or, as
General Abizaid said, that he had sufficient number of troops--
in your study when did we reach the point where we went from
not having enough troops to having sufficient number of
troops--boots on the ground--as the situation deteriorated?
That's a non sequitur that I am unable to intellectually
embrace.
Dr. Gates. Senator, I was a part of the ISG during their
education phase, I would say, and I resigned before they began
their deliberations. I would tell you that, when we were in
Iraq, that we inquired of the commanders whether they had
enough troops, and whether a significant increase might be
necessary. I would say that the answer we received was that
they thought they had adequate troops. It seems to me that as
one considers all of the different options, in terms of a
change of approach in Iraq and a change of tactics, that
inquiring about this, again, is clearly something--and it may
be that a Secretary of Defense might get a more candid answer
than an outside study group that was visiting them, but the
response that we received in Baghdad was that they had enough
troops.
Senator McCain. Then the second and third question should
have been asked, and that is, ``why are the conditions and
situation continuing to deteriorate and not improve if you have
sufficient assets and people in order to get the job done?''--
which we now agree is not satisfactory.
One of the reasons given is, it would be too great a strain
on the military today, that we don't have sufficient Active-
Duty and National Guard Forces. There were some of us, 3\1/2\
years ago, that said we needed to increase the size of the Army
and the Marine Corps. The answer was, ``well, that would take a
couple of years.'' Years have passed, and we're still putting
an enormous strain on the Active-Duty and Guard Forces. Do you
believe that we need to increase the size of the Marine Corps
and the Army?
Dr. Gates. Senator, if I'm confirmed, I'm very open to the
possibility--and the necessity of--an increase in the end
strength of the Army. However, first, because we have 150,000
troops in the field, and we have a regular Army of about a half
a million, and a Guard and Reserve of about another half a
million, I would like to, if I am confirmed, first of all,
ensure, for myself, that the other 350,000 troops in the
regular Army are doing what we want them to be doing, and that
they are all needed in the roles that they are in. As a way of
making sure that, before we increase the end strength, that
we're using the strength that we have in the way we ought to
be. But if the answer to that question is, ``That's about the
way it ought to be, that those troops are deployed in the way
we want them deployed,'' then I'm very open to the possibility
of an increase in the end strength.
Senator McCain. We are living in a very dangerous world,
whether you look at Iran, North Korea, the crisis in Lebanon as
we speak--the list goes on and on--it would be very difficult
for us to envision us being capable of handling another
contingency, given the fact that our military leaders are
saying it would be too great a strain on the military and the
Guard even to put additional troops into Iraq. I hope you'll
look at it very seriously.
Mr. Secretary, finally, General Zinni, who is highly
respected by this committee, who was former head of Central
Command (CENTCOM), was speaking of Prime Minister Maliki and
said: ``You can't put pressure on a wounded guy. There's a
premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there's
a capability that they've not employed or used. I'm not so sure
they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.'' Dr. Gates, I
don't think they're capable, either. I think political
solutions are bred by stability. If you have military
instability, it's very hard to come up with a political
solution. Just about everybody I know who looks at these plans
for partition, for withdrawal to bases outside of Iraq or bases
inside of Iraq, believes that a chaotic situation would ensue.
I agree with most experts that this is our last chance to save
this situation. Unless we stabilize conditions on the ground, I
think it's going to be very difficult to get the kind of
political solution that all of us seek.
Recently, I saw that there's a proposal to move the marines
out of Anbar Province into Baghdad. What do we say to the
families of those young people who died in the first and second
battle of Fallujah, when we abandon it to terrorist
organizations again?
I wish you every success. I know that all of us on this
committee and in this country have nothing but the interests of
our Nation's security, and the men and women who serve it, as
our highest priority. I hope you will help us gain consensus so
that, as a Nation, we can move forward and make sure that the
American people are not subjected to more sacrifice as a result
of the failures that we've experienced in the past in this
conflict. Again, I thank you for your service, Dr. Gates.
Chairman Warner. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much.
Dr. Gates, I join those in thanking you for your public
service, your willingness to come back in and deal with this
challenge that we're facing now in national security defense,
and primarily the issue of Iraq. I'm grateful for the time that
we had talking in our office. You're going to, obviously, get a
good deal of different guidance and advice here this morning.
But just to really pick up on a sentiment that Senator
McCain caught, we have lost 60 soldiers in my State of
Massachusetts. I've talked with just about every one of their
families. They're really interested in hearing from you about
whether you're going to be an independent figure that's really
going to fight for the best, in terms of our security, as we
find our security today. We know, since you have been
nominated, 59 Americans have been killed, just in the 27 days
since you've been nominated. In the 27 days just prior to that,
92 Americans were killed, and in the 27 days prior to that, 81
Americans were killed. We don't know, in the 27 days prior to
the first of the year--when we're going to have these,
evidently, decisions and judgments and a new policy--how many
more Americans are killed.
The people, the families in my State, want to know whether
you're going to be that figure that Senator Warner talked
about, that fearless champion of the service men and women,
that is going to be consistent with our national security.
These families know they were undermanned when they went into
Iraq, and they were underarmored when they went into Iraq, and
they know that the military has served in Iraq longer than they
have in World War II. Longer than World War II. They've done
everything that they've been asked to do, and they've done it
brilliantly, with extraordinary courage and valor. What the
families want is to make sure that we are going to have a
policy that is worthy of their valor and their bravery. They're
looking at you. That's what they want for you to make that
recommendation, and that you'll be fearless in your battle,
you'll be a standup person and demonstrate the kind of courage
which is going to be so necessary to do.
Could you just let them know that you're that person, ready
to do it for our national security and for them?
Dr. Gates. Senator Kennedy, 12 graduates of Texas A&M have
been killed in Iraq. I would run in the morning with some of
those kids. I'd have lunch with them. They'd share with me
their aspirations and their hopes. I'd hand them their degree,
I'd attend their commissioning, and then I would get word of
their death. So, this all comes down to being very personal for
all of us. The statistics, 2,889 killed in Iraq as of yesterday
morning, that's a big number, but every single one of them
represents not only an individual tragedy for the soldier who's
been killed, but for their entire family and their friends. I
see this.
Somebody asked me about the pressures of this hearing, and
I said, ``The pressures of the hearing are nothing compared to
the pressures I got from a woman who came over to me at the
hotel while I was having dinner the other night, and I was
seated by myself, and she asked if I was Mr. Gates. I said yes.
She congratulated me on my nomination, and she said, `I have
two sons in Iraq. For God's sake, bring them home safe. We'll
be praying for you.' '' Now, that's real pressure.
Senator, I am not giving up the presidency of Texas A&M,
the job that I've probably enjoyed more than any that I've ever
had, making considerable personal financial sacrifice, and,
frankly, going through this process, to come back to Washington
to be a bump on a log, and not to say exactly what I think, and
to speak candidly and, frankly, boldly to people at both ends
of Pennsylvania Avenue about what I believe and what I think
needs to be done. I intend to listen closely to people. I
intend to draw my own conclusions, and I'll make my
recommendations. But I can assure you that I don't owe anybody
anything, and I've come back here to do the best I can for the
men and women in uniform, and for the country, in terms of
these difficult problems that we face.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you for your answer. You'll hear,
perhaps, from others, but I want to give you just one more
chance to respond to these statements about, ``What good will
your new eyes do when we have had the Commander in Chief, who,
as had been mentioned, has said this in the last month, `We
have a strategy for victory that will work. I truly believe the
only way we won't win is if we leave before the job is done.'
'' As the Chairman and Senator Levin pointed out, the quotes,
``There's one thing I'm not going to do. I'm not going to pull
the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.
We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job done, so long as the
government want us there. This business about a graceful exit
just simply has no realism to it all.'' Now, in short, should
we believe you or the President on the critical issue, whether
the administration is really willing to make a change in its
policy?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I'm willing to commit that, if I am
confirmed, I'll be independent, that I will consider all of the
options; but, as I indicated in my opening statement, there is
still only one President of the United States, and he will make
the final decision.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Warner. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There's been a lot of talk about the failures and the bad
things that are going on, but I have had occasion, Dr. Gates,
to be in the area of responsibility (AOR) over there 12
different times. Every time I go over, I see some of the
successes and I see that while there were three terrorist
training camps in Iraq, they're not there anymore. The mass
graves--and I've looked down in those--that's not taking place
anymore. The Iraq security forces and their embedded training
has worked. I appreciate Senator Dole, in his introduction of
you, talking about the fact that it's an overthrow of Saddam
Hussein. I mean, here's somebody who had to be overthrown. He
said things are better now than they were 4 years ago.
You were asked the question, ``Are we winning in Iraq?''
General Pace was asked that question yesterday. He said, ``No,
we're not winning, but we're not losing.'' Do you agree with
General Pace?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir, at this point.
Senator Inhofe. Dr. Gates, this morning in the Washington
Post there was an article about the reset problem that we have.
I've had occasion to go to all of these Army logistics centers,
and I've seen the rows of the equipment that is not getting
out, the money's not there. Last year, we had to put an
additional, I think, $23.8 billion into that program. So, that
is a serious problem.
Now, when we're faced with these things, and faced with
choices that we have to make, one of the targets is often the
Future Combat System of the United States Army. I don't know
how familiar you are with that program, but, because that's
something that is not bleeding today, that's where a lot of
people want to take money out of. Yet, we are so far behind in
different elements of our modernization program in the Army--
for example, there's the non-line of sight cannon program, and
the best thing we have is a Paladin, World War II technology.
You have to swab the breech after every shot. I would like to
know what your commitment is to the Future Combat System, and
how you view that.
Dr. Gates. I think it's very important, Senator. I would
say that I've not had the opportunity to get briefed in any
detail on it, or to evaluate any of the tradeoffs that are
being made in the budget. I would anticipate that, if
confirmed, I would have to take a look at those things and see
what the budgetary situation is, and also seek the views of
members of the committee and others on the Hill.
Senator Inhofe. You would do that, seek our views on this,
those of us who have been faced with what I consider to be a
crisis?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. In 2000, we formed the U.S./China Security
Economic Review Commission, usually referred to as the U.S./
China Commission. They have come out with five reports. This is
the fifth report that just came out. I've been disturbed that
no one seems to care about these. They don't seem to read these
and understand what's in them. I have a couple of questions
about that I want to ask you. But I am concerned about China
and I'd like to hear what your thoughts are.
In the last month, the Chinese hackers, as I'm sure you
have read, have shut down the e-mail and the official computer
work at the Naval War College. This is referred to by this
Commission as the ``Titan Rain.'' In September, the Department
of Commerce experienced a massive shutdown of its computer
system. This goes on and on. In July, the State Department
acknowledged that Chinese attacks had broken into systems
overseas and in Washington. Recently, China has used lasers to
blind our satellites. On October 26, a Song-class Chinese
submarine surfaced near the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk. They had been
following them undetected for a long period of time.
I've had occasion to spend quite a bit of time in Africa,
and I notice that China's presence in Africa, particularly in
those states around the Sea of Guinea and where they have great
oil reserves, is there, and they are way ahead of us. It
happens that China and the United States are the two countries
that depend on foreign sources of oil more than any of the
other countries. As this continues, I'd like to ask you what
your feeling is about this as a top priority, about how you
view China, about whether or not you have read these reports;
and, if not, if you would--or do you plan to do that? If you
agree with some of that which you have heard coming out in
these reports.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
I have not read the reports.
Senator Inhofe. I would also say that as we were drawing
down in the 1990s, they increased their military procurement by
over 1,000 percent, so this is a great concern. Go ahead.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
I have not read the reports. I would be more than willing
to do so. I've been aware, just from reading in the
newspapers--it's been a number of years since I received any
classified intelligence on what the Chinese were up to--but
it's been my impression that they've had a very aggressive
intelligence-gathering effort against the United States. Some
of these other things that you've mentioned, this is the first
time I've heard about that. Clearly, if confirmed, this would
be something that I would want to get well-informed on quickly.
Senator Inhofe. That's all I'd ask of you at this time,
because, after each report's come out, I've actually given
speeches on the Senate floor, only to find that people are not
aware of how serious this is. So, if you'd make that commitment
to become familiar with it, and particularly on the reports
that this fine commission has done, I would appreciate that
very much.
I've often said that in spite of the successes and failures
that have taken place in that most difficult area over there,
that the people that we have in charge--General Abizaid,
General Casey, General Chiarelli, General Pace--I can't think
of a team, militarily speaking, that is any better, that we
could have drawn upon than this team. Do you agree with that?
Dr. Gates. They seem to me to be very fine officers, sir.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that.
Finally--my time is up--but Senator McCain brought up the
question on troop levels, and you mentioned the Army. I noticed
that last week General Conway talked about the Marine Corps and
the problems that they have right now that is in terms of troop
strength--not troop availability for the combat situation, but
troop strength. His statement is, ``We could not operate at the
current tempo of operations without troop increases.'' You
addressed the Army shortages. What about the Marine Corps?
Dr. Gates. I would certainly be willing to look at that,
Senator. Most of the materials that I've been given in
preparation for these hearings have focused on the Army, but
I'm certainly willing to look at the same issues with respect
to the Marine Corps.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Gates. I do appreciate our
early conversation on Wednesday.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
I wish to advise the committee that Senator Levin and I
have just received a communication from the ISG. They welcome
the opportunity to appear before this committee at 9:30,
Thursday morning, to discuss in detail their report.
At this time, I recognize our distinguished colleague from
West Virginia, Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
Dr. Gates, our relationship goes back over a number of
years. We hear all these rumors about the potential for an
attack on Iran due to its nuclear weapons program, or on Syria
due to its support of terrorism--do you support an attack on
Iran?
Dr. Gates. Senator Byrd, I think that military action
against Iran would be an absolute last resort, that any
problems that we have with Iran, our first options should be
diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the
problems that Iran is posing to us. I think that we have seen,
in Iraq, that, once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable.
I think that the consequences of a military conflict with Iran
could be quite dramatic. Therefore, I would counsel against
military action, except as a last resort and if we felt that
our vital interests were threatened.
Senator Byrd. Do you support an attack on Syria?
Dr. Gates. No, sir, I do not.
Senator Byrd. Do you believe the President has the
authority, under either the 9/11 War Resolution or the Iraq War
Resolution, to attack Iran or to attack Syria?
Dr. Gates. To the best of my knowledge of both of those
authorizations, I don't believe so.
Senator Byrd. Would you briefly describe your view of the
likely consequences of a U.S. attack on Iran?
Dr. Gates. It's always awkward to talk about hypotheticals
in this case, but I think that, while Iran cannot attack us
directly militarily, I think that their capacity to,
potentially, close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil,
their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror, both
in the Middle East and in Europe, and even here in this
country, is very real. They are certainly not being helpful in
Iraq, and I think, doing damage to our interests there, but I
think they could do a lot more to hurt our effort in Iraq. I
think that they could provide certain kinds of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), particularly chemical and biological
weapons, to terrorist groups. Their ability to get Hezbollah to
further destabilize Lebanon, I think, is very real. So, I think
that while their ability to retaliate against us in a
conventional military way is quite limited, they have the
capacity to do all of the things, and perhaps more, that I just
described.
Senator Byrd. What about an attack on Syria? Could you
briefly describe your view of the likely consequences of a U.S.
attack on Syria?
Dr. Gates. I think the Syrian capacity to do harm to us is
far more limited than that of Iran, but I believe that a
military attack by the United States on Syria would have
dramatic consequences for us throughout the Middle East, in
terms of our relationships with a wide range of countries in
that area. I think that it would give rise to significantly
greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date. I think it
would immensely complicate our relationships with virtually
every country in the region.
Senator Byrd. Would you say that an attack on either Iran
or Syria would worsen the violence in Iraq and lead to greater
American casualties?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir, I think that's very likely.
Senator Byrd. Your answer is yes on both questions.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir, very likely.
Senator Byrd. With respect to Osama bin Laden, within 8
months of taking Baghdad our troops captured Saddam Hussein.
However, 5 years after September 11 and the invasion of
Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Who was
responsible, Dr. Gates, in your judgment, for the September 11
attacks, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden?
Dr. Gates. Osama bin Laden, Senator.
Senator Byrd. Over the past 5 years, who has represented
the greater threat to the United States, Saddam Hussein or
Osama bin Laden?
Dr. Gates. Osama bin Laden.
Senator Byrd. How do you intend to catch Osama bin Laden?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I have no doubt that our forces have
been trying their best to find Osama bin Laden. I'm not
familiar with the effort that has been devoted to this over the
past 2 or 3 years. I will say, I think Osama bin Laden has
become more of a symbol for jihadist terrorists than an active
planner and organizer of terrorist attacks. In fact, one of the
consequences of our success in Afghanistan has been the denial
of that country as a place to plan these sophisticated
terrorist operations, such as the attacks that took place on 9/
11.
So, I think that, while it's important to continue to
search for Osama bin Laden, I think that his ability to
directly organize and plan the kind of attacks against us that
hurt us so badly in September 2001, is very limited now. I
think that it's important to keep him on the run. I have always
said that I thought it was much more difficult to find a single
individual like him, and particularly in as rugged a place as
Afghanistan, as a lot of things. We had a great deal of
difficulty finding Noriega in Panama in 1990, and we knew that
country as well as, practically, we knew our own. So, finding
these single individuals who are on the run--we had the same
problem trying to find the hostages in Beirut in the early
1980s. The challenge is figuring out where they're going to be,
not where they've been, and getting the information in a way
that is timely enough to act on it. Frankly, I just think we
haven't had that kind of intelligence on bin Laden.
The way we'll catch bin Laden eventually, in my view, is
that just as in the case of Saddam Hussein, one of his own
people will turn him in.
Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, my time is up, but what is wrong
with our current tactics, which have allowed Osama bin Laden to
escape justice for 5 years and continuing?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I would make it a priority to find out
what our tactics have been, and the efforts that we have had
underway, if I am confirmed for this position.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, sir, for your responses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Byrd.
Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir,
for your very fine leadership on the committee. I will not go
into a detailed laudatory speech on your behalf, but I think
everybody on the committee certainly has been inspired by your
service.
Bob Dole and I are very proud of Dr. Gates, since he is a
native Kansan, so I won't repeat that, but I want to say that
everybody in Kansas is very enthusiastic about your nomination,
sir, and very happy. You could let Texas A&M go a little easy
on Kansas and Kansas State, but that's a whole other matter.
[Laughter.]
I want to thank you for your hour of good discussion and
your courtesy call when we met in the Intelligence Committee.
As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I'd
like to inform my colleagues who are worried about telling
truth to power, that we went over a considerable amount of
ground, more especially the 2002 National Intelligence
Estimate, which was wrong and symbolic of an egregious world
intelligence failure. I told Dr. Gates that, on the
Intelligence Committee, we don't take anything at face value
now. We say, ``What do you know? What don't you know? What do
you think? What's the difference?'' He agreed with that. So, I
think with you and General Hayden and John Negroponte, more
especially with your understanding of intelligence, that you're
going to make an excellent team. While I share the concern of
those who are always concerned about whether senior officials
will tell truth to power, I have no doubt that you will do
that, sir.
I want to talk about two realities, if I can. Whether it be
the Levin plan or the Warner plan or the ISG plan or those who
wish to leave yesterday, or anybody's plan, all combined with
the criticism and the election and the politics, and serious
and growing problems in Iraq, it seems to me the Iraqis--I
share a little bit of a reverse view that my distinguished
colleague Senator Levin has--I think the Iraqis know we're
leaving. I think we've seen that in the al Anbar Province,
where you don't find the Imams and the people and the leaders
that you used to find; they've left, and you have thugs,
thieves, and al Qaeda. So if, in fact, the Iraqis know we're
leaving, the key is, how and when? Hopefully, with stability.
On one hand, the lessons of the British experience for 10
years, way back in the 1930s, now replicated in Iraq, with all
the tribal warfare, some even believe that stability may not be
possible. I know Senator McCain spoke to that.
So, we've heard much about all the current problems in Iraq
and the new policy options and withdrawal. I think everybody in
this room would like to see our people home as soon as
possible. We talked about this. Then you mentioned something in
your opening speech, and you mentioned something to me, and it
said something about geopolitical national security threats if
the withdrawal--i.e., just simply leave, extricate ourselves--
if it was very precipitous, that we face very grave
geopolitical national threats. Now, with all due respect, I
want you to get down to the level of the people of Wichita,
College Station, and everybody's hometown here, and go over
that a little bit, in terms of their daily lives and
pocketbooks. We can talk about geopolitical national threats--
sounds pretty good--but what does that mean to them?
To me, it means, ``If you leave Iraq in a precipitous
fashion''--and we may want to do that, down the road, I don't
know--``what happens in Afghanistan? What happens in Iran?''
We've had a lot of questions about Iran. What happens to that
Shiite crescent, with Iran and Syria and Lebanon? Then, what
happens to Israel? What happens in North Korea, with Kim Jong
Il, and he sets off a new round of tests in regards to his
missiles? What happens in China, and our relationship with
Taiwan? What happens in Russia, where we have a rather
poisonous situation now, with Mr. Putin? What happens with Hugo
Chavez, who's involved in five elections south of our border--
he's won three--I say ``won three,'' he has had influence in
three--and what Senator McCain said some time ago, the attacks
can follow us home. We had five attacks prior to our entry in
Iraq: Beirut and Khobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, Embassy
bombings, 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, and then, of
course, September 11. Will these attacks follow us home, with
the sleeper cells that are now in this country, not so asleep,
and the second generation terrorists?
I think we have to tell the American people, yes, we want
everybody home as soon as possible, but, if we do it the wrong
way, we're going to face a lot of credibility problems and a
lot of dangers that they have to understand affects their daily
lives and pocketbooks.
Would you comment, sir?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I suppose I should just say, ``I
agree.'' [Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. Well stated. [Laughter.]
Dr. Gates. My greatest worry, if we mishandle the next year
or two, and if we leave Iraq in chaos, is that a variety of
regional powers will become involved in Iraq and we will have a
regional conflict on our hands. Iran is already involved in
Iraq, and, as I suggested earlier to Senator Byrd, could become
much more so. The Syrians have not been helpful in Iraq, but
could become much more harmful to our effort.
But I think that it would be very surprising if the other
Sunni countries in the Middle East would allow the Sunni
population in Iraq to be the victims of an ethnic cleansing. I
think that the Turks would not sit by idly if they saw Iraq
beginning to fall apart. So, I think that you could have Saudi
Arabia, you could have Turkey, Syria, Iran--all would be
involved. We're already seeing Hezbollah involved in training
fighters for Iraq. I think all of that could spread fairly
dramatically. As you suggest, I think the manner of our
managing the next phase in Iraq has very strong lessons for
other countries in the world. There is no question--in fact,
Osama bin Laden's been very straightforward about the impact on
him of our withdrawal from Somalia after our soldiers were
killed there. So, I think that there is a risk that others,
looking around the world, would see that we don't have the
patience and we don't have the will.
I think those are some of the concerns that we would face
if we ended up leaving Iraq in chaos.
Senator Roberts. I have a blue card, which everybody up
here seems to ignore. At any rate, I just want to add my 2
cents worth in to my good friend and colleague, Senator Inhofe,
in regards to the National Guard equipment that we need in
Kansas, and we need in Kansas for our local missions there, but
the equipment is coming back, and we are in a world of hurt in
regards to maintaining that equipment capability, not only in
Kansas, but in every State represented here, and in Congress.
So, I do hope that you'll visit with us about the Guard and the
equipment that we have to have to have security and protection
in regards to our States, but also is being used in the
national security effort.
I thank you for your testimony, sir.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gates, thank you for your agreement to serve your
country again.
You said something in your opening comments that struck me
personally, which is that you were here for two reasons. One,
you love your country, and two, your President asked you to
serve it. I know you well enough over the years to know that
those are not words that somebody else wrote for you, but they
come from within you. They're an inspiration and a model, I
think, for all of us, and I thank you for them.
I want to build on some of the questions that Senator
Roberts asked you. You said this morning, quite appropriately,
that the war in Iraq will be your highest priority, and that
you are open to the widest range of alternative strategies for
Iraq. But, as you just repeated, ``But''--you said, ``But'' you
are ``very concerned that developments in Iraq of the next year
or two will have a very significant influence on the Middle
East, generally, and on the shape of global politics for years
to come.'' So, is it fair for us to conclude that in accepting
the President's nomination to be Secretary of Defense, that in
regard to Iraq, while all of us, of course, would like to bring
our troops home as soon as possible, that your primary goal is
to advise the President how to succeed in Iraq, not how to
withdraw our troops, at any and all costs?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir. I think that my goal, and the reason
that I accepted the position, was really twofold. The first is
to try and find a path forward in Iraq that allows us to
achieve the objectives of stabilizing the country so that it
can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, and be an
ally in our war on terror.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Dr. Gates. That really is the purpose, and the whole idea
is, in my view, that the faster that you can make the Iraqi
forces more effective and able to protect themselves and begin
to get a handle on their security problems, and diminish the
sectarian violence, then the sooner we can begin to draw down
our forces, as the President has said.
But it also goes back to the point, this isn't entirely a
military problem.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Dr. Gates. The Iraqis are going to have to make some
difficult decisions themselves, not only in terms of how they
deal with sectarian violence, but how they approach national
reconciliation. How are they going to distribute the oil
revenues fairly so that everyone has a stake in the society?
Related to the national reconciliation, how are they going to
ensure that these different ethnic and religious groups can
live together peacefully? I think those are some of the
political decisions that the Iraqis have to make, in addition
to standing up their military. So, what I am interested in is
figuring out if there is a better way in which we can achieve
those objectives than has been the case in the past.
I would say, also, Senator Lieberman, that there is a
second reason why I agreed to become a nominee for this
position. I believe very deeply that one of the fundamental
factors in our success in the Cold War was our ability to have
a broad bipartisan agreement on the fundamental strategy on how
to deal with the Soviet Union through nine successive
Presidencies and many Congresses, both Republicans and
Democrats in support. Now, we argued and fought a lot about
tactics and this and that, but there was, fundamentally,
agreement on how to approach the Soviet Union.
I think that it is imperative, in this long war on
terrorism that we face, that could go on for a generation, that
there be a bipartisan agreement--probably wouldn't include
everybody; that's too difficult. But if you could get broad
agreement on a path forward, not only Iraq, but then in terms
of how we fight this long war, then there would be consistency
on the part of whoever is elected President in 2008 and beyond,
so that we can carry on this struggle in a way that they don't
think we're going to ``cut and run.''
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Dr. Gates. That they don't think we're going to walk away
from this war on terrorism, and so that they don't think it's
going to be easy to start attacking us here at home because
we're not willing to take them on abroad. I see it as one of my
priorities during the time that I have this position, if I'm
confirmed, to do what I can in working with Members of Congress
and both parties, to see if we can forge that kind of a
bipartisan approach going forward, so that everybody around the
world who wishes us ill knows that we're in this for the long
haul.
Senator Lieberman. I could not agree with you more. I thank
you for your answer. Our Nation, this Capital, this Government
desperately needs to reach out and grasp each other's hands so
that we can go forward to meet the enemies that we have in
common as Americans, not divided between Democrats and
Republicans. Your history tells me that you can do that.
I want to come back to what we said before. One, of course,
the Iraqis have to reach some kind of political agreement, and
show political leadership, to get the country to where they,
and we, want it to be, but it's not just politics that will
bring Iraq to where we, and they, want them to be; it also
requires security. Am I right about that?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Is it fair to say that, because of your
concern about the potential for a regional conflagration, and
that we not leave Iraq in chaos, that it is highly unlikely
that you would recommend to the President the beginning of a
withdrawal of American troops without regard to conditions on
the ground in Iraq?
Dr. Gates. I think any decision, Senator, with respect to
troop levels--first of all, I would seek the views of the
commanders themselves, but I think that any decision on troop
levels has to be tied to the situation on the ground in some
respect.
Senator Lieberman. That an increase or surge in the number
of American troops there--for instance, to better embed
America/coalition forces with the Iraqi security forces, which
is an idea that has been embraced by many--and a potential for
a surge or temporary increase in American troops is one of the
options that you would consider as part of your review now.
Dr. Gates. That certainly is an option. Related to that
might be, do we have sufficient number of trainers? If our
focus is on training and bringing up the Iraqi army, do we have
enough trainers to do that job in Iraq? Should we be embedding
more of our troops with the Iraqis? I think these are all
questions that need to be examined.
Senator Lieberman. I thank you, Dr. Gates.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want to just read something--and
I have no further questions. I appreciate what Dr. Gates has
said about a bipartisan foreign and defense policy. Senator
Arthur Vandenberg, who Senator Boren quoted in his eloquent
opening introduction of you, defined bipartisan foreign policy
in this way: ``It does not involve the remotest surrender of
free debate in determining our position. On the contrary, frank
cooperation and free debate are indispensable to ultimate
unity. In a word, bipartisan foreign policy simply seeks
national security ahead of partisan advantage.'' That's the
goal that I heard you express, and I think, if you can help us
reach that in the next 2 years, you will have done your country
extraordinary service.
Thank you.
Dr. Gates. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
this opportunity, and for your leadership of this committee.
You've done so well. You served at the end of World War II, in
Korea, as Secretary of the Navy, and have led this committee
with fairness, patriotism, and wise counsel, and it's been an
honor to serve with you and travel to some of these hotspots
with you.
We have many challenges in the Defense Department, Dr.
Gates: transformation to make sure our equipment and weaponry
meet the needs that we'll be facing down the road, whatever the
cost. Sometimes I think our costs are out of control for our
systems. We need technology, the right technology. We need to
reset equipment, as several have noted. I'm aware that we have
great costs that are adding up there. We have to nurture,
sustain, and honor the men and women who serve us in harm's way
in our military. They have to be affirmed in every single way
that we can do so, because they are the greatest treasure we
have, those people who are prepared to go into harm's way,
without complaint, to serve our country. I talk to their
families. I talk to the families of those who lost their lives.
They have that sense of duty and mission. We, in Congress, must
do nothing to undermine their selfless patriotism. We have to
affirm them.
But our biggest challenge right now, I think all of us
would agree, is how to handle the situation in Iraq that's
fallen to your lot. You've come back now, after 26 years in the
intelligence service. You've briefed Presidents, you've been in
tough situations before. Do you feel that experience can help
you think through, with some new perspective, on these issues?
How would that experience of being in the White House and in
the top councils of the Government discussing matters of war
and peace help you today?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I think that perhaps one of the areas
that it helps the most--and perhaps some would think it
ironic--is that it has given me an appreciation of how all the
different parts of the Government need to work together to get
anything done. There are always huge bureaucratic interests at
stake, and disputes among agencies, sort of the ``Who's in
charge?'' question. One of the things that I learned a long
time ago is that's probably one of the reasons why the
political science professors don't let me in their classrooms,
because I tell them to throw away the organization charts--that
it's personal relationships that matter.
When the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense
aren't speaking to one another, it actually matters, in the
councils of Government. So, one of the most important lessons
that I have learned is to remember that we all work for the
same boss, and that boss ultimately is the people of the United
States, and that it's important for the agencies and the
organizations to work together. Some of the things that the ISG
heard early on were problems among our agencies in
collaborating and cooperating with one another, coordinating
their efforts. So, I think that one of the most significant
lessons that I have learned is the importance of the entire
Government pulling together as a team.
I would say that the other experience, frankly, has been at
this end of Pennsylvania Avenue, because most of that time that
I was in government, I was also dealing with Congress. The
importance of the consultations, the importance of the lack of
surprises, the importance of treating people's views with
respect, I think, are all important lessons learned.
I also think I learned a thing or two about bureaucratic
infighting, myself. I don't think I come to this as a
particularly naive person, in terms of how to get things done
in this city.
I think the other lesson that I learned over time was
respect for the professionals. It's something, frankly, that
I've carried on since then, and at the university. I think it
works. That is when you treat the professionals in an
organization, who deliver the mission, who perform the mission
of the organization, with respect, and you listen to them, and
you pay attention to them, I think that everybody is better
served. They were there before you got there, they'll be there
after you leave, and if you don't make them a part of the
solution, they will become a part of the problem.
I learned part of those lessons the hard way. In my first
senior position, I was probably too harsh on people. When I
started working as the deputy to Judge Bill Webster, when he
came over, after 9 years leading the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, to direct the CIA, Judge Webster taught me a lot
about how to get things done in a big organization, and to use
the professionals--even though you're setting the goals and you
have the vision, how to use the professionals to get the job
done.
So, those are some of the lessons that I think I've learned
and that I would bring to this position, if I'm confirmed.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. I do believe that you do bring
the kind of perspective--and, having been away for a while at
the university, allow you to come back with a fresh approach,
and I'm excited about that potential.
I also would say that your exchange with Senator Lieberman
about the need for a bipartisan, maybe a tripartisan foreign
policy is very important. Senator Boren's comments were
extraordinarily important and wise and valuable to this
committee, Mr. Chairman.
I would just say to Senator Levin, our chairman-to-be, I
think your request--and Senator Boren's, really, challenge--
that we develop a long-term foreign policy, defense policy, for
this Nation that Republicans and Democrats can sign on to and
be a foundation for all that we do in the years to come, really
is critical to our success as a nation, and we just have to
move more in that direction, I think. That has been our
tradition in the past. Perhaps, for a lot of reasons, we've
gotten away from it. But I hope that you can help lead us in
that direction. From your comments today, I think you might.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I wish to associate
myself with your remarks, that of Senator Lieberman and the
witness, that that goal has to be achieved, because we're going
to be in a generational war on this question of terrorism, and
we owe that obligation to the men and women of the Armed Forces
that we ask to go out and accept the risk of loss of life and
limb to make that possible.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed.Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me recognize Dr. Gates' congressman, Chet
Edwards, my friend and colleague from Texas. His presence
speaks volumes for you, Dr. Gates.
You are about to embark, I think everyone assumes, on a
mission in the most perilous moment we've had in decades. You
have an immediate crisis in Iraq, you have enhanced strategic
threats from Iran and North Korea, with nuclear aspirations and
nuclear demonstrations, in the case of North Korea, problems in
Lebanon, problems in Afghanistan, the worst readiness position
for our land forces we've seen in decades with our Army and
Marine Corps, the continuing need to fight a global war on
terror, and, as you point out, in a bipartisan fashion, that'll
be sustained over many years. You have a budget that's
substantial, including almost $500 billion in supplemental
funding, yet the Congressional Budget Office suggests your
procurement accounts are $53 to $121 billion short. Welcome.
[Laughter.]
But I want to focus on Iraq. Now, much has been said today.
One of the problems, I think, with the strategy we've seen
evolving over the last several years is the discussion in
Washington seldom, I think, reflects the reality on the ground
in Iraq. You've had the opportunity, through the ISG, to look
at it. My impression--and I want to see if it's your impression
also--is that what started out as public disorder allowed a
growing Sunni insurgency to begin to evolve. Certainly, there
are al Qaeda elements trying to provoke this situation. But,
certainly since the bombing of the mosque in Samarra, we've
seen sectarian conflict that many people characterize as civil
war. In fact, it's an existential conflict. Sunnis feel
entitled to rule. Shiite recall years, centuries perhaps, of
oppression, and they're fearful to their bones that they will
be suppressed--actually destroyed--if they surrender power.
In that context, do you feel that this is a civil war, or a
sectarian struggle? The obvious question then is, what is the
role of American military power in that struggle?
Dr. Gates. Senator Reed, I guess my own view is that the
situation today is more complex than a single title or a single
source of causation accurately describes. You not only have
sectarian violence and al Qaeda in Iraq, you now have, as you
suggested, significant disorder and, as an earlier Senator
indicated, a lot of thuggery and criminal activity. We have the
Iranians involved. The Syrians are clearly involved, in the
sense of they're allowing their border to be used, and their
country to be used as sanctuary. I read news reports that
Hezbollah is involved in training. So, regardless of how we got
here, we are in a situation where it sounds like most of the
``bad guys'' in the Middle East are active in Iraq right now. I
don't know how you describe that. My worry is, left
unconstrained, it begins to approach the chaos that I worry
about, and spoke about earlier.
But I think all of those different factors are involved.
Clearly, I would have to say, the presence of U.S. forces is
used as a provocation by some of those involved in this.
Senator Reed. Dr. Gates, we've talked about troop
strengths, troop levels surging or redeploying. Frankly, there
are several factors that govern troop strength. One is the
condition on the ground, but another most important one, I
think, is the mission of those troops. The mission to date, I
think, has been to train and leave. That mission has been such
that we've been able to sustain 150,000 troops there. What
should the mission of American forces be, to accomplish the
goals that the President has laid out? How many troops do we
need to accomplish that mission?
Dr. Gates. Senator Reed, it seems to me that the goal of
our troops, at this point, or the mission of our troops, is
really twofold. One is to try and improve the security
environment, and the other is to prepare the Iraqi army, in
particular, to take on that burden itself, and increasingly
perform that burden as U.S. troop presence draws down. I think
it's a twofold mission, in that respect.
Senator Reed. Troop levels were a function of how you
weight that mission. They're almost two distinct missions.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. A training mission and a ``try to stabilize
the country'' mission. I think where we get hung up in it,
frankly, is ``try to stabilize the country'' mission. Do you
have any views as to whether we should be more robustly engaged
in stabilization efforts there, or if we should shift to more
emphasis on training?
Dr. Gates. The honest answer to your question, Senator, is
that I don't know. It's one of the things that, as I talk to
the commanders on the ground and the chiefs and others, I want
to find out their views. In other words, would they recommend
putting significantly more trainers into Iraq in order to
accelerate the process with the Iraqi army? As I say, I just
don't know the answer to the question. That's one of those
places where I very much am interested in the views of those on
the ground.
Senator Reed. Just a final point, Dr. Gates. There's a
distinct possibility that, whether we change our force
structure, we redeploy, we will remain there as a presence for
the foreseeable future. Training capacity, logistical capacity.
But we could be in a situation where this chaos does
disintegrate to something like ethnic cleansing--rampant
violence--and we would find ourselves in the position, with
American forces on the ground, in a very unstable situation,
with very adverse consequences to the people of Iraq. Is that a
possibility that you'd at least consider?
Dr. Gates. It certainly is a possibility, yes, sir.
Senator Reed. You will try to think a way through that
dilemma?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Reed.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Dr. Gates, I talked with an individual on Sunday night who
knows you very well, and he described you to me as a person who
always puts duty, honor, and country first. He said that is why
you had answered the President's call. I think that's also true
of our distinguished chairman, who also always puts duty,
honor, and country first, and I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, as well, for your distinguished leadership of this
committee.
As I look at the issues facing us with Iraq, I think it
comes down to a fundamental issue. Sectarian violence now
jeopardizes the very existence of the nation of Iraq. It has
cost us many lives, including the lives of thousands of
innocent Iraqis. The question is, would withdrawing American
troops, either a phased withdrawal, starting in 4 to 6 months
as the distinguished minority member of this committee has
proposed, or the kind of modest withdrawals and reducing of the
American footprint in Iraq, as Secretary Rumsfeld is apparently
now proposing. The question is, what would be the impact on
sectarian violence? Do you believe that the withdrawal of
American troops would decrease the sectarian violence or would
it leave Iraq in chaos and cause even more bloodshed?
Dr. Gates. Senator Collins, I would answer the question in
two ways. First, I think it depends on the conditions on the
ground under which the troops were withdrawn. But, second, a
number of members of this committee have been to Iraq many more
times than I have, and have talked to the commanders on the
ground many more times than I have. My evaluation of the impact
of troop levels and so on, on the situation on Iraq, I think,
frankly, is too uniformed to be helpful. That's one of the
reasons why I've indicated that one of the first things that I
would do if I were confirmed would be to go to Iraq and sit
down and talk to the ground commanders about what their views
are about these different alternatives that we've been talking
about. I've been talking about that, with everything at the
table. But the first thing that I want to find out is, what do
the commanders think about this? What do they think about these
different options? What do the Chiefs think? I'm not smart
enough, and I'm not well enough informed at this point, I
think, to make a useful judgment.
Senator Collins. I want to switch to a different issue that
we discussed briefly in my office. As chairman of the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I've worked very
closely with the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction. He has done a superb job in uncovering and
exposing numerous cases of outright fraud in contracting in
Iraq, and putting a spotlight on wasteful practices.
Regrettably, a provision was included in the defense
authorization bill that would prematurely terminate the Office
of the Special Inspector General next year. I have joined with
a number of my colleagues on the committee, including the
chairman, the ranking member, Senator Lieberman, Senator
Feingold, and several other Senators, in pushing legislation to
extend the term of the Special Inspector General. His work is
vital, and I believe it must be continued as long as we're
spending billions of taxpayer dollars in Iraq. Have you reached
a judgment on whether the term of the Special Inspector General
should be extended beyond next year?
Dr. Gates. Senator, is this Mr. Bowen?
Senator Collins. Yes, it is.
Dr. Gates. I won't speak for the others on the ISG, but I
think that I certainly was very impressed when Mr. Bowen came
and spoke to us and talked to us about a number of things that
he'd been involved in. It certainly seemed to me that he was
actually making a really constructive contribution to the war
effort in Iraq, in some of the problems he'd identified and
pointed out a pathway to correct. If I were confirmed, I would
be supportive of continuing that effort.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Collins. I
thank you for your leadership on the question of that
particular individual. I, too, have worked with him, and am
very impressed with his forthright assessment of the area of
experience to which he had responsibility in Iraq.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with some of the
comments that were made about your leadership as chairman of
this committee. I want to tell you that, personally, you have
been an outstanding chairman of this committee, and I wish you
well in the future.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator, very much.
Senator Akaka. I also want to join my colleagues here in
welcoming the distinguished Dr. Gates to this hearing. It was
great to hear a person who loves this country, as you do, to
say the things as you have said about the dilemma that we now
face in Iraq and the ways in which you intend to approach all
of this. I like your feeling of the importance of stability as
one of the goals that we need to achieve in Iraq as soon as we
can. I like your thoughts of being an ally with Iraq also, and
to work with them, and also to help them, as we intend to do,
protect themselves. All of these are certainly bases of
bringing about a great country in Iraq. I know that you are
looking at this with fresh eyes and a fresh look, which is very
appealing to me, I should tell you, and I am so glad that you
talk about approach towards national reconciliation for Iraq as
being very important. All of these, we need to consider as we
look at how we can make positive differences in Iraq.
What's coming to me presently is that we cannot continue to
depend on defense, or the DOD, as the department that can
resolve many of these problems, that we need to look at the
State Department as well, and to include the State Department
in all of these deliberations. I like your position about
working together and through our partners across the globe in
order to counter the threat of violent extremism. These are
huge goals. But I'm glad you're talking about that, and, for
me, I'm here to support you on these.
If confirmed, Dr. Gates, what steps will you take to
effectively build the support of the international community
for our ongoing efforts to stabilize Iraq?
Dr. Gates. Senator Akaka, clearly the lead, in terms of
dealing with other countries, belongs to the Secretary of
State. But I think that our defense relationships, our military
relationships, and our exchange programs with many countries,
do provide the Secretary of Defense and our military leaders
with the opportunity to win friends for the United States
around the world. There are countries that I, frankly, believe
are underappreciated, even among our own allies. I think that
the United States is too often alone, almost, in our embrace of
Turkey and working with the Turks. I think that they have been
a very important member of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) for a long time, and an underappreciated
one. The Turks offer us a tremendous amount, in terms of both
Central Asia, as well as the Middle East, as well as being a
NATO ally. So, there are countries like that, where I think our
defense relationships and the personal relationships are very
important.
I have been, frankly, surprised by the number of letters
I've received from foreign government officials welcoming my
nomination to this position. I was, I suppose, most surprised
that the first communications I got were from both the Israeli
government and from several Arab governments. So, my hope is
that under the leadership and guidance of my friend, the
Secretary of State, that if I'm confirmed for this job, I can
make some kind of a contribution in that respect. I think our
senior military leadership can do the same thing.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for that. As I'm indicating, that
we cannot continue to rely only on defense, but on the State
Department, as well as other departments, such as Commerce and
Agriculture and others, that can certainly help to bring these
about.
I'd like to ask a question that has to do with DOD. DOD has
been granted authority to establish a new personnel system,
which is the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). That
must preserve--and we know that NSPS needs to also preserve
collective bargaining. However, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia has ruled that the regulations
implementing NSPS fail to ensure collective bargaining. My
question to you is, what is your opinion of the NSPS
regulations affecting collective bargaining?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I'm aware of this legislation, but,
quite honestly, have not had the opportunity to look at the
regulations or become familiar with the details of the program.
I'd be happy to do that, if I am confirmed.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Thank you very much. My time has expired.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to add my voice to many others who have
praised you for your leadership. I have really enjoyed being on
this committee, and you have made it a real pleasure to serve
here.
Dr. Gates, thank you for your willingness to serve. It
looks like we're going to be working together for at least a
couple more years. Things are going pretty well for you right
now.
Do you believe the Iranians are trying to acquire nuclear
weapons capability?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Graham. Do you believe the President of Iran is
lying when he says he's not?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Do you believe the Iranians would consider
using that nuclear weapons capability against the nation of
Israel?
Dr. Gates. I don't know that they would do that, Senator. I
think that the risks for them, obviously, are enormously high.
I think that they see value----
Senator Graham. If I may----
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. The President of Iran has publicly
disavowed the existence of the Holocaust. He has publicly
stated that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Do you
think he's kidding?
Dr. Gates. No, I don't think he's kidding. But I think that
there are, in fact, higher powers in Iran than he, than the
president. I think that, while they are certainly pressing, in
my opinion, for nuclear capability, I think that they would see
it, in the first instance, as a deterrent. They are surrounded
by powers with nuclear weapons--Pakistan, to their east; the
Russians, to the north; the Israelis, to the west; and us, in
the Persian Gulf.
Senator Graham. Can you assure the Israelis that they will
not attack Israel with a nuclear weapon if they acquire one?
Dr. Gates. No, sir, I don't think that anybody can provide
that assurance.
Senator Graham. Is Iraq the central battlefront in the war
on terror?
Dr. Gates. I think that it is one of the central fronts in
the war on terror.
Senator Graham. What would be the others?
Dr. Gates. I think that what we have seen since the
destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is a
metastasized terror threat from the jihadists, where indigenous
radicals in countries like Britain, like Spain, and like the
United States, are, in fact, planning terrorist operations and
activities. So, I think that, while Iraq certainly is an
important front in the war on terror, and particularly now that
all these other bad actors are there that I described earlier,
I think we face a more dispersed threat that's really a very
amorphous kind of second front.
Senator Graham. Would a loss in Iraq, in terms of a failed
state, affect the war on terror?
Dr. Gates. I think it would create the conditions where you
could have a replication of what happened in Afghanistan, and,
yes, it could be.
Senator Graham. Why is al Qaeda in Iraq? What do they fear?
Why are they fighting in Iraq? What is their goal?
Dr. Gates. I'm no expert on it, Senator, but I believe that
they are very eager to see us leave the region--not just Iraq,
but leave the region altogether.
Senator Graham. Are they threatened by democracy?
Dr. Gates. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Is it the terrorists' worst nightmare for a
democratic state to be formed in Iraq, where a woman can have
her say about her children and people of religious differences
can live together under the rule of law?
Dr. Gates. I certainly hope it's one of their worst
nightmares.
Senator Graham. According to them, it is.
Now, do you believe the terrorists' goal--al Qaeda and
other terrorist organizations--to expand on what you said--
includes not only driving us out of Iraq, but the region?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Do you believe it includes the toppling of
all moderate regimes in the region?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. All regimes that are unfaithful to their
view of religion?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Do you believe it is the ultimate
destruction of the state of Israel?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Do you believe in the Powell Doctrine?
Dr. Gates. I am very familiar with it, and I would say----
Senator Graham. Do you believe in it, or not?
Dr. Gates. Sir, there are eight elements to the Powell
Doctrine.
Senator Graham. Let me sum them up to one. You go to war
with overwhelming force.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Do you believe we have the overwhelming
force we need to do all the missions required of us to bring
about a democracy in Iraq, at this point in time?
Dr. Gates. I need to talk to the commanders to find that
out, Senator.
Senator Graham. So, jobs assigned to the military
leadership, commanders, would include, do you agree, eventually
trying to disarm the militia, because you can't have a
democracy with armed religious and political parties?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Do you also believe it includes training
the Iraqi army?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Do you believe it includes rebuilding the
police force? Because I think it's a miserable failure and we
need to start over, virtually.
Dr. Gates. It's not entirely clear to me, Senator, that
that should be the responsibility of the DOD, but we have, as
best I can tell, the Department has that responsibility now.
Senator Graham. Provide security for economic development.
Forty percent of all money spent on economic development
projects now are security-related. That would be one mission of
a military commander in Iraq, to give security to the economic
development, to get this country up and running.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Is there any doubt in your mind that the
current level of troops are overwhelming when it comes to
fulfilling all those missions, including defeating the
insurgents? Could you honestly tell this committee and this
country that the number of troops we have to do all the jobs
that I've described, including defeating the insurgents, is
overwhelming?
Dr. Gates. No, sir, I do not believe it is overwhelming.
Senator Graham. If we redeploy to a friendly country under
these circumstances, do you think it's likely that the
terrorist organizations that we've just talked about would come
after us in that country, trying to prove to the American
people, ``There is no safe place for you in this region''?
Dr. Gates. Probably so.
Senator Graham. Do you believe, if we set timetables, or a
policy, to withdraw at a date-certain, it would be seen by the
extremists as a sign of weakness, the moderates would be
disheartened, and it would create a tremendous impediment to
the moderate forces coming forward in Iraq?
Dr. Gates. I think a specific timetable would essentially
tell them how long they have to wait until we're gone.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Ben Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gates, I thank you for the opportunity yesterday to
visit with you on many of these subjects that you've been
testifying on today.
I have one question. If the Baker-Hamilton Report that
comes out--and we have a chance to review it tomorrow and
Thursday--says that we ought to have a drawdown of our troops
and stop engaging, let's say, in the military activity of
combat, but being in a support role, what does that do, if
anything, to our leverage in seeing a political resolution in
Iraq?
Dr. Gates. Senator Nelson, I think at least in my view, I
certainly have the highest regard for my colleagues on the ISG.
It was a great pleasure to serve with them. In some respects,
just based on the internal dialogue we had, it is kind of a
model for the bipartisanship that we've been talking about here
this morning.
That said, I don't think that the Baker-Hamilton Report is
the last word. I think there are a number of different sources
of information and insight that need to be brought together and
looked at, in terms of any presidential decision on new tactics
or a new approach in Iraq.
It's my impression that, frankly, there are no new ideas on
Iraq. The list of tactics, the list of strategies, the list of
approaches is pretty much out there. The question is, is there
a way to put pieces of those different proposals together in a
way that provides a path forward? One of those proposals to be
looked at is whatever the ISG comes up with, but they will be
putting those pieces together in a certain way. The Chiefs will
probably put those pieces together in a little different way in
their review. The ground commanders might have a different
view. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think that
the report of the ISG is very important, and we all need to pay
a great deal of attention to it, and these are very serious
people that are putting it together. By the same token, I don't
think it's the last word.
Senator Ben Nelson. It does resemble a timetable for
withdrawal, doesn't it, at least to some limited degree?
Dr. Gates. In all honesty, Senator, I resigned before they
began their deliberations, and so I actually don't know what
the report's going to say, other than the one report that I
read in the newspapers.
Senator Ben Nelson. At the last Senate Armed Services
hearing, Secretary Rumsfeld sat there, and I asked a question
about what have now become known as ``benchmarks,'' or, as we
discussed yesterday, conditions for staying, measurable goals
to achieve, more training, if we need to have more Iraqi troops
trained so we can stand up their military. We have a limited
number of trainers there. Then we need more trainers to do it
more quickly, but we need to measure, to know how many Iraqi
troops need to be trained, how fast that we can do it. What's
the timeframe? What does it take to get it done? Secretary
Rumsfeld says, yes, he agreed that kind of an approach was
necessary and that General Casey was working with Prime
Minister Maliki in order to be able to do that. Is that your
understanding, at this point in time?
Dr. Gates. I have not had discussion with anybody about
benchmarks, but I think that's the right approach.
Senator Ben Nelson. If our goal is to ultimately find Osama
bin Laden, some sort of a net approach is necessary to do it. I
agree with you, finding out where he's going would be
advisable, if we had the Intelligence to be able to do that,
with a capital ``I.'' The other approach that we seem to have
started, but we haven't really completed, is we put a $25
million reward for his capture--a bounty, if you will. That,
obviously, hasn't been enough money to get somebody to turn him
in--as you say, one of his own forces to turn him in.
What would you think about increasing the amount of that
reward, or that bounty, by a million a week--it's certainly a
small number compared to the cost of our conflict--until it
reaches a breaking point where somebody says, ``That's enough,
and I'll give him up for $35 million or $40 million,'' just
keep adding it? Because the costs of the war are so
significant, and yet the symbolism of this individual is still
significant in that part of the world. What are your thoughts
about that?
Dr. Gates. Sort of terrorist Power Ball. [Laughter.]
Senator Ben Nelson. Yes. Somebody always wins the lottery;
it's just a question of when and how much it is at the time.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Gates. I'm certainly open to that, Senator. I must say,
one of the things, going back to Senator Byrd's question
earlier that, clearly, I'd like to become informed on quickly
is what effort we have underway and the nature of our strategy,
in terms of trying to find him. I think, just as he is not
organizing things any longer, but remains a powerful symbol,
being able to capture or kill him would have powerful symbolic
impact, also.
Senator Ben Nelson. I agree with you. I would hope that you
would consider what it would take to increase the bounty or the
reward, because I do think that money talks. At some point,
somebody will say, ``That's enough,'' and they'll take the risk
of turning him in.
My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr.
Gates.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. In that context,
always be mindful of the loss of life and limb of the members
of the Armed Forces, and, indeed, other agencies of the
Government, our Government, in that quest to find Osama.
Dr. Gates. Absolutely.
Chairman Warner. It's been mighty, mighty tough.
Dr. Gates. In the worst possible conditions.
Chairman Warner. The worst possible. You have a very
complicated situation with Pakistan and its borders, its
sovereignty. You know those things full well.
Senator Dole.
Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly want to associate myself with the comments of
all of my colleagues in thanking you for your outstanding
leadership of the Armed Services Committee, and especially the
care with which you have responded to the individual concerns
of each member. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, Senator.
Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, Philip Hughes, who you served with
at the National Security Council in the late 1980s, was quoted
recently as saying, ``Bob has answered his country's call.''
Indeed, I want to start by also thanking you for accepting that
call, and for your service to the public.
Dr. Gates, the transformation efforts undertaken by
Secretary Rumsfeld are critical to meeting the challenges of
the 21st century. While Secretary Rumsfeld made transformation
of the military a priority, obviously much remains to be done.
In your view, which transformation programs are the most
important and effective in fighting this war on terror? Of all
the transformation initiatives, which, if any, do you feel
requires continued focus by the Secretary of Defense?
I'd also just add a third part to this, with regard to a
specific element of transformation. Do you support the change
in the organization of the Army from a division-based structure
to 70 modular brigade teams?
Dr. Gates. Senator Dole, one of the things that has
impressed me the most in the very short briefings that I've
received preparatory to this hearing, is the extent of the
transformation that actually has taken place in recent years,
compared to when I was in government. I can't tell you how many
crisis meetings I sat through in the Situation Room over a 20-
year period, and we would look at military contingencies, and
we would be looking at 60 to 90 days to generate a brigade, to
get a military force on the move and in place. So, the
expeditionary nature of the Army, the mobility, the change in
mindset--sometimes, perhaps, those of you who have been really
close to it may not fully appreciate just how dramatically the
situation already has changed compared to when I was in
government last.
I think that the transformation needs to continue. I would
confess that I don't have a lot of familiarity with it. I have
read the Quadrennial Defense Review. It seems to me that it's
on the mark, in terms of the large programs and the directions.
The two things that I think make a lot of sense has been
this shift of the Army from being basically a static force to a
more mobile expeditionary force. I think that's very important.
I think that, based on very superficial information, at
this point, the shift from divisions to the brigade structure
does make a lot of sense. I think it provides a lot more
flexibility.
I would say that one of the things that I think is very
important in the transformation is continuing to strengthen our
capacity to fight irregular wars. I think that is where the
action is most likely going to be for the foreseeable future.
So, I think it's very important that it go forward. But, again,
I say that's based on a pretty superficial reading of it, at
this point.
Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, a World Bank report was released
just last week on Afghanistan's drug industry and indicates
that total opium cultivation just in 2006 has increased by 59
percent. Afghanistan now accounts for 90 percent of the global
opium supply. Of course, the drug trade in Afghanistan has
profound implications for the safety of our service men and
women, and for the supply of heroin around the world, more and
more of which is coming into the United States.
Do we need to more aggressively confront this issue in
Afghanistan? Does this require a more direct effort by our
military, in terms of opium interdiction and targeting of opium
production facilities?
Dr. Gates. Senator Dole, I think it's very important. As a
matter of fact, just by coincidence, a couple of months ago I
gave a speech at the World Food Prize ceremonies in Des Moines,
and addressed this issue. I think that this is an area where
the Defense Department can make a contribution, certainly in
interdiction kinds of things. But this is one of those places
where I think other parts of the American Government need to go
to war as well, including the Department of Agriculture.
I'll give you an example. A poppy grower really doesn't
have a diffuse market for his product. He has one person, or
one network, buying. So, there's no market flexibility. He gets
told what the price is. He can't sell it anywhere else. His
animals can't eat it. So, the notion, sometimes, is that the
farmer gets so much money from growing poppies and drugs that
crop substitution won't work. The truth of the matter is, the
farmer often doesn't make very much money on it, and if we
could get to work, in terms of providing Afghan farmers with
other alternative crops, and encouraging those, and even
subsidizing them, to some extent, for a limited period while
they made a transition, it seems to me that it would be a very
productive kind of thing to do. America's Land Grant
Universities, Texas A&M is already on the ground in Tikrit
working on these kinds of issues. There's no reason why our
universities can't contribute to this, as well, frankly.
Senator Dole. Thank you.
Let me ask you about financial management systems at the
DOD. Obviously, Secretary Rumsfeld, early in his tenure, made
reform of these systems a priority, a top priority, and
significant progress has been made, but challenges certainly
still remain. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), just
last month, announced that the Defense Department's financial
management systems have problems right now that are so severe
that independent auditors still cannot certify the accuracy of
the financial statements. I'm interested in what plans you may
have to address what appears to be a severe problem.
Dr. Gates. I don't have great familiarity with this,
Senator, but, if I'm confirmed, I certainly look forward to
working with Deputy Secretary England to address these issues.
Senator Dole. Thank you.
My time is up. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Bill Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gates, I grew up in the old school that said that
partisanship stopped at the water's edge, particularly on
matters of national security. You and I have already had a
discussion about this privately. I'd like for you to share with
the committee, how do you think that you will facilitate these
big decisions of war and peace to be done in a bipartisan way?
Dr. Gates. Senator, for openers, I think that there is a
lot continuity and a lot of wisdom here in Congress, in this
committee, and the Appropriations Committees, in particular, on
a lot of issues relating to the Defense Department and to
national security issues. I think the place to start is by a
more frequent dialogue, a more frequent exchange of views and
creating opportunities to learn and to listen with people, and
to do that with individuals from both parties. I think that the
one area where bipartisanship is already practiced, certainly
by this committee--I'm not as familiar with others--is in the
many visits that members of this committee have taken to Iraq,
where members from both parties go. Based on everything I've
heard, the impact out there is, they're seeing Republicans and
Democrats who care about men and women in uniform and are
trying to work together to do the best thing for the country.
So, in a way, there may be better demonstrations of
bipartisanship in Iraq than there are sometimes here in
Washington. But I think we can replicate that in Washington. I
think it goes back to what I said earlier about the executive
branch working together, and that is, it depends a lot on
personal relationships and personal trust, and the recognition
that you're going to have disagreements about issues, but you
can do it and maintain your trust and your respect for people.
Senator Bill Nelson. When I served in the military, every
young person--at that time, it was every young man--had an
obligation to serve. We had a draft. Do you think we're getting
close to the point, in order to have the personnel needs for
the United States military, that we need a draft?
Dr. Gates. No, sir, I do not.
Senator Bill Nelson. Now, you say, then, that we can meet
our recruiting goals without a draft. Explain that to the
committee.
Dr. Gates. Sir, I think that the first encouraging aspect,
statistically, based on the limited exposure I've had, is the
great success we've had in retention in the Services. So, we
don't have a hole in the bottom of the bucket of much
consequence. My impression is that the Army was authorized to
add an additional 30,000 troops, and that they have recruited,
I think, 23,000, or thereabouts, of that 30,000.
I would tell you, my candid opinion is that I think one of
the military officers that I was talking to told me that one of
the concerns that he had about recruitment was that first we'd
lost the moms, and now we were starting to lose the dads, in
terms of encouraging young people to join the Services. In all
honesty, I think that when people perceive that joining the
Services is not a direct ticket to Iraq, our opportunities for
increasing numbers are going to be significant. We have this
problem, frankly, with the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M, where
we have a tough time recruiting people, because they think, if
you put on a cadet uniform at A&M, that mom and dad think
you're going to go straight to Iraq. So, I think that we have
what I would call a transitory problem. The military seems
confident that they can overcome it.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would, as the newest member of this
committee to the most senior member of this committee, add my
great appreciation, and tell you that it's been an honor to
serve under your chairmanship. As everyone else has already
stated, I appreciate your long and very distinguished career in
service to this country. So, thank you for that.
Chairman Warner. I thank the Senator very much.
Senator Thune. Dr. Gates, I want to congratulate you on a
very successful tenure as president of Texas A&M, culminating
with a win over Texas in the football game this year. I'm sure
your performance in that job is probably measured more by the
battle for football supremacy in Texas than just about anything
else, and something that my colleague from Texas, no doubt,
will want to stay out of, I'm quite guessing. But you're
leaving a very rewarding job for what is arguably the toughest
job on the planet. We appreciate your willingness to reenter
the public arena.
Like many members of this committee, I have a large
contingent of people in my State of South Dakota. We're a small
State, populationwise, but, when it comes to military service
per capita, contribute mightily to the war on terror and to our
military service. We had 2,900 National Guard members and 750
Air Guard members who have been deployed to Iraq. We've had our
casualties in our State continue to grow, as well. So, it's
obviously on the mind of all Americans.
The question's been asked and it's been hotly debated, and
I guess I would just come back to this basic premise. The
mission in Iraq has been to stand up a government, stand up a
military. Critical to our success in order to achieve a
speedier exit from Iraq is to be able to have the Iraqi
military defend the Iraqi people. The question is of troop
strength. I guess what I'd like to come back to, in regard to
that, is to ask the question as to whether or not you believe
that additional U.S. troops dedicated to training Iraqis, in
the short term, could lead to a speedier exit in the long term.
Dr. Gates. Instinctively, Senator, I think that that would
be the case. I just want to be clear, I think, before I were to
draw any conclusions on that score, I would want to talk to the
commanders in the field and get their judgment on it. What I
know about the number of trainers, I've just read somewhere in
the newspaper. So, I consider myself to have very superficial
knowledge about some of these things, and I'd like to sit down
with General Casey and some of the others and find out what the
facts are, and find out if there is a need, along the lines
we've just been discussing.
Senator Thune. Let me ask you a question about how the
Pentagon has faced considerable amount of criticism over tying
intelligence to a preferred policy outcome and overzealously
guarding its control over the defense intelligence agencies at
the expense of the larger community. As nominee for the
Secretary of Defense, you are the Intelligence Community's
biggest customer. What steps will you take to ensure that the
intelligence will not be tainted by policy requirements, and
that intelligence agencies, like the CIA and the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA), will be encouraged to present their
own objective and independent analyses, free from any type of
bureaucratic pressure?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I feel very strongly about that given
my background. I have actually had great respect for the DIA
during my career. In fact, during the Reagan administration, on
a regular basis, we ran contributions from DIA in the
President's morning brief because of my regard for them.
The one thing that I don't like is offline intelligence
organizations or analytical groups. I would far rather depend
on the professional analysts at DIA and at CIA and at the other
agencies, and work to ensure their independence, than to try
and create some alternative someplace. So, I think that relying
on those professionals, and making it clear from my position,
if I'm confirmed, that I expect them to call the shots as they
see them, and not try and shape their answers to meet a policy
need.
Senator Thune. I appreciate that answer. I think your
background will be very helpful and useful in that regard. You
served on the ISG--it's being reported that one of the
recommendations will be to engage Iran and Syria with regard to
Iraq. Do you believe that Iran and/or Syria would, in any
possible way, act to benefit a democratic Iraq? Let me ask you
that question, and then follow up by asking, at what price or
cost would you be willing to pay, diplomatically or otherwise,
for that kind of beneficial action on either of those
countries' part?
Dr. Gates. I'm not prepared to pay for anything that I
don't get in advance. [Laughter.]
I have said that I think that having a channel of
communication with these governments is worthwhile. That isn't
necessarily a vehicle for negotiation. Because, often, the
channel of communication between ourselves and the Soviet Union
and China was merely for the passing of messages and providing
reassurance that certain actions weren't threatening, and so
on. I'm not optimistic that a negotiation with Iran would
provide a lot of benefit. I co-chaired this Council on Foreign
Relations Study on U.S. Policy Toward Iran in 2004, with Dr.
Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor, and
we recommended a negotiation with Iran. But I would say that
the conditions have changed fairly dramatically since we wrote
that report. Among other things, Iran has a new leader, who is
quite unambiguous about his views of the rest of the world.
Iran has gone from doing some things in 2004 that were harmful
to our effort in Iraq, but also some things that could be
perceived as being helpful to us--as far as I can tell, to
being entirely negative now. They are clearly helping Hezbollah
train fighters. So, I think the circumstances that led to our
recommendations in 2004 have changed in some important ways.
I think it's worth keeping an open mind, in the vein of
having all the options on the table. I think it'll be
interesting to see what the Baker-Hamilton recommendations are
in this regard. I know that one of Secretary Baker's favorite
lines is that it was on his 15th trip to Damascus that he
actually made headway with the Syrians. So, they're clearly a
tough nut to crack.
I do believe that long-term stability in Iraq will be
influenced by Syria and Iran. I think that we need to look at
ways, either incentives or disincentives, to bring them to try
and be constructive, in terms of the state on their border. How
we do that, I don't have any specific ideas at this point.
Whether that involves negotiations or sitting down with them
now by ourselves or in an international conference or putting
it off until some later date, I think, along the lines of
keeping our options open at least merits thinking about.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time's expired. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Levin and I observed a number of members remaining,
and the clock, and we're going to try and accommodate each
member who's been here this morning before we conclude. I
think, therefore we will conclude our morning session around 1
o'clock. We'll return at 2:15 to this room to resume the
hearing for those Senators who might have missed the first
round, and a question or two from the other Senators who wish
to join.
Following that, we would hope to go to S-407 of the Capitol
for our executive session. Thank you.
Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to join with others in saying what an honor it's
been to serve under your leadership in this committee, also
that of the ranking member. I thank you both.
Dr. Gates, I wanted to thank you for your willingness to
serve your country again. I also say that I've been impressed
this morning with your candor, your straightforwardness. You've
asserted your own independence of judgment, which I think
you've demonstrated so far today. I guess I want to know if you
will grant that same independence to your military commanders
who are asked to testify before this committee or other
committees of Congress to express views that reflect their own
honest judgments that may differ with your own.
Dr. Gates. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
You said, and I agree with you, that hindsight is 20/20,
and we have all made judgments at the time with hindsight, that
can be legitimately questioned. Given what we know today about
the absence of WMD in Iraq, given the predicament that we're in
today, with that benefit of hindsight, would you say that
invading Iraq was the right decision or the wrong decision?
Dr. Gates. Frankly, Senator, I think that's a judgment that
the historians are going to have to make. I certainly supported
the decision to go into Iraq in 2003, and not just because
Saddam had WMD. It was clear that the Food for Peace program--
the Oil-for-Food Program, was failing. It was totally
corrupted, and the money was being diverted. It's clear that
the sanctions were weakening. I had no doubt in my mind that,
once the sanctions were removed by the U.N., and it looked like
the French and the Russians and others were moving in that
direction, that Saddam, if he didn't have WMD, would move
quickly to try and obtain them.
I think we have to look at the reality, in terms of why we
all thought that. This is a little bit of a diversion, but I
think one of the reasons why Iran is determined to have nuclear
weapons is that they see how complicated it is for us to try
and deal with a North Korea that has nuclear weapons. I think
they believe that if Saddam had had a nuclear weapon, we might
not have attacked him in either 1991 or 2001. There was no
doubt and I believe Saddam had the same calculus. So, once the
sanctions were lifted, there was no doubt in my mind that he
would strive to get a nuclear weapon.
He clearly hadn't changed his spots in the slightest; and
so, that's the reason that I supported the decision to go in,
as well as the fact that I thought he had WMD, as I like to put
it, just like every intelligence service in the world thought,
apparently, including the French.
So, was the decision to go in right? I think it's too soon
to tell. I think much depends on the outcome in Iraq.
Senator Dayton. What do you think were the key strategic or
tactical mistakes that have led to our current quagmire in
Iraq? How can they be corrected? Or is it too late to do so?
Dr. Gates. As I say, I think that hindsight, as you
suggest, is 20/20. I suspect that some of the members of the
administration would make some different decisions, in light of
hindsight. I've made my own mistakes, and learned from them in
hindsight. I would say that, just to give you two or three
examples, I don't think that we had a full appreciation of just
how broken Iraq was as a country before we ever went in, that
after 35 years of Saddam, after 8 years of war with Iran, after
the first Gulf war, after 12 years of sanctions, that the
country was broken, economically, socially, politically, in
every respect. Even if our soldiers had been greeted uniformly
with flowers in their gun barrels, the cost of reconstructing
Iraq would have been fairly staggering. I don't think there was
that realization, or the expectation that we would have to
reconstruct Iraq.
I think there are two other problems that I think were
created. The first was the demobilization of the Iraqi army. I
know the argument that they have largely dissipated, but I
think if we had widely advertised the fact that soldiers who
returned to their barracks would continue to be paid, they
would have a way to take care of their families, that we
wouldn't have had several hundred thousand people who knew how
to use weapons, had weapons, and were unemployed out on the
streets.
A third example, I think, was the extreme deBaathification
policy. Frankly, looking at it from a distance, it seemed to me
that perhaps we'd forgotten the lessons of our deNazification
strategy in Germany in 1945 and 1946, and didn't really
appreciate the fact that every schoolteacher and powerplant
operator, for the most part, in Iraq, had to be a member of the
Baath Party to get the job, and that in terms of being a threat
to our interests or a threat to a democratic Iraq, they weren't
necessarily that, that it was the people at the top of the
pyramid that were the problem. So, a few more hundreds of
thousands of people were thrown out of work, people who
actually knew how to make some things work and who might have
had a stake in keeping things together.
So, this whole thing will be the attention of historians
for many years to come, but, based on very short-term
perspective, those seem to me to be some of the concerns that I
would have had.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my time's expired.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator, very much.
One of our colleagues, the distinguished Senator from
Georgia, Senator Chambliss, met with you extensively yesterday,
is my understanding. Regrettably, he had to attend a funeral
and give the eulogy for one of his lifetime friends today, and
he wished us to acknowledge his absence. But thank you for the
extensive meeting and opportunity you accorded him yesterday to
ask a few questions.
Senator Talent.
Senator Talent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gates, I'm looking forward to a chance to visit with
you personally, also, and so I'm going to be as brief as I can.
I notice most Senators have made a brief comment about the
general state of the military, and then have asked you mostly
about Iraq, which is certainly appropriate. I think I'm going
to do it in reverse, make a general comment about Iraq, and
then ask you about the state of the military.
With regard to what you said about WMD, I do think we have
not fully concentrated on the benefits that we are receiving
now just because Saddam is gone. We have an Iraq that is not
attempting to compete with Iran to dominate the region, not
threatening its neighbors, not trying to develop a nuclear
weapons programs. Those are benefits that we received from
removing him.
I was in the House in the 1990s, and it was clear that as
that decade wore on, the situation with his regime was
unacceptable and that something was going to have to be done.
The other point I've thought about with regard to this is
when you make decisions in government, you have to make them
based on the information that you have in front of you and
discounting against the possibility it may turn out to be
wrong. You can't say, ``Well, everybody believes, and all the
data suggests, he's developing WMD, but I'm not going to take
the obvious step because of the possibility it might all be
wrong.'' Then you're just paralyzed.
So, that's a general comment on Iraq. What I want to ask
you about, though, is the state of the military; in particular,
our ability to procure the new generation of systems and
platforms that we are now going to go into an intensive phase
of buying. The decisions that you make, and that Congress
makes, in the next couple of years are going to dictate
precisely the options that a President has 10 years down the
road in a similar circumstance. I think we all have to
understand this timeframe.
Talk about more troops in Iraq. Our options are limited
because of decisions made in the early 1990s about the size of
the Army that Senator McCain asked you about. I hope you will
expedite your study of that. I think you will find that the
tooth-to-tail ratio is pretty much undefeatable, and you have
to have an Army bigger than we now have if you want to be able
to maintain troops in combat, even in the low-intensity combat
situation. I think you will conclude that's necessary. I hope
you will then have the courage to advocate that within the
Department and with the OMB.
Now, I just jotted down--over the next few years, we're
going to have to procure the DDG-1000 destroyers. We're going
to ramp up production of Virginia-class submarines. The
littoral combat vessel. The Navy's going to have to get its new
cruiser. It's essential to missile defense. The F-20--and the
Air Force is going to have to buy F-22, Joint Strike Fighters.
We need an interdiction bomber to replace the B-52. The Army,
with the Future Combat System, is essentially going to replace
its entire capital stock of vehicles, with the exception of
some tanks. There are other absolutely vital programs that our
men and women are going to use for the next generation.
I think you will find, when you look at this, that the
procurement baseline that we have now in place through the
Future Years Defense Program is fundamentally inadequate to
achieve that. I want to know from you that this is going to be
a priority of your investigations and your work, if you're
confirmed, and that you will fight for the necessary
procurement dollars with the OMB, if necessary. We have been
kicking the can down the road, year after year after year, and
I think it's landed right at your doorstep.
If you would comment on that. Do you have any sense of this
situation? Do you realize what you're going to be confronting?
Are you prepared for that kind of a struggle? Because if we
don't begin doing it under your stewardship, then the
President, a couple of terms from now, is just not going to
have the kind of options that he or she will need in order to
be able to protect America's security.
Dr. Gates. Senator, I'm very familiar with the long lead
times on these programs. The weapons that we so proudly
deployed in the early 1980s in the Reagan administration often
were developed in the Carter administration or the Ford
administration or the Nixon administration. So, there is a long
continuity. The irony is, in all of that, this committee, and
the Appropriations Committee, is probably the only place around
that has the continuity of experience to have watched the whole
cycle go through.
As I understand it, the fiscal year 2008 budget is
basically put to bed. Clearly, if I am confirmed for this job,
I'm going to have to take a close look at it. What I can tell
you is that I am prepared to consult with Congress and with the
President, others in the administration, if I think changes
need to be made, changes in allocations and so on.
But I would also say, just looking at it, as I understand
it, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, defense
spending, even with the cost of the war in Iraq, is at a
relatively low level compared to most of post-World War II
experience. So, I think there may be some flexibility. In the
very brief conversations that I've had about these matters with
the President, he clearly is very interested, and understands
the nature of these problems, as well. Certainly this business
of planning for the future is every bit as important as taking
care of today and tomorrow, and I will make it a priority.
Senator Talent. If not more so. Let me just say that what
we were able to achieve with the end of the Cold War, winning
in Operation Desert Storm, I think came directly, or sprang
directly, from the decisions made by the President and Congress
at the beginning of the Reagan administration, on a bipartisan
basis, to sustain, I believe it was, two double-digit increases
in the top line. If we have that kind of a commitment, it is
possible to plan--you can do a transformation intelligently,
you can do it efficiently. If, every year, we're robbing Peter
to pay Paul, every year, putting the absolutely urgent ahead of
the important, it ends up costing the taxpayers more and
imperils American security. I just hope you will have that
attitude. I think a pretty cursory inspection of the budget
will lead you to the same conclusions that I've reached. We
need a Defense Secretary that'll stand up and fight for that,
and I hope that you'll do it.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator, very much.
Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it
has been a privilege to serve on this committee under your
leadership. I'm very grateful to you.
Dr. Gates, thank you for your candor. That's something that
has been sorely lacking from the current occupant in the
position that you seek to hold. Your candor to this committee,
to the American people, and especially to our men and women in
uniform is crucial to our success. We need a strong Secretary
of Defense, but that doesn't mean strongheaded. I appreciate
your openness and willingness to engage with this committee
today.
Part of that candor was evident when you responded to
Senator Levin's question about whether we are winning the war
in Iraq, contrary to what your predecessor told us from that
very chair, and what the President has told the American
people. Can you tell us when and how you came to the conclusion
that you expressed in your testimony, that we were not winning,
a conclusion different from the President's?
Dr. Gates. I think that, frankly, if the President thought
that the current tactics and strategy that we were employing
were successful, he wouldn't be looking for fresh eyes and
looking for new approaches and new tactics in our situation in
Iraq.
I suppose that I came to that conclusion during my service
on the ISG, which was really the first time I had the
opportunity to look at some of these circumstances in detail.
Senator Clinton. Dr. Gates, since the President made a
statement, as recently as October 25, that we were absolutely
winning, many of us believe that the outcome of the election
has triggered the willingness of the President to perhaps look
at other options.
As you said in your testimony today, you don't believe
there are any new ideas on Iraq, that we know what the options
are, and it is incumbent upon us, our Government, hopefully in
consultation with Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to find a
path forward.
Now, with respect to the path forward, have you reviewed
Secretary Rumsfeld's memo regarding possible policy options for
changing course in Iraq?
Dr. Gates. I just read the version of it in the newspaper.
Senator Clinton. Do you agree with the analysis that
appeared in the article that contained a copy of the memo that
you've referred to?
Dr. Gates. It seemed to me that some of the options that
Secretary Rumsfeld put forward are exactly among those that
need to be considered in considering the path forward.
Senator Clinton. Dr. Gates, I've been honored to serve on
this committee now for nearly 4 years. Many of the options that
Secretary Rumsfeld put forward in that memo have been discussed
in our committee deliberations. They have been offered to
administration witnesses as possible options, and yet, there
were no changes. That strikes me as being very troubling,
because now we're looking at the potential for a thorough
review that will lead to changes that will be in America's
interests, be in the interests of our men and women in uniform,
and, we hope, in the interests of the people of Iraq and the
region. Based on your experience, which goes back quite a ways
in this town, do you believe the President, the Vice President,
and the existing Secretary of Defense are intelligent men?
Dr. Gates. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Clinton. Are they patriotic?
Dr. Gates. Absolutely.
Senator Clinton. Do they care about our men and women in
uniform?
Dr. Gates. Absolutely.
Senator Clinton. Do they believe the decisions they have
made for the last 5 years have been in America's best interest?
Dr. Gates. I have not had that discussion with any of them,
Senator. I'm sure that they believe that they were in the
country's best interest.
Senator Clinton. So, therefore, we have this conundrum. We
have a President and a Vice President who will ultimately
decide--as the President is fond of saying, he is ``the
decider''--about the direction to pursue, going forward in
Iraq. It is quite frustrating to many of us to see the mistakes
that have been made, some of which you have enumerated, and to
wonder whether there is any change that will be pursued by the
President. Do you have an opinion as to how and when the
process will occur that might lead to some changes in options
and strategies?
Dr. Gates. My sense, Senator Clinton, is that this process
is going to proceed with considerable urgency. I would tell you
that if I am confirmed, as soon as I am sworn in, I intend to
actually move very quickly, in terms of the consultations with
the commanders in the field and with the Chiefs and with
others, in terms of formulating my recommendations. So, I would
say, certainly from my standpoint, and I think also from the
administration's--with considerable urgency.
Senator Clinton. Finally, let me ask you, Dr. Gates, that,
in an oral history of the 1991 Gulf War produced by the PBS
program Frontline, you made some very definite points about how
the military often overstate, or even, in your words,
exaggerate, the level of forces required to accomplish a
specific objective. I'm concerned that's precisely the attitude
that we've heard from Secretary Rumsfeld, former Deputy
Secretary Wolfowitz, and others, with regard to General
Shinseki's recommendation and many in the uniformed military,
and civilian experts, who have consistently beat the drum that
we don't have enough troops, we never had enough troops.
Therefore, how will you take that set of recommendations from
your uniformed military onboard and figure out how you're going
to assess it, given your previously stated position that it's
often exaggerated when we look at missions to accomplish?
Dr. Gates. Senator, that statement was made in the context
of the bureaucratic wars in Washington and the decisionmaking
process, or the process of considering contingency planning in
the Situation Room. I would tell you that the CIA also, in
those same meetings, often would describe very pessimistically
the prospects for covert actions that were being considered by
an administration. Frankly, it's my experience that both the
military and the CIA take that kind of approach, because
sometimes they hear, as one of the earlier Senators was--I
think it was perhaps Senator Warner, the chairman--some awfully
strange ideas in the Situation Room, sometimes from members of
the National Security Council staff. It was always my
experience that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, it was
the State Department that most often wanted to use force, and
the DOD that most often wanted to use diplomacy, and the CIA
never wanted to use covert action. Everybody wanted everybody
else to take the actions.
I think that when the actual decisions came though, the
recommendations of the military were taken very seriously. I
remember when the first President Bush was asking about the
offensive strategy once--we had 200,000 troops in Saudi Arabia,
and we were at a meeting in the Situation Room in the fall of
1990, and the military came in and briefed on what they felt
they needed to eject Saddam and the Republican Guard from
Kuwait. They went through a long list of things, moving the 7th
Corps to the Middle East, six-carrier battlegroups, activating
the Guard and Reserve. I'll never forget, the President stood
up and said, ``You have it. Let me know if you need more.'' I
think that that kind of deference--when you get past the debate
about what the policy should be, that great deference should be
extended to the professionals who are going to have to carry
out the action. I think the first President Bush did that in
the Gulf War, and that certainly would be my instinct, if I'm
confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
Senator Clinton. That would certainly be welcome.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator,
that question elicited a very important answer for the record
of this hearing. I thank the witness.
Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me also express my gratitude at serving under your
leadership and chairmanship. It's been an honor. Thank you.
Dr. Gates, thank you for agreeing to return to public
service. As I said yesterday, Texas A&M's loss is America's
gain. Your willingness to accept what I think has to be, if not
the most difficult, the second most difficult job in
Washington. I appreciate your willingness to step forward and
answer that call.
As we discussed yesterday, the decisions that this country
makes about the conflict in Iraq and the global war on terror
will have a lasting impact in the Middle East and on the entire
world. I hope there remains a bipartisan consensus that we will
not allow Iraq to become a failed state. If there are some who
have questioned about whether it is possible to actually
achieve victory, I hope we at least will do everything we can
to not lose.
The consequences of a failed state in Iraq would have a
devastating impact on our national security interests. This is
not a matter of partisan differences. No less military expert
than General Anthony Zinni, who, in today's New York Times, was
quoted as saying--and he, of course, was a forthright critic of
the decision to go into Iraq--the article says, ``These days,
General Zinni is delivering another provocative message, that
leaving Iraq quickly would strengthen Iranian influence
throughout the Middle East, create a sanctuary for terrorist
groups, and encourage even more sectarian strife in Iraq, and
risk turmoil in this oil-rich region of the world.'' He
actually has gone so far as saying we ought to leave the door
open to a temporary increase in American troops so we can
clear, hold, and build in Iraq, and particularly in Baghdad. As
General Zinni noted, we all understand that chaos in Iraq
could, if left to just spiral downward without any attempt to
control it, allow al Qaeda a base for operations against us and
our allies. As many noted before, we can't simply leave,
because the enemy is determined to follow us here.
But I'd like to focus on another potential consequence. We
touched on this a little yesterday, but I'd like to do this for
the public record. That is the expansion of Iranian influence
in Iraq. I'd like for you to give us your assessment on how
Iran would react if the United States precipitously withdrew.
There are some who have said that they will use that
opportunity to consolidate the Shiite population in southern
Iraq, and perhaps annex Iraq as part of the Iranian state,
which, of course, may lead countries like Saudi Arabia, largely
a Sunni population, to intervene to protect the Sunnis against
any ethnic cleansing efforts or conflicts, sectarian violence
that might occur.
Then, of course, with the partition--de facto partition of
Iraq into Kurdistan and--which causes, of course, a lot of
concern in Turkey, I would like for you to, please, just give
me your best estimate, here in this public forum, of what a
precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, creation of a failed state,
would have, particularly with an emphasis on Iranian influence.
Dr. Gates. One of the assumptions that I think has proved
questionable, Senator Cornyn, is that the Iraqi Shi'a were,
first and foremost, Iraqi nationalists, and, having fought
against the Iranians, would resist Iranian interference and
Iranian efforts to become involved in Iraq. Based on just what
I've read in the newspapers, that does not seem to be the case,
because the Iranians are extremely active, as best I can tell,
particularly in southern Iraq, but perhaps elsewhere, as well.
One of the things that I have heard, for example, is that the
Iranians are very likely involved in the development and
production of these increasingly sophisticated IEDs that are
hurting and killing so many of our soldiers.
I think that the Iranians will seek to have as much
influence in Iraq as they possibly can. These two states have
been adversaries ever since Iraq was created, after World War
I. As I just mentioned, they went to war for 8 years with each
other, with terrible cost. They clearly never want to have an
enemy like that on their western border again, and I think that
their effort will be to try and exercise as much influence in
Iraq as possible. If you end up with a Shiite government in
Iraq, and no sense of nationhood with respect to the inclusion
of the Sunnis and the Kurds, I think it will not be long before
we will have a government in Baghdad that is as hostile as the
one in Tehran.
Senator Cornyn. We know the Iranians are state sponsors of
terrorist organizations, principally Hezbollah. Would you
foresee any change if they were to expand their sphere of
influence and control to Baghdad, that they would somehow
foreswear their support of terrorist organizations like
Hezbollah or perhaps others that serve their purpose?
Dr. Gates. No, I don't see any near-term prospect of the
Iranians foregoing their use of Hezbollah and other terrorists.
Senator Cornyn. One final point, as my time is expired. As
I mentioned to you yesterday, I would appreciate your
commitment to work with this committee on acquisition reform.
We need to procure weapons systems more quickly, efficiently,
and affordably so that we can guarantee that we can meet
military requirements. On another occasion, perhaps we can talk
about your recommendations and thoughts on the size of our
special forces operation, something that has grown a lot, I
think, to meet a very real need around the world.
Thank you very much for your willingness to serve, and
being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I think it was very
helpful to have his perspective on what consequences of a
failed state are.
Senator Bayh, you're the wrap-up.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin my wrapping-up by echoing what every other
member of the panel has said in thanking you for your
leadership. You have proven yourself willing to rise above the
interests of party to do what's right for the country, and I
admire that in you, Mr. Chairman. So, thank you for that.
I know our chairman-to-be exhibits the same qualities, so
I'm looking forward to serving with you, Carl.
Thank you for your public service, Dr. Gates. I am deeply
grateful to you for that.
I did notice, with some interest, however, that you
recently gave a speech in Des Moines, Iowa. You keep a schedule
like that, you're going to start tongues to wagging. Just a
word of friendly advice. [Laughter.]
I'd like to follow up on something that Senator Clinton was
asking you about, and that is this. I appreciate your candor, I
appreciate your openmindness, and I appreciate your realism, as
opposed to having an ideological view of things. But you are
not the ultimate decisionmaker. That will be the President of
the United States.
We have recently seen some examples, where the National
Security Advisor issued a memo about the Prime Minister of
Iraq, raising questions about his capabilities; and the
President, in a matter of days later, said that he was the
right man for Iraq. Your predecessor, Secretary Rumsfeld, had a
memo in the newspaper laying out a series of options that the
President seemed to very shortly thereafter dismiss, at least
some of them, as being unrealistic, although the Secretary
thought they were worth considering. Colin Powell, former
Secretary of State, offered advice that was not listened to.
Now, of course, the President's not going to take
everyone's point of view. That's not possible. My question to
you, very simply, is--you seem to be a very reasonable man.
What leads you to believe that the President of the United
States will accept your counsel?
Dr. Gates. Senator, because he asked me to take the job.
Senator Bayh. He asked the others to take the jobs, as
well.
Dr. Gates. I think that when they assumed their positions,
the circumstances that the country and the President faced were
different. I think the President was very direct in saying,
both privately to me and then publicly, that he saw the need
for fresh eyes on the problem, and I think he, at the same
time, has indicated a willingness to consider different
options, in terms of seeing how we can do better in Iraq.
Senator Bayh. I hope you're right. I would simply urge you
to give him your opinion, if you agree, that changing course
need not be seen as a sign of weakness. As a matter of fact, it
may be the intelligent thing to do to strengthen our country,
to protect our national security interests. I sometimes think,
in the higher reaches of the administration, those things have
been confused. So, I wish you well. I hope he does heed your
counsel.
Dr. Gates. Thank you, sir.
Senator Bayh. Two other things. One of the refreshing
things that you said, and many others would agree, is that
ultimately the Iraqis have to do this for themselves. We can't
do this for them, that there are tough political decisions to
make. Senator McCain raised an interesting issue about what
comes first, stability or political progress. You outlined some
of the unfortunate mistakes that were made early on that
undermined the stability. You can't put Humpty Dumpty back
together again. Those events tend to take on a momentum all of
their own. My own judgment is, now, that political decisions
have to be made, even in the absence of perfect stability;
otherwise, this is not going to end well.
So, the nub of this seems to be that there are those who
believe that setting a timeline, or at least starting to bring
closure in Iraq, will cause the Iraqi leaders to be insecure
and to retreat to their religious and their ethnic identity.
Others believe that they need a wake-up call, and that the
setting of at least a flexible timeline is essential to keeping
pressure on them to make the decisions that only they can make.
We've tried the ``stay the course'' approach and reassuring
them for 3\1/2\ years. They seem to still behave more like
Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds, as opposed to Iraqis. Why do you
think that the setting of a flexible timeline will not succeed
in getting them to make the political decisions that need to be
made?
Dr. Gates. I go back to my original statement, at the
outset of the hearing--I think that all options have to stay on
the table. I want to sit down and talk with the commanders in
the field. I want to talk to the Chiefs. I want to see what
Secretary Baker and Congressman Hamilton and the ISG have to
say.
I have said before, I'm willing to consider all
alternatives, all options, as we think about how to move
forward in the most productive way, and to consult with people
about those, consult with people here on the Hill about those,
and then I'll decide what recommendation that I want to make to
the President, in terms of what I think we ought to do. But, I
believe that, at least going into this process, that all these
options have to be on the table.
Senator Bayh. One final question, Dr. Gates, with regard to
Iran and their nuclear aspirations. I agree with your
assessment of why they seek to have a nuclear capability. They
impress me as the kind of individuals, the leaders of their
country, that will only respond to the prospect of forceful
steps. Rhetoric alone probably will not be enough.
I've been told that they see our continued presence in Iraq
as a constraining factor on us, that it limits us from having
as credible a deterrent with regard to Iran as we need to have
to get them to give up their nuclear aspirations, or to at
least give us the best chance of accomplishing that. Do you
agree with the statement that bringing closure eventually to
our presence in Iraq is necessary to maximizing our chances to
have the deterrent to deter the Iranians from their nuclear
aspirations?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I'm not sure about that. I think that
some of the public statements by the President of Iran, some of
the actions the Iranians have taken, are beginning, in a
significant way, to frighten other neighbors and to create
concerns among countries, both in the region and in Europe and
elsewhere, who are potentially in a position to be helpful to
us in bringing pressure to bear, both economic and political
pressure to bear, on Iran. So, I'm not denying what you're
suggesting, but I'm not sure it's right either. I think that
there are some other factors at work that the Iranians are
going to have to take into account.
Senator Bayh. Just one final observation. My time is
expired. Again, I thank you for your presence. I've been told
by some that they view us as being bogged down in Iraq, from a
manpower standpoint, from a resources standpoint, and that,
frankly, they like that. They don't want to see us extricate
ourselves from that place, because they know it constrains our
ability to deal more forcefully with other threats, including
the one that they present.
Dr. Gates. When we did our study for the Council on Foreign
Relations on U.S. policy toward Iran in 2004, what we were
hearing then--and things were going considerably better for the
United States in Iraq at that time--was that one of the reasons
the Iranians were ambiguous in their approach to what was going
on in Iraq was some gestures of assistance to us, as well as
doing some things that were not helpful, but that they were
quite frightened by having U.S. troops on both their western
and eastern borders. What I've heard--and I haven't talked to
any intelligence analysts about this--is that because they
think things aren't going as well for us, they're not as
frightened right now. By the same token, it seems to me that if
things do start to go right in Iraq, and we do begin to get the
situation stabilized, that may, in turn, bring considerable
pressure on them, because they'll see that they have a
different kind of state on their western border than they had
anticipated, that may not be as militarily threatening as
Saddam Hussein was, but is potentially politically threatening,
and also that the United States will have shown that we were
able to be successful. It seems to me it could go either way.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, again, for your candor.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
We've had, I would say--I've been here 28 years--this has
been as good a hearing as we've had, right, Senator?
Senator Levin. I agree with you.
Chairman Warner. All right.
Senator Levin. It's better than most.
Chairman Warner. With that the morning session stands in
recess until the hour of 2:15.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the morning session of the
hearing was recessed.]
CONTINUATION OF THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT M. GATES TO BE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe,
Roberts, Sessions, Collins, Talent, Graham, Dole, Cornyn,
Thune, Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Bill
Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Dayton, Bayh, and Clinton.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: William M. Caniano,
professional staff member; Regina A. Dubey, professional staff
member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff member; Gregory T.
Kiley, professional staff member; Sandra E. Luff, professional
staff member; Derek J. Maurer, professional staff member;
Elaine A. McCusker, professional staff member; David M.
Morriss, counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff
member; Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff member; Sean G.
Stackley, professional staff member; Diana G. Tabler,
professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Jonathan D. Clark, minority counsel;
Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional staff member; Madelyn R.
Creedon, minority counsel; Gabriella Elsen, professional staff
member; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff member; Richard W.
Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Creighton Greene,
professional staff member; Michael J. Kuiken, professional
staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel; Peter K.
Levine, minority counsel; Michael J. McCord, professional staff
member; William G.P. Monahan, minority counsel; Michael J.
Noblet, research assistant; and Arun A. Seraphin, professional
staff member.
Staff assistants present: David G. Collins, Micah H.
Harris, and Jill L. Simodejka.
Committee members' assistants present: Christopher J. Paul,
Richard H. Fontaine, Jr., and Paul C. Hutton IV, assistants to
Senator McCain; John A. Bonsell and Jeremy Shull, assistants to
Senator Inhofe; Libby Burgess, assistant to Senator Roberts;
Arch Galloway II, assistant to Senator Sessions; Mark Winter,
assistant to Senator Collins; D'Arcy Grisier, assistant to
Senator Ensign; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator
Chambliss; Matthew R. Rimkunas, assistant to Senator Graham;
Greg Gross and Arjun Mody, assistants to Senator Dole; Russell
J. Thomasson, assistant to Senator Cornyn; Bob Taylor and
Stuart C. Mallory, assistants to Senator Thune; Sharon L.
Waxman and Mieke Y. Eoyang, assistants 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; Richard Kessler and Darcie
Tokioka, assistants to Senator Akaka; William K. Sutey,
assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Eric Pierce, assistant to
Senator Ben Nelson; Luke Ballman, assistant to Senator Dayton;
Todd Rosenblum and Robert J. Ehrich, assistants to Senator
Bayh; and Andrew Shapiro, assistant to Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. We'll now resume our hearing from this
morning.
Senator Levin and I are in consultation with our colleagues
with regard to further procedures concerning this nomination. I
just want to thank Senator Levin and all colleagues for the
support that they have given me in chairing this hearing and
preparing for the sequential steps that will take place until
we have our final vote, on the floor of the Senate.
At this time, we'll resume questioning, and we'll each take
our usual 5 or 6 minutes. I'd say, Dr. Gates, that we are all
very impressed with the candor and forthrightness that you've
expressed this morning.
I'd like to initiate this afternoon's session with a
discussion about your perspectives regarding both Iran and
Syria. You were quite clear this morning on the questions that
were put to you, but I'd like to ask--and I don't think we can
get a definitive answer--you've written on this subject--and
that is, do we try at some point as we begin to assemble the
perspectives of the nations surrounding Iraq, to have some
consultation directly with Iran and Syria, perhaps as a
preliminary step to bringing the nations together, if that's a
desire, hopefully, of the President, to try and have a
conference of the region? There's a lot of suggestions on that.
Tomorrow's report from the Baker-Hamilton Commission, which
again, I expressed--and again to the press outside--a lot of
confidence in the work that they've done, and I'm hopeful that
we here in Congress will pay very close attention to those
recommendations. I hope the executive branch will, likewise.
But it could well be, as part of that report, the initiation of
some type of overture, some type of formal--perhaps informal
and formal overtures to both Iran and Syria.
Dr. Gates. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, before I answer that question, with your
indulgence, could I amplify on one of my answers this morning?
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Dr. Gates. Only because I'm concerned that the troops in
the field might have misunderstood something I said. While I
was having lunch and eating my sandwich, I was watching the
news, and I certainly stand by my statement this morning that I
agreed with General Pace that we are not winning, but we are
not losing, but I want to make clear that that pertains to the
situation in Iraq, as a whole. Our military forces win the
battles that they fight. Our soldiers have done an incredible
job in Iraq, and I'm not aware of a single battle that they
have lost. I didn't want my comments to be interpreted as
suggesting that they weren't being successful in their
endeavors. I think we all applaud and appreciate what they're
doing. The situation in Iraq is clearly much more complex than
just the military actions, and the areas where we're having our
challenges, frankly, are principally in the areas of
stabilization and political developments and so on, and I just
wanted to make that clarification, sir.
Chairman Warner. I appreciate that because in my opening
statement I recited what I heard General Pace say yesterday. He
also, in the context of saying that, had nothing but the
highest praise for the men and women of the Armed Forces and
the fact that they have given their all. As you say, there's
not a major engagement that we've had with this very diverse
enemy in which they have not basically succeeded, given their
courage and commitment. I think that's an extremely important
adjunct to those crisp statements, that it doesn't reflect, in
any way, on the professionalism and the commitment and the
record of success of the men and women in uniform.
Dr. Gates. Exactly, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank you for bringing that up.
Dr. Gates. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. So, we return to the issue of how best we
deal with Iran and Syria.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Obviously, the decision on what to do in this respect is
the President's, and he probably will look principally to the
Secretary of State for advice on this question of Syria and
Iran. But I guess I would have to say that I think, in the long
run, we are going to have to acknowledge the influence of
Iraq's neighbors, and the potential to make the situation
either better or worse in Iraq. The forum in which we try to
engage, and how we do it, and when we do it, clearly are issues
to be determined. But I think we just have to acknowledge the
reality that they have the opportunity to make things either
much worse or much better for us, should they choose to do so.
Figuring out the right way to try and take advantage of that
really is, I think, principally, probably Dr. Rice's
responsibility. But, philosophically, that's where I'm coming
from on the issue.
Chairman Warner. But as a part of your advice to the
President, you will share own views, because it's based on many
years of experience.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. This morning, in response to several
questions--and I think Senator Cornyn had one of the final
questions that prompted your assessment on the problems that
face not only the United States, but the whole world, should
our goals--and when I say ``our,'' it's really not just the
United States, but the coalition forces, particularly Great
Britain and others, who have stood by our side throughout this
conflict--to sustain this government and enable it to have the
security environment, the economic support, and otherwise to
exercise the full range of sovereignty. I call to your
attention something that has not been noted by many, and that
is, on November 28, the Security Council, in a very carefully
drawn resolution, extended the authority of the coalition
forces to continue until December 31, 2007, with the juncture
point somewhere--I believe it's in June--and I'm going to
produce that document here shortly--that if the Iraqis so
desire, the government, they can review whether or not the
resolution should continue. But a key phrase in that is the
resolution states that the problems in Iraq face the whole
international community. Whether it's the potential loss of the
energy so critical to support the economies of the world, or
whether a failure would incite greater terrorism throughout the
world. I thought the United Nations Security Council was very
perceptive in saying it's just not contained in Iraq or the
region, but how that situation is concluded, hopefully
successfully; it affects the entire world, because the problems
in Lebanon, problems in Palestine, all are linked in some
respects to the situation in Iraq, and, indeed, to some extent,
Afghanistan.
Have you had a chance to look over that resolution?
Dr. Gates. No, sir, I have not.
Chairman Warner. I would urge that you do so, and how they
are very perceptive in saying it affects, indeed, the whole
world. I think in pieces this morning your testimony did, in
fact, reflect your own judgment that the importance of this
situation does affect the whole world. Do you share that view?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir, I do.
Chairman Warner. We talked this morning, and I was very
reassured that you feel a broad bipartisan agreement on the
future course of action will greatly strengthen the resolve and
the commitment in this country; indeed, it would be a
recognition of the mandate, in many respects, this past
election, where the people of this country spoke, and also to
the men and women of the Armed Forces. Clearly, a unified,
bipartisan approach, once the President finally decides on such
changes in strategy as he approaches the goals that he has
established, is in our interest. I want to commend you and your
testimony for giving support to that concept.
Finally--and this is something that I find particularly
troublesome, and I'm not sure there's a clear answer, at this
time--but I was very active in drawing up the resolution that
authorized the use of force for this conflict, both in Gulf I
and Gulf II. Senator McCain is associated with me--Senator
Bayh, Senator Lieberman; the four of us drew it up. I've gone
back and looked at it many times in the legislative history.
What troubles me today is that our forces are faced with
situations in which there's this sectarian violence which is
simply rooted so deeply in centuries of difference of approach
to the very important doctrines of the Muslim world, the
reverence they have for the Quran, the reverence that they have
for the longstanding tenets. We tend to think that the Muslim
world is in revolt. It is not. It is a very small fraction of
the extreme radicals that are fomenting the problems that we
see today. It is my hope that the moderate elements of the
Muslim world will finally come together and help us reconcile
such differences that we have.
But let's talk about that patrol or platoon or company of
U.S. forces that are suddenly caught in a situation where
clearly the fight in front of them is purely sectarian. I feel
very strongly that they should simply step back, that that's a
matter that the Iraqi security forces (ISF) would have to deal
with, not the men and women of the U.S. forces. How do you feel
about those conflicts, whether there's just a small firefight
or these mass killings, which are clearly identified as
sectarian? What should be the involvement, or lack of
involvement, of our forces? We want to support the Iraqi
military, but we support them in dealing with the sectarian,
rather than putting our folks right in that crossfire.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir. That tends to be my instinct, but I
think one of the early conversations that I would want to have,
if I were confirmed for this position, with the commanders on
the ground is to address that very question. Clearly they must
have done some contingency planning and consideration of what
would happen in the event that this kind of thing begins to
happen. I'd like to get their professional opinion about how
they think they are going to respond if and when that kind of
thing happens.
Chairman Warner. If I may say, it is happening, it has
happened, is happening, and it seems to be ever-increasing, the
sectarian element.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Right in that seat, General Abizaid has
said on two occasions that the initial insurgency, the initial
infiltration from other countries of people who have come in to
thwart the efforts of the coalition forces, the preponderance
of the conflict today has its roots in sectarian violence and
differences. So, it is taking place, and I'm pleased to have in
this record your assurance that you'll take that up with the
commanders.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Speaking for myself and, I think, some
other colleagues around here, our young men and women should
not be caught in that crossfire. That's the responsibility of
the 300,000-plus Iraqi forces we've trained and equipped.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I think you speak for many
members of this committee when you say that, and you surely do
for me. If they are going to have a civil war in Iraq, it is
going to be one that we should not be caught in the middle of.
Hopefully, they are going to opt for a nation rather than a
civil war, at least an all-out civil war, because they have a
low-grade civil war going on now. But they have to make a
choice, and it is a political choice. They have said that
themselves. I think your answers this morning are very helpful
in pointing out that it is mainly a political decision that has
to be made in Iraq, rather than anything else.
The security situation in Iraq is directly connected to the
lack of a political consensus in Iraq. That is what their prime
minister has said. He puts the responsibility for achieving
that consensus right where it belongs, on the political leaders
in Iraq, and we ought to hold them to it.
It is in all of our interest that we maximize the chances
of success in Iraq. I do not think there is any disagreement
among anybody in that regard. Where there has been the sharp
difference as to whether or not the current course, whether an
open-ended commitment of our forces will lead us to maximize
the chances of success, or whether it basically is sending a
message to the Iraqis that somehow or other the responsibility
here is other than their own.
But, in terms of the goal of trying to leave Iraq in stable
and in better shape than we found it, I think everybody shares
that goal, and I know you do.
Dr. Gates, General Abizaid testified before this committee
in response to Senator McCain's question about adding
additional troops, as to why he, General Abizaid, thought it
would be a mistake. Here is what he said: ``I met with every
divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander,
General Dempsey. We all talked together. I said to them, `In
your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American
troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve
success in Iraq?' They all said no. The reason is''--and this
is General Abizaid now--``because we want the Iraqis to do
more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work.
I believe,'' General Abizaid said, ``that more American forces
prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more
responsibility for their own future.''
Do you agree with General Abizaid's comment?
Dr. Gates. As I indicated in my answers this morning, I
would give great weight to the views of our commanders out
there. I would want to sit down and talk with General Casey,
General Dempsey, and myself. But if that is their view, I would
give great weight to that.
Senator Levin. Does his reasoning resonate with you?
Dr. Gates. It makes sense to me.
Senator Levin. It does to me, too, I might say. On prewar
intelligence, Dr. Gates, when we met in my office, you told me
that you did not see evidence of a link between Iraq under
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Is that your view?
Dr. Gates. As I indicated in answering a question earlier
today, I have really received very little in the way of
intelligence, so on the basis of what I've read in the
newspapers, that certainly would be my conclusion.
Senator Levin. You did indicate, in one speech in February
2002, that, ``We know that at least one of the leaders of the
September 11 hijackers met twice in Prague with Iraqi
intelligence officers in the months before the attack.'' What
did you base that conclusion on, since the intelligence
community had not reached that conclusion?
Dr. Gates. Strictly a newspaper story, sir.
Senator Levin. In response, Dr. Gates, to prehearing
questions from this committee, you said that you would
cooperate with committee requests for information or documents
relating to Defense Department detention and interrogations
policies and allegations of detainee mistreatment. When we met
in my office the week before last, I told you that I would be
renewing a request for Department of Defense (DOD) documents
that were denied in the past, particularly with regard to the
prewar intelligence activities of the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy, under the leadership of
Douglas Feith. Will you make relevant documents available for
congressional oversight of issues such as those which I talked
to you about, the prewar intelligence activities of the Office
of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy?
Dr. Gates. To the extent I have the authority, yes, sir.
Senator Levin. When we met in my office, we also discussed
the role of the Feith operation in providing an alternative
intelligence channel to the White House, separate from the
intelligence community. I wrote a lengthy report on that
subject in which I indicated I thought that was a highly
inappropriate role for the Office of the Under Secretary. You,
this morning, said something which resonates with me, which is
that the one thing you don't like is offline intelligence
organizations or analytical groups, that you would far rather
depend on the professional analysts at the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) and at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and
at other agencies, and work to ensure their independence, than
to try and create some alternative someplace.
From what you know, what is your view of the
appropriateness of the intelligence activities of the Office of
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy when it was under Mr.
Feith's leadership?
Dr. Gates. I really haven't read very much about it, even
in the newspapers, Senator. I just have the impression that
they were, as I say, as I understand from the newspapers,
analyzing intelligence reports and providing an independent
evaluation of that reporting, and an analysis based on that
reporting, to defense officials.
That's pretty much the extent of my knowledge of it.
Senator Levin. If that is what happened, what is your view
of that?
Dr. Gates. I have a problem with it.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
My time is up.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gates, I want to come back, if I might, to a line of
questioning that was asked by my colleague from Missouri
earlier today, Senator Talent. I have, as he indicated, also
supported raising the top line of DOD's budget. In a time of
conflict, I don't believe that we are putting enough resources
toward effectively fighting the war on terror. In fact, I think
that, in some cases, Congress has been guilty of increasing the
burden on the Department by slowing down modernization. I will
give you an example of that: legacy aircraft requirements such
as the B-52 are routinely delayed. Aging airframes, like the C-
130, are exposed to dangerously high levels of stress and
flying hours, or are required to be put into a bed-down status,
even though they have been grounded for exceeding safe flying
hours. The question I would have is, with respect to that
issue, and the fact that we need to reset, and we're running a
lot of our equipment into the ground, and we need to start
thinking about the next generation of a lot of these platforms.
If you are confirmed, what recommendations would you make to
Congress regarding the adverse effect that sustaining the life
span of aging platforms is having on the Department?
Dr. Gates. Senator, if I'm confirmed, it's clear that the
kinds of issues that you and Senator Talent have referred to
are going to be high priorities. The resource demands, in terms
of ensuring readiness, in terms of paying for the costs of the
war, and in terms of future investments, are really the three
major buckets. Weighing the balance between those, and seeing
if additions to the top line are required to be able to do the
necessary tasks in all three, I think, is a very real
possibility. As I say, I haven't had the chance to get into the
2008 budget really at all, or to gather the facts on a lot of
these specific systems, but it's clear that that will have to
be a top priority, if I am confirmed.
Senator Thune. I appreciate that. I would just let you know
that there are those of us up here who would like to work with
you on that, who, I think, share the view that we just don't
have enough to go around for everything that we're doing, when
we're fighting a war, and we have lots of obligations around
the world, talking about being spread too thin, and then the
equipment needs that we have, and to focus on the future in
that window for what the next generation's needs are going to
be, in terms of our warfighting capability. I know it's
difficult fighting the forces at the Office of Management and
Budget and other places, but I hope that we can count on you to
do the right thing in terms of what our national security needs
are down the road, as opposed to looking, just on short term,
in this year's budget--as Senator Talent mentioned, the urgent
versus the important--because I have a real concern about that,
as well. I know that the various branches of the military are
often in here and competing for dollars and everything else,
but we have a lot of responsibility and a lot of needs out
there that are not being met, and I'm fearful that it's going
to make us less prepared, going forward. So, I appreciate your
response to that.
One other question I would ask is that there are some
recent resignations that have left open positions at the
Pentagon, and one of those is the Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence. That position, I believe, was created in
2003, and did not exist when you were at the Director of
Central Intelligence (DCI). Have you developed any opinions yet
on the utility of that position, now that you've been
nominated, and whether to maintain, downgrade, or eliminate the
position? Is there a potential conflict, or danger, inherent in
this position of influencing the analytical process?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I really haven't given it a lot of
thought, to tell you the truth. I haven't thought about people,
partly because I figured I wouldn't spend the time on it until
I knew whether or not I was going to have the job. But I would
say, I need to look into all of the responsibilities of that
position. There has been a position like that in DOD at
different levels for a long time, to coordinate the various
aspects of the various defense intelligence organizations. So,
at first blush, my instinct is that there probably is value in
the position. But I think it's more in the form of coordinating
the different elements of the defense intelligence
organizations, working with the Director of DIA and others to
make sure that the needs of the warfighter are being met by the
defense intelligence organizations, and cooperating, also, and
collaborating, with the Director of National Intelligence and
the Director of CIA. So, my inclination is to think that there
probably is value in the position, but I have not thought about
anybody for that position.
Senator Thune. I appreciate that. I would just say in
closing, Dr. Gates, that your experience is very relevant to
the challenges that we face, and I think the role that
intelligence plays increasingly in this war on terror is so
critical. I appreciate the answers that you've given, the
responsiveness that you've demonstrated to the questions that
have been posed of you today. I suspect that we'll get a good,
strong, hopefully bipartisan, vote for your confirmation and I
am looking forward to working with you. But I think you've been
very forthcoming, and I just appreciate the response that
you've demonstrated today.
Dr. Gates. Thank you.
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. Gates. Just to underscore what both the
chairman and the ranking member have mentioned about the
battles that are taking place, primarily in Baghdad, that had
led a number of people, such as Kofi Annan, to believe that
there is a civil war that is taking place. It's less than 2
percent--as I understand it, from General Abizaid and General
Maples--of the people that are actually killed in Iraq are
foreign fighters. That even includes the suicide bombers. So,
this level of intensity between the Shiite and the Sunni has
escalated and, I think, is enormously troublesome about how
we're going to be able to influence it and what the role of the
military is going to be. You've responded both to Chairman
Warner and Senator Levin on this. Obviously, the issue is the
safety and security of our troops if they become identified on
a particular side in what I think, personally, is a civil war.
What you're going to have to find out is what the rules of
engagement are. You're going to talk to the local commanders,
but what are their rules of engagement in making their judgment
to ensure that what we are interested in is the safety and the
security of the American troops. This is a matter, obviously,
of great importance.
Just a second issue--I just want to move through some.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. In Darfur, 400,000 killed, 2.5 million
displaced. It continues to be a human tragedy of such
extraordinary proportions. The reluctance of the Sudanese
government to take steps to try and bring about peaceful
resolutions and negotiations. How long are we going to be able
to tolerate that? What might the role of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) countries be? What might the
possibilities be, in terms of no-fly zone? What options are
going to be available to the President, should this situation
continue to deteriorate? You're going to be the one on the
watch for those issues. I don't know whether you want to--it's
a very specialized area--make a brief comment. I wanted to just
raise the issue. I don't expect a detailed kind of response,
but I would certainly hope that you'd give focus and
attention--when the confirmation process concludes--to that
issue, because it's of enormous importance, an incredible
humanitarian issue.
An issue that was raised earlier today in the newspapers.
You haven't had a chance to see it, but the census counts
100,000 contractors in Iraq--100,000 contractors in Iraq.
Inside the article, it quotes, ``With few industry standards,
the military contracts have sometimes lacked coordination
resulting in friendly-fire incidents, according to Government
Accounting Office last year. `It takes a great deal of
vigilance on the part of the military commander to ensure
contractor compliance,' says William Nash, retired Army general
and fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, `trying to win
the hearts and minds. The contractors driving 90 miles an hour
through the streets and running over kids, that's not helping
the image of the American Army. Iraqis aren't going to
distinguish between a contractor and a soldier.' ''
You are going to have an opportunity to review this whole
issue, in terms of the contractors. We've had, of course--and I
won't have the chance to get into it today, but there is the
whole question of accountability of these to the law, the whole
question in terms of the torture issues, with Abu Ghraib, about
the roles of contractors, and others. It is a very major issue
and question, and it's one that I know you'll want to have a
good opportunity to review so there's some real accountability
and consistency, in terms of policy.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir. In fact, my impression, or
recollection, from the briefings that we received in Baghdad on
the Iraq Study Group (ISG), was that some of the more useful
work that had been done by Mr. Bowen in the Special Inspector
General's office included some of these areas, dealing with
contractors.
Senator Kennedy. Just a final issue. The members of this
committee have spent a great deal of time on the issues of
military tribunals. We've spent a good deal of time on the
issues of torture, interrogation, on rendition, and issues of
that nature. Congress has taken action now, at the end of this
last session on these issues of tribunals. It's enormously
important, as you will understand, to get it right. Because,
really, what a bitter irony it would be if we get it wrong, if
Congress has it wrong and these high suspects that are being
tried are found, that the procedures which they are considered
to be unconstitutional and suddenly they're in a different
situation. They're in a different situation, having gone
through the law, they don't necessarily have to be released,
but if they're found to have the procedures which are there
violating the Supreme Court, it certainly would be an
incredible irony that some of them are outside, then, from the
judicial system.
The trial procedures used by the commissions, we're hopeful
that those trial procedures will be consistent with the basic
fairness. The law does not require public comment to the rules
that help ensure that they will meet the judicial scrutiny. The
law does not require that. But there have been many that
thought that, with the possibility where the DOD gives a chance
to just get public comments, that it may be enormously useful
and valuable. I've raised that issue with you. I'll drop you a
note on it, because it's a technical, but very important, one,
and follow up with you to see if you review it, and make a
judgment.
Dr. Gates. All right, sir.
Senator Kennedy. My time is up. I thank you very much.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. On the question of interrogation of
unlawful combatants, which these terrorists are, I would just
say we've had 30 hearings or more on that. The net effect has
been to suggest to the world that we think our military is out
of control with regard to these issues. That's just not so.
Those who violated the rules of war, those who violated our own
standards and laws and the Uniform Code of Military Justice
have been punished. But I'll tell you what is really critical,
Dr. Gates. It's something I've seen and become more convinced
about in recent months, and that is, we have totally inadequate
prisons in Iraq for those who are trying to destroy that
country. In addition to freeing innocents, justice requires
that those who are guilty be able to be punished, and punished
severely if they commit severe crimes, such as attempting to
blow up innocent men, women, and children.
My meeting on our last trip with Senator Warner, Senator
Levin, indicated, from the Marines, they felt that our
dangerous prisoners were being released. Atlantic Monthly
magazine had an article in which the mayors of Mosul
complained, in their first round of discussions, most
vehemently about prisoners being released from Abu Ghraib
prison. They come back, and they cause disturbances in their
communities. One Marine Times article indicated that one guy,
known as ``The Beheader,'' had been released. Another serious
bomber had been released, and, already, his signature bombing
technique had reappeared in the community.
I have run the numbers, and the best we can calculate, on a
per capita basis, Iraq has one-ninth as many prison beds as the
State of Alabama. To me, that indicates that we really are not
there yet. If we're going to provide security for the people in
Iraq, we have to be able to assure them that bad people who are
apprehended will be able to be detained and held for long
periods of time, else they will turn to militias and other
unauthorized groups to protect their own safety.
I'm sure you haven't had time to look at this, but I'd like
a personal commitment from you that you will look at it, and
look at it hard and quickly, because I think something must be
done to assure the Iraqi citizens that those who are out to
destroy them can be arrested, punished, and sent to jail.
Dr. Gates. Absolutely, Senator Sessions. If I'm confirmed,
maybe you will send me some of those articles that you have
referred to. That will help jog my memory so I can do that.
Senator Sessions. I will definitely do that, and I think
it's important.
I just got back from the Riga NATO conference, the summit
that President Bush attended, and we met with representatives
from NATO countries and the German Marshall Fund Foundation and
many conferences. There's a growing unease about Russia's--I
will just say ``bad behavior.'' We know they're selling
sophisticated anti-aircraft weaponry to the Iranians. They're
using oil as a weapon against the new democracies. They're
taking steps to complicate the ability of new democracies, like
Ukraine and Georgia, to attain their independence, as if they
seem to feel that they still are part of the Soviet Empire.
You're a student of history, you're a student of Russian
history--do you see a dangerous trend, a downward spiral in
Russia's behavior? Do you have any thoughts about what we can
do to change that?
Dr. Gates. I think, Senator, there are a number of areas of
concern, in terms of Russian behavior, particularly over the
last 2 or 3 years.
I was particularly intrigued when I read that they
attempted to punish the Ukranians by turning off the gas
pipelines, the gas supply, they sort of forgot that the gas
pipelines to Western Europe go through Ukraine, and the
Europeans began to have some shortages.
Just as a historical footnote, the members of the committee
will probably remember that during the Reagan administration,
we tried very hard to persuade the Europeans that it was not in
their interest to become dependent on Russian gas--the Soviet
gas, in those days--and that the potential for the political
manipulation of the supply was very real. That was 20 years
ago, and we're now seeing it, as the Russians try to use it on
some of their neighbors abroad. It clearly has begun to raise
some concerns on the part of the Europeans.
So, I think that what Putin is trying to do, frankly, is
reestablish Russia as a great power. I think we, in the west,
probably don't fully appreciate the magnitude of the
humiliation, not only of the loss of the Cold War and the loss
of Eastern Europe, but, in effect, the destruction of the
Russian Empire itself, 3 or 4 centuries in the making. I think
Putin is trying to restore the pride of Russia. I think he has
a lot of popular support at home for the things he's trying to
do. He has the money to do it now, thanks to the price of oil.
I think he's basically trying to make Russia a force, in the
countries that used to belong to the Soviet Union. I don't
think he wants to take them over. He doesn't want their
problems. But he wants to make them dependent on Russia, and
susceptible to Russian influence and to Russian bidding.
I think there are a number of things that are going on
there. I think he is trying to take back control of a state-
owned enterprise--state-owned resources and particular
strategic resources, whether it's oil and gas or other minerals
or major industries. How far he'll go, I think, is an open
question. There are still freedoms in Russia that did not exist
under the Soviet Union, especially if you don't want to
challenge Mr. Putin for power. But I think that the
developments in recent years are really of concern in Russia.
Senator Sessions. My time is about up, but I would just ask
you this with regard to your view of a bipartisan long-term
defense policy for America. If we could reach an agreement on a
series of weapons systems and other initiatives for the Defense
Department of America, both sides of the aisle--these are
things we know we need to do in the next 10 or 20 years--if we
did that, could we achieve that at less cost and more
effectively than if we proceed on a year-to-year basis?
Dr. Gates. I think anytime you have a long-term commitment,
and people can plan for it, you're likely to save money.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. One of the remarkable chapters of current
military history, and in sharp contrast to previous engagements
of our Armed Forces overseas in battle, has been the concept of
embedding journalists. I personally, from my perspective, have
witnessed it on our trips that Senator Levin and I have taken.
I think it's been a very effective tool. I think it has brought
America into the war in a very visible way, a real-time way.
World War II, we depended on going to the local movie house to
see a 10-minute clip on Movietone News if we wanted to see any
of the actual live fighting. But today it's instantaneous.
Now, this has brought on its problems, because those
journalists, in most, if not all, instances, are taking
personal risks and making personal commitments about their own
security that are equivalent, in many respects, to the men and
women who are fighting. There have been several instances,
which I'm going to bring to your attention in a letter, which I
will send you. But there's a committee to protect journalists
which is very active in trying to resolve what I regard as very
few disputes, but, nevertheless, serious disputes, between the
profession of journalism and the manner in which the embedding
is taking place. I will be bringing to your attention, I think,
the need for you to focus on that. I hope that you can continue
it. I hope that we can reconcile differences and that the
journalists who are willing to take on these tough assignments
can be given every protection that's possible. I'll spell that
out in a letter.
In sharp contrast is the difficulty of getting persons from
other departments and agencies of our Federal Government to go
over to Iraq, and, frankly, exist in the Green Zone, much less
what the journalists are doing right out on the front with the
troops. This committee, with the strong support of my colleague
over here, Senator Levin, actually put in our bill certain
technical things to provide the Secretaries of the various
departments and administrators of our agencies of government,
to give incentives to their employees to go over there and
participate. That's a subject that I hope that you will address
also, because you stop to think, we're in a war, and it's a
dangerous war, and it's a war that's to preserve our freedom,
yet we don't have the commitment, like we did in World War II,
to where the whole Nation, be they at home or abroad, was
unified in the common purpose of succeeding there.
I have to say--and I've witnessed firsthand the Korean
situation myself, and then Vietnam, and now this very tragic,
but important, conflict in Iraq, and the Nation is kind of
distanced from it. It's the families of the uniformed people
and those people that are bearing the brunt of this conflict,
and the rest of us are going about our regular lives. Of
course, it's a very expensive operation. But I urge that you
take a look at that, and urge you to take a look at what we can
do to further incentivize a lot of the civil service structure
and professionals in our other departments and agencies to
pitch in over there and help these fledgling bureaucracies
grow, and do the best we can to help this sovereign nation lift
itself up and function.
Dr. Gates. Mr. Chairman, I think it's a very important
issue. When our ISG was in Baghdad, we heard a good bit from
the commanders in the field of the numbers of jobs being done
by soldiers that actually were filling positions that belong to
other agencies. If I'm confirmed, you can rest assured that I
will be aggressive in looking at that one.
Chairman Warner. Your first Cabinet meeting pound that
table. [Laughter.]
We are looking for, as the Marines say, ``a few good men
and women.''
Earlier, I talked about the Security Council resolution.
I'll ask unanimous consent that this very important document be
put in today's record, because it recites the basis on which
the coalition forces--mainly the United States--are conducting
their military activities in Iraq in the cause of freedom.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Warner. I paraphrased a sentence, and I'd ask the
reporter to go back and replace my paraphrased sentence with
the following, and that is the extensive preamble clause, and
the last part of that preamble clause is, ``The Security
Council determined that the situation in Iraq continues to
constitute a threat to international peace and security.'' That
has to be brought home to the world.
Now, my two remaining questions relate to--you touched on
Afghanistan this morning, and we should not, in any way, be
shortsighted about the importance of that conflict. The current
fighting, led by, we call it, the remnants of the former
Taliban regime--I presume it's a polyglot of all kinds of
people that are disaffected with the government, but,
nevertheless, it was principally the Taliban. Their fighters
have conducted several increasingly large-scale attacks on
coalition and Afghan security forces in several southern
provinces, and namely--when I say ``coalition forces,'' I mean
NATO, which has taken over there. By the way, I hope you have
an opportunity to talk with General Jones someday. He's a
magnificent gentleman. Actually, today, I think it is, that
he's stepping down as our NATO commander, because we had
planned to be over there, until this session was scheduled.
What actions do you believe that we should take to try and
give additional support to NATO to reduce the effectiveness
that the enemy is now showing in Afghanistan? Do we need
additional forces there? You mentioned the drug problem--and
I'm delighted to have gotten into this record the concept that
you put forth--as a way to take those farmers and give them
some very minuscule amounts of money, compared to what they
receive and what the distributors, way beyond--principally in
Europe--receive for that terrible product, drugs. But let's
talk about the troops. What do you think about the level of
forces over there? We have about, I think, 18,000 to 20,000 of
our folks over there.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I think, first of all,
that the first priority is seeing what further progress we can
make in getting some of our allies who have troops there to
reduce some of the restrictions that they have on the use of
their troops. It throws the burden onto a handful of other
countries.
Chairman Warner. That's a national caveat problem.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Which is really--I think we should expand
it a little bit here in the record. It simply says, where a
NATO member country says we're going to send and allow a
certain segment of our uniformed troops to be a part of the
overall NATO force, but once you reach Afghanistan, our troops
can only perform such missions, and very often those missions
do not include the higher-risk combat operations. Am I correct?
Is it your understanding of the national caveat?
Dr. Gates. As I understand it, that's exactly right, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. General Jones has tried hard to eliminate
that. He felt he was making some progress. But it's not fair,
for example, to an American or a Canadian or a Brit--and I
think there's certain other forces that are right there,
sharing the full burdens and risks--to have other elements in a
rear echelon or supporting capacity such that they're not
subjected to the same level of risk.
Dr. Gates. I may be mistaken, but I think that one of the
subjects at the Riga Summit was to deal with some of these
national caveat issues. I think that some are embedded in law
and some are embedded culturally and so on, and may be very
difficult to change. But I think those that can be changed, we
ought to try and do that.
It's very important, it seems to me--we've had a tremendous
success, an astonishing success, militarily, in overthrowing
the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. I think it would be a
tragedy for us to let that victory slip through our grasp by
later neglect. So, frankly, I'm very sympathetic to the notion
that if more troops are needed in Afghanistan, that we ought to
look very hard at that. Whether they should come from our NATO
allies or from us, I think, is a matter to get recommendations
from people who are much more knowledgeable about capabilities
and so on, and what the needs are, than I am. If I am
confirmed, that would certainly be an important issue to
discuss with our commanders in Kabul. It would be my hope to
get there relatively soon, if I am confirmed.
Chairman Warner. I really believe that if the current mix
of NATO forces from a number of nations--if those nations would
bring up to the full complements of the commitment that they
made back at headquarters in Mons, that will go a long way to
bring up that force to its----
Dr. Gates. If I remember some of the materials that I saw
correctly, the numbers that are being requested are not that
significant. I think it's about 2,500 troops.
Chairman Warner. You're correct.
Senator Levin, do you have further questions?
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I'll be right back.
Senator Levin. I want to talk to you for a few minutes
about the Iran-Contra events. We had asked you a question for
the record about your testimony at the confirmation hearing,
that you did not recall a series of meetings, memoranda,
conversations that were very significant conversations that
would have linked you to the events of the Iran-Contra affair.
We went through just a list of those memos and meetings that
you indicated, at your 1991 hearing, that you did not recall. I
was troubled enough about that at the time that I did not vote
to confirm you for the CIA position. We asked you if you
remembered anything new about that. You, understandably--and
I'm not challenging this part of your answer--said that you did
not. However, you gave a number of further explanations about
these events and your lack of memory. You said that the matter
had been investigated exhaustively by the Intelligence
Committee, that key figures in the affair were interviewed or
testified and affirmed that they had not shared important
information with you. You indicated that, after you became
Acting Director of Central Intelligence, in 1986, following
more than a decade of controversy and conflict between the CIA
and Congress, that there would not be a significant further
conflict or major controversy between CIA and Congress for the
remainder of your career, nor would there be another scandal
tainting CIA during that time. I think that not only is true,
but it's significant. Those were the events, and we were
grateful for those events occurring, or the problems being
alleviated.
However, there was one thing that you said in support of
your answer which troubled me, and I want to give you an
opportunity to comment on it. That's when you said that, ``The
Iran-Contra independent counsel, after 7 years of
investigation, could not find a single witness to testify that
my role in the matter was other than I described it.'' You
seemed to invoke the independent counsel at that point in
support of what you were telling us. That is what troubled me.
Because to invoke on that issue of memory what Mr. Walsh had
said to--as a validator, when he was intensely critical at that
time of your lack of memory, troubled me.
I'm sure you're familiar with this--and I've shared this
with you briefly--that what the independent counsel said in his
book was that, prior to the Intelligence Committee's hearings,
that he sat down with the chairman, David Boren, and the
ranking minority member, Senator Murkowski--this is prior to
the hearings--and he told them that there were two questions
that had not been answered satisfactorily to the independent
counsel. One, ``Had Dr. Gates falsely denied knowledge of
Oliver North's Contra support activity?'' and, ``Had Dr. Gates
falsely post-dated his first knowledge of Oliver North's
diversion of the arms sales?''
Now, Judge Walsh went on in his book to say that he told
those two Senators that, ``We did not think that we had enough
corroborating evidence to indict Dr. Gates, but that his
answers to the questions had been unconvincing. We did not
believe he could have forgotten a warning of Oliver North's
diversion of the arms sales proceeds to the Contras. The
mingling of two covert activities that were of intense personal
interest to the President was not something the second highest
officer in the CIA would forget.''
He also wrote in his book that there were ``33 times that
Dr. Gates denied recollection of the facts,'' and that he then
watched the hearings in front of the Intelligence Committee,
and he felt certain that you would not have brushed off the
alarming reports if you had already known about the diversion--
if you had not already known about the diversion, ``He had
simply not wanted to be told by a new witness.'' Then he says
that he also disbelieved your testimony about President
Reagan's December retroactive finding purporting to authorize
the CIA's facilitation of the November 1985 Hawk shipment to
recover the hostages.
The bottom line is that--and I think it's fair to say, and
I'm wondering if you don't agree--that at least at the time
that Judge Walsh wrote his book, that he had great trouble
accepting that you did not remember the events that you said
that you did not remember. I had great trouble, too. My
question is this, basically. By the way, I understand now that
Judge Walsh, according to the newspapers, has endorsed your
nomination. I think that's significant, too, by the way. But
I'm troubled. I want to just ask you, not so much about the
lack-of-memory issue, but by your invoking Judge Walsh as kind
of a validator of your position relative to whether there were
witnesses who disagreed with your memory, when that was not the
issue. The issue was the fact that you didn't remember events
that seemed to be so fundamental and so central to the
administration. I wanted to just tell you I was troubled by
that answer, and I want to give you an opportunity, if you'd
like, to comment on your answer, for the record, in citing
Judge Walsh to validate your answer.
Dr. Gates. Sure.
I think the short answer, Senator, is, in the very short
time that I had to prepare the answers to the questions that
came from the committee, that it seemed--and without having
access to any of the documents or the records that I had seen
before, that the best way to answer this current committee's
question was simply to refer to the note, to the response that
I was invited to place in the record of Iran-Contra report. The
sentence that you quoted, in terms of not finding any other
witnesses, was the central part of a three- or four-, I think,
sentence response that I wrote to the report of the Iran-Contra
independent counsel. That's fundamentally the reason why that
sentence was in there.
Senator Levin. Fine, thank you. So, that basically is
taking from a past document----
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin.--a statement which is accurate, presumably--
--
Dr. Gates.--from 1994.
Senator Levin. It was from 1994 and not necessarily
responsive to the point that was being made.
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. My time is up.
Senator Sessions [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Levin. I think Senator Nelson on our side is next.
Senator Sessions. I guess. They gave me a note, said I was
next, but I think you may be correct.
I would just say that if he didn't find a witness, it
wasn't for lack of trying. Mr. Walsh was a tenacious special
prosecutor that many believe went beyond what was required in
dealing with some fine American citizens who found themselves
in a very difficult position.
I thought of the phrase, recently, somebody said, ``I don't
know much, but I suspect a lot.'' [Laughter.]
I think your statement about not being contradicted is an
important one, and he said that, and he supports your
nomination. I think that's good.
Senator Nelson? I've enjoyed serving with Senator Nelson on
the Strategic Forces Subommittee, and, as my ranking member
now, I'll be bowing to you. I look forward to serving you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Bill Nelson. I'll enjoy that bowing. [Laughter.]
As we discussed yesterday in a private conversation, I
shared with you what I think has been an excessively partisan
operation out of the Defense Department, and the lack of shared
and accurate information having to do with the global war on
terror. I shared with you specific examples of information that
I had received that was not correct.
I think you're going to be a good Secretary. You come to
the table for all the right reasons, because you don't have to
do this. I think you're doing it out of a sense of loyalty to
our country and a sense of patriotism. I think you want to get
it right. That's how I size you up, Dr. Gates. I just want to
re-emphasize to you that I don't think that it can be solved
unless it's done in a bipartisan way and that there is the
mutual sharing of responsibilities, as envisioned by the
Constitution, between the executive and the legislative
branches. So, the example that you set in this position, I
think, is going to be very important, and I think it's going to
send some extremely important signals.
What strategies have you thought about that you might
implement in the Department to break down the distrust between
the executive branch and the legislative branch? What have you
thought about, in ensuring timely and accurate information is
promptly shared with Congress, and, when necessary, with the
American people?
Dr. Gates. Senator Nelson, I haven't really had much
breathing room to give thought to specific measures along these
lines. I think coming off of the corporate boards that I've
served on, if I've learned one thing, it's the importance of
tone at the top. I think that, first, by the example that I
set, if I am confirmed, and then by my making clear to the
people who work for me that I expect the same level of candor
and forthrightness with Congress, is an important message.
Further, I would tell you--and this was an arrangement that
I had with Senator Boren and Senator Cohen when they were chair
and co-chair of the Intelligence Committee, that if a member of
this committee believes that someone representing the Defense
Department has not given forthright testimony, or you have
questions about the accuracy of the testimony, I would hope
that you would promptly bring it to my attention. My experience
in running large organizations is that when the boss is
unhappy, lots of people get unhappy.
I think the first step is the tone at the top. It's one of
the reasons why I wanted to take advantage of today's hearing,
frankly, to put my views before the committee and the public,
in terms of the importance of a bipartisan approach, in the
hope that that message will get through, if I'm confirmed, even
before I show up.
Senator Bill Nelson. I can tell you, coming out of this
election--and I've just been through one, and my State is
pretty well reflective of the country at large--that not only
was there the message about Iraq, but there was also the
message people are tired of this excessive partisanship and
this partisan bickering. Particularly, as I said this morning,
I was raised to believe that partisanship stopped at the
water's edge. So, your comments are refreshing.
I want to ask you about the Guard and the Reserves. If the
Army has a new plan to mobilize the Guard and the Reserve every
5 years, what do you think this kind of mobilization is going
to have on people reupping in the Guard and the Reserves?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I know that the Guard and Reserve are
very important to Members of Congress, and I simply haven't had
the opportunity to familiarize myself with the Army's new
policies, in terms of mobilizing the Guard and Reserve. It's
clearly important. I do have concerns that--and it ties back to
the discussion we had this morning about the size of the
regular Army, whether we are asking the Guard and Reserve to do
things that many of those who joined didn't expect to be part
of the program. So, clearly one of the number of things we've
talked about here today that I need to get up to speed on very
quickly is what the Army's plans are for the Reserve and the
Guard, and then to have a conversation with some of you up here
on the Hill and talk about the direction that we're headed.
Senator Bill Nelson. I would just remind you, as you're
considering all that, you take an organization like the Florida
Guard, they were first in Iraq. Their expertise is well known.
Then, turned around that very next year, we had four major
hurricanes hit the State of Florida within 6 weeks. Of course,
the Guard was needed there, too. So, this is something you're
going to have to consider.
Mr. Chairman, I have one more question, even though I've
exceeded my 5-minute time. May I ask this additional question?
Chairman Warner [presiding]. You may.
Senator Bill Nelson. Officers in Al Anbar Province have
stated that they don't have enough troops to defeat the
insurgency and that the Shiite-dominated central government is
not providing the ISF with the resources it needs in the Sunni-
dominated Al Anbar Province. Last month, we learned from
General Abizaid and General Hayden that that province is not
under control, but that now Baghdad is the focus of an effort,
and, for Al Anbar, that there are no changes planned, except
General Abizaid told us that he was going to add one Marine
expeditionary unit of about 2,200 marines.
Then yesterday John Negroponte said that Iraq cities are
less secure, and the enemy harder to identify, and he compared
it to Vietnam. In fact, he said Baghdad is highly insecure,
and, he said, ``perhaps one of the most insecure places in the
country.''
Two-thirds of our recent casualties have occurred in Al
Anbar Province. Do you want to opine on any changes in the
strategy and the troop levels, or is that something you want to
wait until you get in?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I think I'd better wait and see, first
of all, if I'm confirmed. But then, as I've indicated, my hope
is, if confirmed, to go to the area quite soon. Clearly, what's
happening in Al Anbar and elsewhere has to be very high on the
list, in terms of conversations both with General Abizaid and
General Casey.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, Senator.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I have one more
question. I'll just wait.
Chairman Warner. We really have to move on. You've had a
good deal of time here to--forgive me for trying to get my
colleague here to finish up, and then we should conclude this
part.
Senator Levin. He has one more question.
Chairman Warner. Well, no, I think he wanted to wait until
you took your turn.
Senator Levin. Okay.
I just have a few questions, thank you, Mr. Chairman. One
is on Army readiness levels. The ranking member of the House
Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, asked the Chief of Staff
of the Army the following question, June 27 ``Are you
comfortable with the readiness level of the nondeployed units
that are in the continental United States?'' General Schoomaker
replied, ``No.''
Based on the information that you have at this time, are
you satisfied with the current readiness of our ground forces,
including those forces that are not currently deployed
overseas?
Dr. Gates. Senator, I'm not familiar with the readiness
state. Clearly, if General Schoomaker thinks that, that's
probably what I'll think, if I'm confirmed.
Senator Levin. Okay. There are reports that are required to
be submitted quarterly to Congress, relative to readiness. The
last quarterly readiness report was provided to this committee
7 months ago today. It covered the last half of 2005. None of
the reports covering calendar year 2005 were actually delivered
during the years they were supposed to be. The Department now
is 9 months behind in providing these readiness reports that
are supposed to be provided quarterly to Congress. We don't
have any of the three quarters of calendar year 2006 yet. If
you're confirmed, will you ensure that the Department provides
the committee with these readiness reports, as required by law?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. I know the Department is represented here
today, and I'd just like the Department to know that these
readiness reports, at least one of them, but hopefully two of
them, will be provided to this committee--and it's up to the
chairman, but I would hope they would be provided by tomorrow
night.
Dr. Gates, relative to North Korea--I don't think you've
been asked about that, and I want to ask you about North Korea.
You wrote an article, back in--a long time ago, 1994--about
dangers posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons. You argued, at
that time, that steps like phased sanctions and voluntary arms
trade embargoes would have little or no impact. You write that,
``The only option now available is to stop its arsenal from
growing larger,'' and the way to do this was to destroy the
reprocessing facility. Should we attack North Korea's nuclear
facilities? Might there be value in high-level bilateral talks
directly with the North Koreans if our allies, the South
Koreans and other countries, want us to engage in those high-
level bilateral talks?
Dr. Gates. First of all, Senator, I've changed my view on
how to deal with North Korea. I believe that, clearly, at this
point, the best course is the diplomatic one, and I am
impressed that, in recent weeks, we seem to have seen the
Chinese--and certainly the Japanese, but even the Chinese--
begin to take a stronger stand with the North Koreans, and
people working a little closer with us. So, perhaps the one
positive piece of news as a result of North Korea's nuclear
test is that it antagonized the Chinese and got them off the
dime on the issue.
I would defer to the Secretary of State on whether
bilateral direct negotiations with the North Koreans would be
productive. I think we've talked about that, if I remember
correctly from the newspapers, in terms of if certain
conditions were met. But I think, without studying it further
and without fully understanding or knowing about the various
aspects of the administration's policy, I'd prefer to take that
question, sir, and come back to you later.
[The information referred to follows:]
The United States is pursuing denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula through diplomacy. We are working closely with our allies,
South Korea, and Japan, with our Six-Party Talks partners, and with the
broader international community to urge North Korea to live up to its
agreements as codified in the September 19, 2005, Joint Statement of
the Six-Party Talks. Our diplomacy has also included numerous bilateral
meetings with the North Koreans, within the context of the Six-Party
Talks, as well as vigorous efforts in the United Nations Security
Council. At this point, I continue to believe that these diplomatic
efforts constitute the best way to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.
We believe that there has been ample opportunity for discussion in
the Six-Party Talks. To date, there have been several extended
bilateral meetings between the United States and North Korea. We expect
that this pattern and opportunities will continue.
The United States and other countries involved in these discussions
have made clear to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) the
substantial benefits that await the people of North Korea through
denuclearization. However, it is not clear that the DPRK leadership has
made the strategic decision to denuclearize. The DPRK may judge that
possession of nuclear weapons is a guarantee of regime survival and may
be engaging in nuclear negotiations simply to exact concessions. The
burden of proof whether the DPRK is willing to pursue the opportunities
that denuclearization will bring about lies with the DPRK.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Sessions, you have but one question?
Senator Sessions. Yes, I'd like to follow up on one
question that I think is important, and that's national missile
defense. The North Koreans launched their missile on July 4.
The Iranians have also publicly demonstrated their capabilities
to launch missiles. I think the American people have come to
realize how vulnerable we can be if we do not have a national
missile defense system.
Dr. Gates, having been involved in this discussion for some
time, I think it's fair to say, at this point, we've reached an
acquiescence or consensus in the idea that we would field the
national ground-based missile defense system that would protect
us from the North Korean launches, for example. We are
continuing research on other capabilities that could even be
more effective in the future. We believe that this hit-to-kill
technology has been proven, and will work, and we continue to
refine that.
But I noticed in one of your answers to the written
questions, you indicated that you'd like to pursue a full
spectrum of capabilities. I think the reality is, financially,
that we're probably going to have to make some choices. While
we can do research, we're only going to be able to deploy one
system, well, several--the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
(GMD), the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, the Theater High
Altitude Area Defense, and Patriot systems. Those are all
proven. They all need to be deployed. I'm afraid we may have
attempts to reduce funding for GMD or perhaps some of these
others.
With regard to our basic national missile defense system,
the assembly-line production has been reduced to the point that
any more reduction would really break the assembly line and
lose all the efficiencies of scale as we seek to complete 50
launch vehicles. So, I guess what I would say to you is, I'd
ask you to be alert to that. I think you're going to need to
defend that budget, because it may sound like it's not too
significant to take so many million dollars out of that budget
item, but I'm afraid if we do, it's going to cost us much more
in the long run by reducing our capability to maintain a
production line.
Will you look at that? How do you feel, in general, about
national missile defense?
Dr. Gates. Sir, first of all, I would comply with the
National Missile Defense Act of 1999. That's the law.
Senator Sessions. Which said that we would deploy a system
as soon as technically feasible.
Dr. Gates. Correct. I have felt for a long time that I know
we've spent a lot of money on developing missile defense, but I
have believed, since the Reagan administration, that if we can
develop that kind of a capability it would be a mistake for us
not to, and especially when we now have several dozen countries
that either have, or are developing, ballistic missiles. You
have at least two or three that are developing longer-range
missiles. I think we also have an obligation to our allies in
this respect. So, in principle, I'm very strongly in favor.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you to all Senators. Just a minute, I'm getting a
signal.
Senator Levin. Let me just add one quick comment.
Chairman Warner. All right.
Senator Levin. That is, Senator Nelson reminds me that the
Missile Defense Act of 1999 talks about an effective missile
defense system. I assume that you would support a system, if it
can be an effective system, number one. Is that accurate?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir. Although I would say that I think that
we have deployed systems that were less than perfect in the
past--the Predators, the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack
Radar System (JSTARS), and some others--and improved them after
the initial deployment had begun. I guess my instinct--and I'd
certainly be willing to hear a different point of view--but my
instinct would be that, if we have something that has some
capability, it's better than having no capability.
Senator Levin. Finally, on that point--and we will give you
the other point of view on that, to make sure that it is
effective and there are differences between JSTARS and
Predator. There are significant differences. But do you support
realistic operational test and evaluation of those systems as
we go along, before we deploy systems which might not be
effective?
Dr. Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. This committee will now resume its hearing
in executive session, in S-407 of the Capitol. I presume it'll
take us about 15 minutes to get over there, so the meeting will
start, hopefully, at 4 o'clock.
Thank you. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Robert M. Gates by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD)
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to address in
these modifications?
Answer. It has been 20 years since this landmark legislation
prepared the Department for the post-Cold War era. At this time, I do
not know of a particular area that requires change but, if confirmed, I
will bring an open mind to this issue and will work with the committee
on this very important topic.
duties of the secretary of defense
Question. Section 113 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the
Secretary of Defense is the principal assistant to the President in all
matters relating to the DOD. Subject to the direction of the President,
and the law, the Secretary of Defense, under section 113, has
authority, direction, and control over the DOD.
Do you believe there are actions you need to take to enhance your
ability to perform the duties of the Secretary of Defense?
What changes to section 113, if any, would you recommend?
Answer. Current statutory authorities for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense appear to be sufficiently clear and appropriate
for the proper execution of duties. However, I will not be able to make
a complete determination on this position until, if I am confirmed, I
have served as Secretary of Defense.
chain of command
Question. Section 162(b) of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the
chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense
and from the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commands. Section
163(a) of title 10 further provides that the President may direct
communications to combatant commanders be transmitted through the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and may assign duties to the
Chairman to assist the President and the Secretary of Defense in
performing their command function.
Do you believe that these provisions facilitate a clear and
effective chain of command?
Answer. Based on my understanding of the existing authority, I
believe there is sufficient clarity in authority in current law to
facilitate a clear and effective chain of command.
Question. In your view, do these provisions enhance or degrade
civilian control of the military? I believe they should enhance it but
will have to withhold final judgment until, if confirmed, I have the
chance to operate within this chain of command.
advice of the service chiefs and the combatant commanders
Question. Section 151 of title 10, U.S.C., provides, in part, that
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military
adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and the
Secretary of Defense and that if any member of the Joint Chiefs submits
to the Chairman advice or an opinion, in disagreement with, or advice
or an opinion in addition to, the advice presented by the Chairman, the
Chairman shall present that advice or opinion at the same time he
provides his own advice to the President, the National Security
Council, and the Secretary of Defense.
Section 163 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff serves as the spokesman for the combatant
commanders, especially on the operational requirements of their
commands.
What changes in law, if any, do you think may be necessary to
ensure that the views of the individual Service Chiefs and of the
combatant commanders are presented and considered?
Answer. At this time, I do not recommend any changes to the law.
If confirmed, and after I have been in office for a sufficient time
to determine if changes are advisable, I will recommend changes as
appropriate or necessary.
goldwater-nichols for the interagency
Question. For more than 2 years, General Pace has been calling for
a Goldwater-Nichols Act for the entire Federal Government. He argues
that the U.S. and allied militaries can prevail on the battlefield but
that the global war on terror requires a concerted effort by a host of
U.S. agencies. According to General Pace's proposal, a lead agency
would be selected and several other agencies would be subordinated to
and subject to the direction of the head of the lead agency.
What are your views on the merits of General Pace's proposal?
Answer. The 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act led to greater jointness and
interdependence among the military Services. The impact has been
significant and lasting on DOD. Fighting the global war on terror
requires that all instruments of national power are brought to bear on
the task at hand. Drawing on my experience of 9 years of service on the
National Security Council--and under four Presidents--I believe that
any steps that can be taken to improve and strengthen interagency
cooperation and collaboration would be worthwhile. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with the President, Cabinet colleagues, and Congress
on this issue.
counterintelligence field activity
Question. DOD has established an organization called the
Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA). CIFA is reportedly charged
with protecting military facilities and personnel and carrying out
intelligence collection, analysis, and operations within the United
States.
Do you believe that it is appropriate that DOD has such an
organization?
Answer. I believe it is appropriate in the current environment that
DOD be organized and focused in such a way that it gives critical
attention to counterintelligence and force protection. If confirmed, I
will take a look at this matter in greater detail.
Question. What is the appropriate division of functions and
responsibilities between such a DOD organization and the
counterintelligence executive within the Intelligence Community?
Answer. I understand that the National Counterintelligence
Executive provides strategic guidance, mission management, and
integration to the National Counterintelligence Community. If
confirmed, I will work to make sure the Department's activities are
properly coordinated and synchronized with the rest of the government.
Question. CIFA is responsible for the TALON data base that was
found to have inappropriately included information on U.S. persons,
including reports on peaceful civilian protests and demonstrations
inside the United States, in contradiction to Executive orders and the
rules published by DOD.
What are your views on the steps that should be taken to preclude
the possibility that CIFA or any other DOD organization deals
inappropriately with information on U.S. persons?
Answer. I have not closely studied the allegations concerning CIFA
and the TALON program. I understand that the Department has conducted
an internal review of this matter and found procedural weaknesses in
the program. I further understand that steps are underway to correct
these deficiencies. If confirmed, I will ensure that all DOD
activities, including intelligence activities, abide by the law and
applicable regulations.
intelligence reform and terrorism protection act of 2004
Question. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
(IRTA) of 2004, among other actions, realigned the responsibilities for
budgeting for and management of intelligence organizations between the
Secretary of Defense and the head of the Intelligence Community, the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI). You have written in the past
that you opposed the establishment of a DNI.
What do you believe is the role of DOD in intelligence under the
new statute?
Answer. It is my understanding that the role of the Department was
not fundamentally changed by this legislation. The Department's focus
remains on providing critical intelligence support to the warfighter as
well as supporting the National Intelligence Community in its important
mission.
Question. Do you believe that the IRTA strikes the correct balance
between the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary and the DNI?
Answer. As you may be aware, I have written on this topic and I
have opined that early versions of this legislation did not properly
provide for the proper balancing of authorities and responsibilities
among the major elements of the Intelligence Community.
Question. What changes in the IRTA, if any, would you recommend
that Congress consider?
Answer. At this point I think it is premature for me to make any
recommendations or modifications until I see how the program is working
in actual practice.
Question. You have also written that ``for the last decade,
intelligence authority has been quietly leaching from the CIA and to
the Pentagon, not the other way around.'' You have stated that you and
other CIA veterans ``are unhappy about the dominance of the Defense
Department in the intelligence arena.''
If confirmed, what steps, if any, do you foresee taking to address
these issues?
Answer. Clearly, if confirmed, this will be an area that I would
look into. I do believe that an important factor to take into account
is the establishment of strong working relationships among leaders of
the various organizations in question. In this regard, I believe in
pursuing all opportunities to continue strengthening coordination and
cooperation.
use of military force
Question. The question as to whether and when U.S. forces should
participate in potentially dangerous situations is one of the most
important and difficult decisions that the national command authorities
have to make. Prior Secretaries of Defense and Chairmen of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff have proposed criteria to guide decisionmaking for such
situations.
What factors would you consider in making recommendations to the
President on the use of force?
Answer. The factors that previous Chairmen and Secretaries of
Defense have put forward remain relevant; for example: the threat to
our vital interests; the role of non-military means to respond to the
threat; our capability to defeat that threat and improve our strategic
situation through the use of military force; and the prospects for
sustained public support for military action.
Question. The March 2006 National Security Strategy states, in
part, that ``If necessary, however, under longstanding principles of
self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur,
even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's
attack. When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so
devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers
materialize. This is the principle and logic of preemption. The place
of preemption in our national security strategy remains the same. We
will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our
actions. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured,
and the cause just.''
Given that we now know from the work of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG)
and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) that Iraq did
not possess stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) nor any
active programs to develop them, what degree of certainty do you
believe is necessary before the United States would use preemptive
force?
Answer. I believe the use of preemptive force should be based on
very strong evidence. It is a decision that must not be taken lightly.
At the same time, my intelligence background has given me an
appreciation for the fact that intelligence can be a moving target and
is often ambiguous.
I believe that over the years the dedicated men and women in the
Intelligence Community do their best to get the most reliable
intelligence possible. Still, we need to be aware of the caveats that
come with intelligence products. We need to continue to ask the hard
questions.
coordination with the department of homeland security
Question. Since the current Secretary of Defense was confirmed, a
new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been created, and DOD has
created a new U.S. Northern Command and Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Homeland Defense. Even so, the Federal, State, and local response
to Hurricane Katrina demonstrated serious shortcomings at all levels.
What are your goals, and what is your assessment of the current
situation, regarding cooperation and coordination between DOD and DHS
on homeland security matters?
Answer. I am told that the DOD has established a strong
relationship with the DHS, although the response to Hurricane Katrina
does show that there is room for improvement.
I believe DOD and DHS have a common goal: the
protection of the United States.
If confirmed, I will work closely with DHS and other
Federal departments and agencies to prepare for and respond to
threats to the U.S. homeland.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, you will confront a range of critical
issues relating to threats to national security and ensuring that the
Armed Forces are prepared to deal with these threats.
What broad priorities would you establish, if confirmed, with
respect to issues which must be addressed by DOD?
Answer. The Department's current priorities appear to cover three
areas:
(1) Iraq and winning the long war against violent extremism;
(2) Supporting the Department's military and civilian
personnel; and
(3) Continuing the transformation of the U.S. military for
21st century challenges.
If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the President in his
ongoing review of Iraq policy, working with the members of the ISG
(i.e., the Baker-Hamilton Commission) and working closely with Members
of Congress to ensure that we have the most comprehensive approach to
our strategy in Iraq.
Clearly, to win the long war, the Department needs to strengthen
key capabilities such as those for irregular warfare. We must work with
and through partners across the globe to counter the threat of violent
extremism.
Recruiting and retaining the best people, and providing quality
care for the wounded and their families, also remain at the core of the
Department's priorities.
Transforming the Department to better deal with 21st century
challenges, a major charge from the President, must continue. These
challenges range from the threat posed by terrorist networks, to WMD in
the hands of hostile regimes and terrorist networks, to states armed
with advanced weaponry.
If I am confirmed, these will be critical priorities for me.
fiscal year 2008 president's budget request
Question. Striking the right balance between the requirements for
the future force and the requirements for current readiness is
difficult in times of peace, and even more so in times of war.
How do you propose to establish that balance, to ensure that we
achieve the needed level of investment in the future force in the face
of pressing requirements for completing the mission in Iraq and
Afghanistan, for resetting of the force, and for meeting ongoing
operational commitments across the globe?
Answer. From my years of service in the public sector, I recognize
the importance of balancing immediate and future needs. In national
security matters, such a balance is essential to keeping America safe
both today and tomorrow.
If confirmed, I will work with both the Department's civilian and
military leaders to strike the right balance.
Question. If confirmed, one of your first tasks will be to weigh
the Department's final decisions regarding the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2008 and make your mark on the Department's
objectives contained within the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
What is your plan to formally review the Department's 2008 budget
request and, as necessary, make those changes required to ensure that
the budget request fully funds the Department's requirements while
meeting your objectives for fiscal year 2008 and the future years
defense plan?
Answer. I understand that the budget process is near completion. If
confirmed, I will familiarize myself with the key elements of the
fiscal year 2008 budget on an urgent basis.
If, through consultation with the civilian and military leadership
of the Department and the White House, we conclude that there should be
revisions to the budget, we will work with Congress toward that end.
budgeting for ongoing operations
Question. What level of resources do you believe the DOD will need
to meet our national security requirements in fiscal year 2008?
Answer. In general terms, I believe the Department needs sufficient
resources to maintain prudent near-term force readiness, fully fund
wartime needs, and invest adequately in long-term defense capabilities.
Until and if I am confirmed and fully briefed on the fiscal year 2008
budget, I am not prepared to comment on the specifics of the budget.
Question. In the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007, section 1008, Congress required that the President's
annual budget submitted to Congress after fiscal year 2007 include a
request for the funds for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
and an estimate of all funds expected to be required in that fiscal
year for such operations.
If confirmed, will you comply with the requirements of this
provision?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What problems, if any, do you anticipate the Department
will encounter in complying with this budgeting requirement?
Answer. My understanding is that it is difficult to forecast the
scope and nature of wartime operations many months ahead of time.
army budgeting issues
Question. In the past several months, press reports have claimed
that the Pentagon's internal budgetary process has broken down. These
reports have stated that the Army refused to present their budget
proposal to the Office of the Secretary of Defense because they felt
their top-line guidance was too low for their ongoing missions,
including costs of the war and recapitalization of equipment. These
reports went on to claim the Secretary of Defense gave the Services
permission to appeal directly to the President's Office of Management
and Budget.
What is your understanding of the current status of the
Department's budget process, and, if confirmed, how would you plan to
resolve current challenges?
Answer. While I am aware of some press reporting on this issue, I
am not familiar with the particulars.
If confirmed, I will examine thoroughly questions regarding the
Department's budget process.
Question. Do you believe the DOD and the military departments can
and should resolve these issues using the normal budget process, or do
we need changes in the budget process?
Answer. As a general matter, I believe the Department should
utilize the established budget process. Again, if confirmed, I will
examine thoroughly questions regarding the Department's budget process.
transformation
Question. In 2001, President Bush called for transformation of the
Armed Forces directing the Department to ``discard Cold War relics''
and plan to meet current and future threats.
How would you assess the progress that has been made since 2001 in
achieving the President's goal of transforming DOD?
If confirmed, what would you plan to do to ensure that the
transformation goals are achieved?
Answer. If confirmed, I will build upon the President's commitment
to transform our forces to better fit the 21st century. Transformation
holds the promise to ensure that our military forces are more agile and
lethal when confronting the enemies of this new century.
While I need to learn more about the details, I am also committed
to the continuing changes in the business process that the Department
has implemented to support that force.
If confirmed, I will become more familiar with ongoing
transformation activities and, in consultation with the civilian and
military leadership and Congress, direct any necessary changes when and
where I think it's prudent to do so.
reorganization of the office of the under secretary of defense for
policy
Question. A reorganization of the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy (OUSD(P)) is currently underway. In the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, an additional
Assistant Secretary of Defense position was authorized to support the
reorganization, however, the conferees expressed various concerns about
the proposed reorganization that must be responded to in a report from
the Department by February 1, 2007.
What is your understanding of the purpose, parameters, and status
of the OUSD(P) reorganization?
Answer. I am told that the reorganization of the Department's
Policy Office is grounded in lessons learned during the QDR, which
calls on the Department to transform its civilian capabilities just as
military capabilities are undergoing transformation.
Question. What is your assessment of the concerns expressed by the
conferees regarding the reorganization?
Answer. I understand that the Department will formally respond to
these concerns in a February 1 report to Congress.
Question. If confirmed, would you continue the planned
reorganization or defer any reorganization pending your own inputs?
Answer. If confirmed, I am inclined to continue the Policy Office
reorganization effort, but plan to review this proposal and will be
prepared to engage the committee in a more detailed discussion at that
time.
operation desert storm
Question. Do you believe it was a mistake not to seize Baghdad in
1991 during Operation Desert Storm?
Answer. I do not believe we were mistaken when we decided not to
expand and extend military operations to seize Baghdad in 1991.
At the time, the United States and the coalition had achieved our
strategic objectives of ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding
Saddam's threat to the region.
Seizing Baghdad was not part of that campaign plan.
The coalition would have shattered if it had been
tasked with an invasion or occupation of Iraq.
The coalition had not planned for, or resourced for,
military operations to occupy Iraq.
By extending the ground war into Baghdad, we would
have violated longstanding principles not to change military
objectives mid-stream and engage in ``mission creep.''
strategy in iraq
Question. Do you agree that there is no purely military solution to
the Iraq situation?
Answer. Yes, there is no purely military solution in Iraq. The U.S.
strategy in Iraq depends on political and economic efforts, as much as
military, though the military component remains critical to success
there.
According to the President, the military aspect of the U.S.
strategy continues to be to help develop self-reliance among Iraqi
security forces, neutralizing the insurgency, and defeating the
terrorists. While significant work remains to be done in a difficult
environment, the Iraqi security forces have made great strides.
Security progress in many ways is contingent on political and
economic progress, which will continue to require the full commitment
of the other departments of the U.S. Government, Iraq's regional
neighbors, and the international community.
Question. Do you believe that all options should be on the table
for changing the current course in Iraq?
Answer. In principle, all options should be on the table. If
confirmed, I will seek the advice of the military leadership, consult
with the President, and consult with Congress in order to implement the
best strategy with regard to Iraq.
iraq lessons learned
Question. What do you believe to be the major lessons learned from
the Iraq invasion and the ongoing effort to stabilize the country?
Answer. I agreed with President Bush's decision to go into Iraq.
Our men and women in uniform and our coalition partners have served
admirably there, and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with them
on a daily basis to help make the future better for the Iraqi people.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein's regime was a dangerous
and disruptive force in the region. By the late 1990s, it was clear
that his dictatorial regime needed to be removed from power. The Oil-
for-Food program was a failure. Saddam's continual defiance of the
international community was unacceptable.
In 2002, I supported U.N. Resolution 1441, which called for
immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq's illegal weapons in order
to give inspections another chance. Again, Saddam thumbed his nose at
the international community. I believed that he possessed WMD or the
capacity for building WMD, and that with the collapse of sanctions he
would aggressively pursue an effort to increase his WMD capability.
I believe that leaving Iraq in chaos would have dangerous
consequences both in the region and globally for many years to come.
Question. In that regard, what would you have done differently had
you been Secretary of Defense over the last 6 years?
Answer. War planning should be done with the understanding that the
post-major combat phase of operations can be crucial. If confirmed, I
intend to improve the Department's capabilities in this regard. I
understand this area has been a major focus of the Department through
the QDR and if confirmed, I would continue to make this a priority.
With the advantages of hindsight, I might have done some things
differently. With the same hindsight, I imagine others in the
administration would also have done things differently.
I understand the Department has collected information on lessons
learned, and if confirmed, I will review that information in detail.
pre-war intelligence
Question. In 1989, you wrote: ``Policymakers usually learn the hard
way that, although intelligence can tell them a great deal, it only
rarely . . . provides the kind of unambiguous and timely information
that can make day-to-day decisions simpler and less risky. Intelligence
officers occasionally encourage such exaggerated expectations by
pretending a confidence in their judgments they cannot reasonably
justify and by failing to be candid about the quality and reliability
of their information and the possibility of other outcomes.''
What is your personal assessment of the pre-war intelligence on WMD
in Iraq and the use of that intelligence by policymakers?
What lessons do you believe we should draw from this history when
we contemplate future conflicts?
Answer. For intelligence, the lessons learned are about the need
for an all-source intelligence approach that will give the Intelligence
Community the greatest opportunity for successful collection and
analysis and also minimize our adversaries' capability to deny and
deceive us.
It also, once again, emphasizes the need for good analytic
tradecraft that carefully vets sources, questions assumptions, clearly
represents facts, and looks at alternative explanations in order fight
a tendency to fall into group think.
Policymakers also recognize that intelligence cannot operate with
the same standards of evidence used in U.S. courts, especially against
hard targets such as Iraq. The intelligence collected against such
targets is often episodic and contradictory.
Through the combination of all-source collection and strong
tradecraft, the Intelligence Community can develop intelligence
assessments which can best inform policymakers in the often difficult
choices confronting them. Still, the community ought not exaggerate its
capabilities or minimize the uncertainty that plagues assessments on
such hard targets.
There are lessons learned in several respects:
The need for high-quality collection capabilities,
both human and technical.
The need for experienced and skilled analytical
capabilities.
The importance of intelligence analysts being
forthright about the quality of their information and the
reliability of their judgments.
The enduring need for decisionmakers to ask tough
questions on intelligence.
The importance of not offering single outcome
forecasts, which have contributed to past intelligence
failures.
china
Question. China is viewed by some in the United States as a
potential threat and by others as a potential constructive
international partner that should be welcomed and integrated into the
international economic and political community.
To what extent do you believe the policies and actions of the
United States and other major regional and international actors will
affect the direction in which China develops, and the extent to which
it becomes a cooperative partner or a competitor of the United States?
Answer. As I see it, the United States, in concert with our allies
and partners, can create a regional infrastructure to expand those
areas where our interests converge with China's, while discouraging
China's activities of concern. China's improved behavior on
proliferation, increased transparency, and cooperative approach to the
North Korean nuclear question is welcome.
Question. What do you believe are China's political-military
objectives regarding Taiwan, the Asia-Pacific region, and globally?
Answer. I believe China seeks to integrate Taiwan peacefully, if
possible. That is their policy but their capabilities suggest they are
prepared to consider the use of force if peaceful efforts fail.
Beyond Taiwan, China aspires to be the preeminent power in Asia.
Beijing is expanding its political and economic influence in the region
and generating options for military coercion.
Question. What do you believe are the objectives of China's
military modernization program (including its nuclear weapons program)?
Answer. It appears to me that China is building capabilities to
fight short duration, high-intensity conflict on its periphery. Its
near-term focus is on generating sufficient combat power to rapidly
erode Taiwan's will to resist and to deter or deny effective
intervention in a cross-Strait conflict.
China is also strengthening its deterrent posture through
modernization of its strategic forces. Its ``no first use'' policy
appears intact, but the shift to survivable, mobile nuclear forces
gives China's leaders new options for coercion or first use in crises.
Question. How do you believe the United States should respond to
China's military modernization program?
Answer. Our strategy must be designed to preserve peace and
stability in the region. It must be flexible and supported by continued
transformation of the U.S. military in Asia, maintenance of our global
presence and access, and strengthened alliances and partnerships.
We should monitor closely the growth of China's military
capabilities, while continuing to press Beijing for greater
transparency. In accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, we should
maintain our capabilities to resist China's use of force or coercion
against Taiwan and assist Taipei in maintaining its self-defense.
Question. U.S-China military-to-military relations have been modest
over the past 6 years, however the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, has
recently taken steps to reinvigorate this relationship.
Do you believe that we should make any changes in the quality or
quantity of our military relations with China? If so, what changes and
why?
Answer. I believe that expanded military exchanges with China can
be valuable but should be based on China's willingness to reciprocate.
north korea
Question. North Korea represents one of the greatest near term
threats to U.S. national security interests in Asia.
What is your assessment of the current security situation on the
Korean peninsula and the diplomatic efforts to date to persuade North
Korea to verifiably dismantle its nuclear weapons program?
Answer. North Korea's large, albeit aging, conventional capability
and its pursuit of asymmetric capabilities in the form of WMD and
missile delivery systems present a significant challenge to the United
States, our allies, the region, and the international community.
I understand the U.S. strategy remains centered on maintaining
peace through deterrence and diplomacy. Our Republic of Korea (ROK) and
Japan alliances remain strong, and the combined capabilities of the ROK
and U.S. remain ready. Our growing missile defense relationship with
Japan is an important contribution to our deterrent posture.
I am told the United States is working closely with our allies, our
Six-Party Talks partners, and the international community to persuade
North Korea to live up to its agreements as codified in the September
19, 2005 joint statement.
Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed to the United
States and its allies by North Korea's ballistic missile and WMD
capabilities and the export of those capabilities?
Answer. North Korea's continuing pursuit of asymmetric capabilities
in the form of WMD and missile delivery systems presents a significant
security challenge to the United States, our allies, the region, and
the international community. The potential for North Korean
proliferation of nuclear weapons, technology, and fissile material is a
major concern and a threat that must be addressed.
President Bush stated clearly in Singapore on 16 November, the
United States will hold Pyongyang accountable for any transfer of
nuclear weapons, related technology, or fissile material to state or
non-state actors.
Question. In your view, what should be done to strengthen
deterrence on the Korean peninsula?
Answer. The true lynchpin to our deterrence is the strength and
viability of our alliances. We must continue to evolve our
relationships with both the ROK and Japan to ensure their long-term
political sustainability and to ensure that the DPRK never doubts our
resolve to meet our treaty commitments.
The extended deterrence offered by U.S. nuclear forces to our
allies must remain a viable component of our strategy both to deter
aggression in Northeast Asia and to prevent the further spread of
nuclear weapons globally.
republic of south korea
Question. Since the end of World War II, the alliance between the
United States and the ROK has been a key pillar of security in the Asia
Pacific region. This relationship has gone through periods of
inevitable change.
What is your understanding of the current U.S. security
relationship with the ROK?
Answer. In my view, the U.S.-ROK alliance remains strong and
viable. Both the United States and ROK are looking to evolve a more
equal military partnership.
Question. If confirmed, what measures, if any, would you take to
improve the U.S.-ROK security relationship?
Answer. As I understand it, the DOD has been working closely with
the ROK to realign U.S. forces on the Peninsula.
The Department is, for example, repositioning U.S. forces to bases
south of Seoul. This will make the U.S. presence less intrusive on the
Korean people, remove U.S. forces from the center of Seoul, and result
in a U.S. force posture that enhances U.S. forces' readiness and
quality of life.
Question. What is your view regarding the timing of turning over
wartime operational command to the ROK?
Answer. I understand that the United States and ROK have agreed on
a timeframe for the transfer of wartime operational control. If
confirmed, I will continue to work with my ROK counterpart to complete
this process.
afghanistan
Question. What is your assessment of the situation in Afghanistan?
Answer. Developments in Afghanistan are a concern. There are
positive trends, such as the International Security and Assistance
Force (ISAF) completing its expansion and the transition to North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) command of the counterinsurgency
mission.
But there clearly is a resurgence of the Taliban in certain areas
of the country. This changing security situation must remain a high
priority of the United States. In my opinion, we must avoid repeating
the mistakes of the late 1980s when in retrospect we neglected
Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal.
Question. What more do you think the United States should be doing
in support of the Karzai government and ongoing efforts to improve
security and development in order to stabilize Afghanistan?''
Answer. I believe that this is an important moment in Afghanistan--
additional investment in extending governance can build on the current
momentum.
The United States should continue to develop the Afghan National
Security Forces to ensure we have capable and an independent Afghan
National Army and Police that increasingly will take responsibility for
the security and stability of Afghanistan.
The United States should also help the government of Afghanistan
to: extend the rule of law to remote areas; provide economic
development that will provide people alternatives to opium production
and the Taliban; and address corruption to ensure a stable state that
enjoys popular support.
If confirmed, I will make our continued success in Afghanistan a
significant priority.
national limits on use of nato forces in afghanistan
Question. NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer has repeatedly
called on NATO members to remove caveats that individual nations have
placed on the movement and use of forces deployed as part of the NATO-
led ISAF in Afghanistan. For example, in mid-November, German
Chancellor Merkel ruled out deploying Germany's 2,800 troops to
southern Afghanistan, saying she would not change the German
Parliament's requirement that its troops be based in northern
Afghanistan.
Have national caveats imposed by certain NATO members on the use of
their troops reduced ISAF's ability to carry out its mission in
Afghanistan, in particular to counter the Taliban insurgency in the
south?
Answer. I have obviously not been involved with this issue first
hand. However, it appears to me that caveats imposed by member
countries restrict the flexibility of NATO commanders to carry out
missions, and complicate staff planning. Caveats require allies without
caveats to take up a greater share of the common burden. To the best of
my knowledge they have not to date, however, led to the failure of any
mission.
Question. Are you concerned that as a result of these caveats,
other NATO members--the Canadian, British, and Dutch troops--are having
to bear the brunt of the fighting in southern Afghanistan?
Answer. Yes. I believe it is a concern and one that requires we
continue to work on with NATO Supreme Command and other NATO allies.
I am told that the Romanians, Danes, Australians, Estonians, and
our own U.S. forces have been fighting side by side with the British,
Dutch, and Canadians since assumption of NATO command in the south this
past summer.
Question. What do you believe should be done to induce NATO members
to remove those national caveats, and to provide additional troops and
equipment should they be needed?
Answer. As I understand it, caveats have always existed in NATO
operations, such as in Bosnia and Kosovo. We need to bear in mind that
some caveats reflect legal or political requirements and will require a
prolonged, long-term effort to modify. We must, however, work closely
with NATO and our allies to do just that.
strategy in afghanistan
Question. The Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer,
stated in early January that ``There is no military solution'' in
Afghanistan, and called instead for an expanded development and nation-
building effort in the country.
Do you agree with Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer that it is not
possible to win in Afghanistan ``by military means alone?''
Answer. I agree with Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer that
Afghanistan cannot be won by military means alone.
The fight in Afghanistan requires defeating the Taliban, but also
requires assisting the country in developing into a moderate, stable,
representative democracy and a partner in the global war on terror.
Afghanistan has suffered through war for the last 30 years. In
addition to the millions of lives and billions of dollars lost in the
conflict, this turbulent period severely damaged the basic fabric of a
functioning society.
Success will require demonstrating to the Afghan people that the
elected government can deliver not only security, but improved quality
of life.
afghanistan--force size and command structure
Question. In September, General Jones called for an additional
2,000-2,500 troops and additional transport helicopters to bolster the
NATO effort in southern Afghanistan.
If you determine those requirement are valid, what do you believe
can and should be done to induce NATO members to provide the additional
troops and helicopters that General Jones has called for?
Answer. In my view, we need to continue to push allies at every
opportunity and at all levels, as General Jones has done, to contribute
the forces required for the mission in Afghanistan.
I am concerned about the limitations that some NATO countries have
placed upon the operations of their forces in Afghanistan. We need to
keep working with NATO and our allies to limit the national caveats
that some have placed on the use of their troops.
Success in Afghanistan is vital to security in the region--not only
to NATO as an alliance, but to the strategic interests of each NATO
member state.
Question. Do you believe other changes will be needed to support
the U.S. and NATO mission in Afghanistan? For example, do you advocate
transferring responsibility for operations and intelligence relating to
Afghanistan to the European Command? Would you advocate greater
intelligence-sharing with NATO in Afghanistan?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Commanders of U.S. Central
and U.S. European Command, together with General Pace, have prepared a
transition plan to ensure that we have the right command and control
relationships in place in Afghanistan to support both the ISAF and our
Operation Enduring Freedom missions. Intelligence is obviously a topic
of significant interest to me. The operational needs in Afghanistan
require a strong intelligence-sharing relationship with NATO. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure an effective intelligence-sharing
relationship with Afghans as well.
afghanistan--reconstruction
Question. What is your assessment of the relationship between
reconstruction and development in Afghanistan and achieving the U.S.
objective of a stable, self-governing democratic Afghanistan?
Answer. In my view, Afghan reconstruction and development are
critical to achieving our objectives.
The United States needs to do better in ensuring that economic
development follows military activity. The fight in Afghanistan
requires defeating the Taliban resurgence, but also requires assisting
the country in developing into a moderate, stable, representative
democracy and a partner in the global war on terror.
The United States also needs to help the government of Afghanistan
to: extend the rule of law to remote areas; provide economic
development that will provide people alternatives to opium production
and the Taliban; and address corruption to ensure a stable state that
enjoys popular support.
Question. What is your assessment of international and U.S.
counterdrug efforts in Afghanistan? Do you believe that NATO and the
United States military are doing enough to help the Afghan government
to tackle this problem? If not, what do you believe we should do?
Answer. The narcotics trade is a major challenge for Afghanistan--
it fuels corruption, drives a wedge between the government and Afghan
poppy growers, and provides funds for the Taliban and certain criminal
elements that are a threat to stability.
The United States needs to continue to work with the Government of
Afghanistan, our allies, and the international community to address
this long-term challenge.
The United States also needs to continue to build the
counternarcotics capacity of the Government of Afghanistan.
iran
Question. You co-chaired a task force of the Council on Foreign
Relations that concluded that ``it is in the interests of the United
States to engage selectively with Iran to promote regional stability,
dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, preserve reliable energy
supplies, reduce the threat of terror, and address the `democracy
deficit' that pervades the Middle East as a whole.''
Do you believe it would be in the United States' interest to engage
Iran in a direct dialogue regarding stability and security in Iraq?
Answer. While the study I co-directed with Dr. Brzezinski in 2004
was a serious effort to assess policy options for Iran, there have been
several important developments since that time.
President Ahmadinejad was elected,
The United States has offered to engage in direct
talks on the nuclear issue if Iran suspends its enrichment
program,
Iran has played an increasingly disruptive role in
Iraq and more broadly in the region, including its support for
Hizballah in last summer's warfare in Lebanon.
In addition, I am mindful that it is one thing to direct a study as
a private citizen and another to serve as a senior policymaker in the
administration. In general, I believe no option that could potentially
benefit U.S. policy should be off the table. Even in the worst days of
the Cold War, the United States maintained a dialogue with the Soviet
Union and China and I believe those channels of communication helped us
manage many potentially difficult situations. Engagement with Iran
might well come as part of an international conference.
Question. What more do you believe the United States and the
international community could be doing to dissuade Iran from pursuing a
nuclear weapons program?
Answer. The United States has been fully committed to working with
the international community to find a diplomatic solution to Tehran's
nuclear weapons ambitions. The State Department properly has the lead
in these diplomatic and non-military means of dissuading Iran's nuclear
ambitions, and if confirmed, I plan to review the situation and make
recommendations to my colleagues, other national security agencies in
the government, and the President.
syria
Question. Do you believe it would be in the United States' interest
to engage Syria in a direct dialogue regarding stability and security
in Iraq?
Answer. Our approach to Syria needs to be tied to our overall
approach to Iraq. As we review our approach to Iraq, all options should
be on the table. On several occasions in recent years, the United
States has urged Syria to change its unhelpful behavior.
Our engagement with Syria need not be unilateral. It could, for
instance, take the form of Syrian participation in a regional
conference.
kosovo
Question. Nearly 16,000 NATO troops currently participate in the
Kosovo Force (KFOR) providing security and stabilization assistance.
What do you anticipate will be the role and requirements for KFOR,
and for U.S. forces in particular, after the conclusion of Serbian
general elections in January 2007 and after the decision by the Contact
Group of six major powers regarding the final status for Kosovo has
been announced?
Answer. As President Bush said in July 2001, the United States went
into the Balkans as a member of the alliance and we will leave with the
alliance; however, we want to hasten the day when we can conclude our
extraordinary deployments there.
I am aware there is a U.N. Secretary General-sponsored process
looking at the U.N. Kosovo progress and until that has run its course
it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the possible new roles
or functions for the U.S. forces in Kosovo.
turkey
Question. In June 2006, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a
report on Turkey recommending that the United States and Turkey engage
in a dialogue on the future of Iraq; that the United States initiate a
diplomatic approach encouraging Europe to agree to Turkish accession to
the European Union (EU); and that a high-level U.S.-Turkish commission
be established to provide a structured mechanism for regular
interaction across agencies of government, nongovernmental
organizations, and the private sector.
Do you agree with the recommendations of the Council's report?
Answer. My general view is that Turkey's role as a NATO ally and as
an important player in the Middle East and Central Asia has long been
underappreciated by too many apart from the United States and the
United Kingdom. I understand actions to implement many of the
recommendations have been underway for some time.
Question. If confirmed, what initiatives would you anticipate
taking to promote stronger U.S.-Turkish military relations?
Answer. Historically, our military relationship has provided a
strong foundation for the broader relationship. The relationship
remains solid, but the United States and Turkey have much work to do in
dealing with the challenges of the new security environment.
I also believe that support for General Joe Ralston's efforts as
the Special Envoy for Countering the PKK will continue to be critically
important.
Question. What do you believe the Government of Turkey should do,
if anything, to improve its relationship with the United States
following their refusal to permit military forces to transit Turkey in
preparation for the war in 2003?
Answer. Turkey remains an important ally of the United States and
continues to be an important partner in the global war on terror
through its significant support in Afghanistan, strong contributions to
NATO, and support for operations at Incirlik Air Base.
Turkey also remains an important regional power. Turkey can play a
constructive role with its neighbors; specifically supporting the
permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council on Iran, supporting
the Government in Iraq, and holding Syria accountable.
africa
Question. In 2004, the DOD conducted a review of the Unified
Command Plan. While the Department reviewed the command structure in
Africa, it did not approve establishing a separate command or
realigning the existing command structure. Under the existing command
structure, EUCOM, CENTCOM, and PACOM have responsibilities for Africa.
What is your view on the present command structure in Africa?
Answer. I believe that changes in the security environment suggest
that now is a good time to examine how we deal with Africa.
My understanding is that the Defense Department is considering
changes to the Unified Command Plan addressing how we approach evolving
security challenges in Africa.
Question. What are the significant factors that should be
considered in determining whether the DOD is properly organized to meet
its objectives in the region?
Answer. The threats we face from global terrorist networks
operating in Africa and security threats from instability, conflict,
poverty, and disease in Africa are all important factors to consider.
The DOD needs to be a part of a more comprehensive, political-
military-economic approach to the continent.
darfur
Question. With agreement in principle on a joint United Nations-
African Union peacekeeping force for Darfur, should U.S. military
forces be a component of an international peacekeeping force for
Darfur, and if so, what role should they play?
Answer. The President has worked with the U.N. Secretary General,
the NATO Secretary General, and others to highlight the suffering in
Darfur. The international community needs to meet the challenge
presented by the situation in Darfur.
I understand that the United States has provided an appropriate
contribution to strategic airlift and provided U.S. military advisors
to the African Union Mission in Sudan as part of previously offered
NATO assistance.
Question. What kinds of support do you believe would be appropriate
for the United States to provide to the joint peacekeeping force for
Darfur?
Answer. The United States is already making contributions, and if
confirmed, I would want to make a more detailed assessment of the
status of the joint peacekeeping force before making recommendations to
the President on what appropriate additional U.S. contributions, if
any, might be made.
future of nato
Question. Outgoing President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly,
Pierre Lellouche, in an address to the assembly members recently spoke
of his concern for the future of the NATO alliance. Mr. Lellouche said,
``I must admit that I am concerned about the fate of the Atlantic
Alliance. . . I have my concerns, first of all because our American
friends and allies do not give me the impression of having truly chosen
a direction for the future of the alliance.'' Mr. Lellouche said that
after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the United
States had bypassed the alliance during the ``first phase of the war in
Afghanistan and then Iraq. But I am also concerned about the non-
existence of the famous European pillar of the alliance. Although
Europe is delighted with its famous European Security and Defense
Policy (ESDP), in actuality, with the exception of Great Britain and
France, Europe is in a process of unilateral budgetary disarmament,''
he said.
Do you agree with Mr. Lellouche's observation? What do you believe
needs to be done to address his concerns?
Answer. I am quite optimistic about NATO's future, but Mr.
Lellouche raises a valid concern about the level of effort by allies.
While the GDP of most allies has grown in recent years, most defense
budgets are flat or declining, and have been for a long time.
Question. What are the greatest opportunities and challenges that
you foresee for NATO over the next 5 years?
Answer. NATO has the opportunity to complete its transformation
from a static military alliance, focused solely on territorial defense,
to an alliance that can deliver security wherever allies' common
security interests are threatened around the globe.
NATO's operation in Afghanistan is a step in the right direction.
However, the need to generate the necessary forces and capabilities has
been difficult because of budget constraints and a shortage of modern,
highly capable, interoperable, expeditionary forces.
Thus a primary challenge will continue to be to get allies to
devote the resources needed to continue transforming their military
forces to succeed in expeditionary operations.
Question. Do you envision further enlargement of NATO within the
next 5 years?
Answer. My understanding is NATO's door is open to new members, but
aspirants must meet NATO's performance-based standards and prepare
themselves for the responsibilities and obligations of membership.
Question. What more can the United States do to encourage NATO
member nations to spend more on defense, transform their militaries,
acquire advanced capabilities, and enhance their interoperability with
the United States and other NATO member nations?
Answer. Transforming allies' forces and funding are among NATO's
primary challenges.
The United States can help by working through NATO to address
today's complex security challenges, and making it clear to allies that
we expect them to bear an equitable share of the burden.
Question. In your view, is there a continuing requirement for U.S.
nuclear weapons to be deployed in NATO countries?
Answer. I believe that the U.S. nuclear forces committed to NATO
and based in Europe provide an enduring political and military link
between the United States and its European allies. They are an
expression of the common commitment of the Alliance.
european security and defense policy
Question. The EU's ESDP reflects the EU's intention to create a
capability to conduct military operations in response to international
crises in cases where ``NATO as a whole is not engaged.'' Many in
Congress have expressed concern that the ESDP could emerge as a
competitor, rather than a complement, to the NATO alliance.
Do you share these concerns about the ESDP?
Answer. I would support the ESDP, based on the understanding that
it would:
help build new European capabilities (that are also
available to NATO);
conduct operations ``where NATO is not engaged'';
do so in a manner that is cooperative, not competitive
or duplicative, with NATO.
Question. What steps do you believe that the United States and NATO
members should take to ensure that ESDP is implemented in a way that
complements and strengthens NATO?
Answer. The EU capability should remain consistent with NATO's
ability in order to be interoperable. In addition, the situations in
the Balkans and Afghanistan offer important opportunities for NATO and
the EU to cooperate in the Balkans and in Afghanistan.
engagement policy
Question. One of the central pillars of our recent national
security strategy has been military engagement as a means of building
relationships around the world. Military-to-military contacts, Joint
Combined Exchange Training exercises, combatant commander exercises,
and humanitarian demining operations have been used to achieve this
goal.
Do you believe that these activities contribute positively to U.S.
national security?
Answer. I agree that military-to-military activities with our
allies and partners can contribute positively to U.S. national
security. Such activities can strengthen trust and interoperability,
and help other nations contribute to coalition operations.
Such activities should form a key component of our strategy for
combating violent extremism. We need to work with our partners across
the globe to counter terrorist groups.
Question. If confirmed, would you support continued engagement
activities of the U.S. military?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I would want to continue such
activities. I would want to ensure that they were focused on our top
priorities; first and foremost the need to counter violent extremist
groups across the globe.
Question. What improvements, if any, would you suggest to the
interagency process for implementing these authorities?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Secretary
of State and others to make such recommendations to the President. I
would not presume to offer specific suggestions for improving the
interagency process at this point.
stability and support operations
Question. The U.S. experience in Iraq has underscored the
importance of planning and training to prepare for the conduct and
support of stability and support operations in post-conflict
situations.
In your view, what are the appropriate roles and responsibilities
between the DOD and other departments and agencies of the Federal
Government in the planning and conduct of stability operations?
Answer. Stability operations clearly are an area of critical
importance to the challenges the United States will face in the
international environment.
Frequently these efforts must be civilian led with the military in
support. I understand that DOD is currently working with Secretary Rice
and her colleagues at the Department of State in this regard.
Question. In developing the capabilities necessary for stability
operations, what adjustments, if any, should be made to prepare U.S.
Armed Forces to conduct stability operations without detracting from
its ability to perform combat missions?
Answer. I understand there are efforts underway in the Department
to increase the capability of military Services to conduct stability
operations. If confirmed, I intend to familiarize myself with these
efforts and will work with the Service Secretaries and Chiefs to ensure
appropriate adjustments are made.
Question. Do you believe that the authorities provided under
Section 1206 (Building the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces) and
Section 1207 (Security and Stabilization Assistance) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 contribute to a policy
of military engagement?
Answer. I understand the Departments of State and Defense have
started implementing a new, joint train and equip authority and the
ability to use DOD funds to help civilians quickly deploy to crises.
I am told these authorities allow the U.S. Government to move more
rapidly in response to changing security needs and feature appropriate
interagency development, review, and implementation.
Question. Do you believe that the U.S. Government needs to
establish new organizations or offices to manage stability operations?
If so, why?
Answer. As I stated in a previous answer, this is an important
interagency issue. The ability to manage stability operations is a
critical challenge facing the Nation. As for a precise prescriptive
solution, it is premature for me to comment at this time.
interagency operations
Question. In 2005, President Bush issued a new National Security
Presidential Directive (NSPD-44) aimed at improving the management of
interagency efforts concerning reconstruction and stabilization
assistance. In particular, the directive requires that ``the
Secretaries of State and Defense integrate stabilization and
reconstruction contingency plans with military contingency plans when
relevant and appropriate.''
What challenges do you foresee in implementing this directive and
in coordinating stabilization and reconstruction contingency plans with
military contingency plans?
My service over nearly 9 years under four Presidents on the
National Security Council staff taught me well about the importance of
interagency collaboration and cooperation. The United States clearly
needs a government-wide approach to the challenges we face today and
will face in the future. If confirmed, this type of interagency
collaboration and cooperation will be one of my priorities.
special operation forces
Question. Do you believe that the force size, structure, and budget
of the Special Operations Command is sufficient, given the current
roles and missions of Special Operation Forces (SOF)? If not, why, and
what changes would you make, if confirmed?
Answer. I understand significant enhancements in special operations
capabilities have been accomplished over the past 5 years and are
continuing. If confirmed, I will review these capabilities and plans as
well as others and make recommendations for any necessary adjustments.
russia and nuclear weapons
Question. Although Russia is no longer considered to pose a near-
term threat to U.S. national security, the fact remains that Russia
retains a huge nuclear arsenal and inventory of strategic and
nonstrategic nuclear weapons and nuclear-related materials. The
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program has accomplished a great
deal over the past 15 years to help reduce and safeguard such weapons
and materials in the former Soviet Union, but Russia has many tactical
nuclear weapons that pose a security and a proliferation threat. The
1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), with its strict
limitations, counting rules, verification, and transparency measures,
will expire in 2009 unless the parties agree to extend its duration.
The Moscow Treaty remains in force until 2012, but the ability of the
United States to verify it, and to monitor the status and development
of Russian nuclear forces more generally will decrease dramatically
should START be permitted to expire.
What is your view of the utility of legally binding, verifiable,
nuclear arms control agreements with Russia at this stage in the post-
Cold War era?
Answer. The START was negotiated toward the end of the Cold War,
and today's circumstances are significantly different. The most
productive path may be continuing dialogue with Russia on how best to
continue reducing nuclear weapons and increasing transparency and
confidence.
Question. Is it in the U.S. interest to extend the duration of the
START, or, alternatively, to negotiate a new treaty that will offer
similar benefits to both parties and further reduce their nuclear
forces?
Answer. I believe it remains in our interest to continue improving
our relationship with the Russian Federation. However, formal
negotiations for Cold War-style, legally binding arms control
agreements may not further that relationship.
The United States may want to look at a variety of confidence-
building and transparency measures regarding our respective strategic
force postures.
If confirmed, I will certainly review these matters.
dod's cooperative threat reduction program
Question. The CTR program, which is focused primarily on
eliminating Cold War era WMD in the states of the former Soviet Union,
has several key objectives that include: (1) eliminating strategic
nuclear weapons; (2) improving the security and accounting of nuclear
weapons and weapons-usable fissile material; (3) eliminating and
preventing the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons and
capabilities; and (4) encouraging military reductions and reforms to
reduce proliferation threats.
In your view, what needs to be done to reduce the proliferation
threat from the residual Cold War stockpiles of WMD and materials in
the former Soviet Union?
Answer. Residual Cold War stockpiles of WMD and related materials
in the former Soviet Union pose a continuing proliferation threat.
Where host governments are unable to mitigate this threat, CTR and
other U.S. programs are able to help, provided the recipients work with
us cooperatively.
Question. Are Russia and the former Soviet Union countries making a
significant contribution to efforts to reduce the proliferation threats
they inherited?
Answer. My understanding is that the Russian Federation and other
former Soviet Union states are making varying contributions to reduce
the proliferation threats they inherited.
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. I am told that the United States and Russia have reached an
agreement that has resolved a number of these issues for a period of
time.
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 DOD, the Department of Energy, and the State
Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I will become more familiar where we stand on
these issues, but at this point I have no knowledge if these activities
are well-coordinated or not.
Question. Do you believe there are either geographic or
programmatic areas where the CTR program should be expanded?
Answer. I understand the original CTR program has expanded
mitigation activities outside the former Soviet Union and to other
activities and generally speaking, I believe these developments move
the program in the right direction.
defense acquisition reform
Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently noted
that the total cost of all major defense acquisition programs for 2006
is over $1.4 trillion, up from $700 billion in 2001. At the same time
continuously evolving requirements, unregulated program cost growth
after initial estimates, and failure to utilize economic purchasing
options result in fewer, yet more costly, weapon systems available to
support the warfighter. Despite this trend, the DOD continually seeks
to place more capability on fewer platforms, further increasing the
cost of these systems while diminishing their ability to project force
around the globe.
What are your views regarding the defense acquisition process and
the need for reform?
Answer. Efforts to reform the defense acquisition system must be
continued on behalf of the military and the American taxpayer. There
have been many studies and recommendations to improve DOD's acquisition
processes. I understand that initiatives in this area are underway
under the auspices of Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England. If
confirmed, I plan to familiarize myself with these efforts and review
the Department's acquisition processes and outcomes using the 2006 QDR
section on Reshaping the Defense Enterprise as a starting point.
Question. If confirmed, how would you improve all three aspects of
the acquisition process--requirements, acquisition, and budgeting?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to review how all three aspects of the
acquisition process work with each other to identify suitable,
supportable, timely, and affordable solutions.
Question. If confirmed, how would you improve acquisition
accountability?
Answer. See above response.
Question. Do you believe that the current investment budget for
major systems is affordable given increasing historic cost growth in
major systems, costs of current operations, Army modularization, and
asset recapitalization?
Answer. I do not have a detailed understanding at this time of the
various drivers in the budget. If confirmed, I will address the overall
Department fiscal year 2008 budget as one of my immediate priorities.
Question. What would be the impact of a decision by the Department
to reduce purchases of major systems because of affordability issues?
Answer. I understand that there are ramifications with every
acquisition decision. If confirmed, I will work to understand those
issues including effects of reduced purchases.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to address this issue and
guard against the potential impact of weapon systems cost growth?
Answer. Again, I understand the issue in general terms, and
certainly recognize its importance. Weapons system cost growth has been
a historic challenge to the defense program due to the complexity of
U.S. systems and the difficulty in making accurate or realistic
estimates from the outset. I will need to better understand the
particulars of the current defense acquisition program before being
able to offer a more informed perspective on this issue.
services contracting
Question. Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase
in the volume of services purchased by the DOD. According to GAO, the
Department spent more than $140 billion on services in fiscal year
2005--almost double the amount spent 10 years earlier and more than the
Department spends on all products, including weapon systems. Indeed,
the Department has become dependent on contractors to perform most of
its functions, including acquisition functions. Yet, the Department has
yet to establish a management structure for services contracts
comparable to the structure in place for the acquisition of products.
What is your view of the Department's reliance on service
contractors?
If confirmed, how do you plan to address the issue of cost growth
in services contracting and ensure that the Department gets the most
for its money in this area?
Answer. It is my understanding that service contractors provide a
valuable function to the DOD. If confirmed, I intend to review the
Department's policies and procedures and make any necessary
adjustments.
tactical fighter programs
Question. Perhaps the largest modernization effort that we will
face over the next several years is the set of programs to modernize
our tactical aviation forces with fifth generation tactical aircraft
equipped with stealth technology, to include the F-22 and the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF).
Based on current and projected threats, what are your views on the
requirements for and timing of these programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will take a close look at the current and
projected threats, associated program requirements, and the timing of
our tactical aviation forces to include the F-22 and JSF.
unmanned systems
Question. Congress has established a goal that by 2015, one-third
of the aircraft in the operational deep strike force aircraft fleet and
one-third of operational ground combat vehicles will be unmanned.
Do you support this goal?
Answer. I understand the Department is committed to integrating
unmanned systems into the military force structure to provide a range
of capabilities including strike/combat capability.
Question. What is your assessment of DOD's ability to achieve this
goal?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to pursue the goal of
unmanned systems capabilities to support the Department needs.
Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to
achieve this goal?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to review the Department's priorities
for unmanned systems to assure they are balanced and focused on the
Department's highest priority needs.
navy shipbuilding
Question. Today's Navy is at its smallest size in decades--281
ships--and threatens to continue to decline. In response to concerns
raised by this committee, the Chief of Naval Operations conducted a
force structure review and concluded that the Navy requires a 313-ship
fleet to perform its mission. The Navy estimates that investment in
shipbuilding must increase by greater than 50 percent--a full $5
billion to $10 billion per year--to meet this force structure
requirement.
What are your views regarding the CNO's force structure review
conclusions and the adequacy of the Navy's current and projected future
inventory of ships?
Answer. I am not familiar with Chief of Naval Operations' force
structure conclusions at this time. Nevertheless, I recognize the
importance to sustain the ability of the United States to project power
globally, a key element of our National Security Strategy. If
confirmed, I expect to have detailed discussions on this issue with the
CNO.
joint improvised explosive device defeat office
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a directive
granting full authority and responsibility to the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Office (JIEDDO) to lead the Department's
efforts in fighting the IED threat.
What are your views regarding the Department's process for
addressing the combatant commanders' requirements for the fielding of
IED countermeasures?
What else can and should be done to get this critical capability to
the warfighters?
Section 256 of the National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year
2006 (Public Law 109-163) required the Director of the JIEDDO Task
Force to work in coordination with the executive agent for blast injury
prevention, mitigation, and treatment to ensure adequacy of blast
injury research and collection of data on explosive detect and defeat
devices and personnel and vehicle armor. The committee believes that
the lethal and devastating consequences of blast injury to our
servicemen and women who are affected by IED blasts should be addressed
along with the important rapid research and acquisition programs to
detect and defeat IEDs and other threats.
What is your assessment of the adequacy of the tools and funding
provided to the DOD for counter IED detect, defeat and mitigation
research, development and acquisition, including the adequacy of blast
mitigation efforts and other related military-specific combat casualty
care programs throughout the DOD?
Answer. It is vitally important that we not take a business-as-
usual approach to responding to the IED threat. I understand IEDs are
the most frequent cause of casualties to our Armed Forces in Iraq. I
also understand that, as a result, the Department has established a
cross-functional organization designed to streamline the acquisition
process with the goal of rapidly delivering equipment, intelligence,
and tactics to the warfighters. This approach appears to be sound, and
if confirmed, I will continually evaluate its effectiveness and remain
open to alternative solutions.
management issues
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is
intended to provide managers with a disciplined approach--developing a
strategic plan, establishing annual goals, measuring performance, and
reporting on the results--for improving the performance and internal
management of an organization.
What do you consider to be the most important priorities and
challenges facing DOD as it strives to achieve these management goals?
Answer. I have reviewed the 2006 QDR and was impressed by the
discussion concerning the Department's performance and internal
management.
I believe the Department's business mission must support the
warfighter and be accountable to the taxpayers. Collaboration within
the Department is essential to support more effective and efficient use
of resources. To this end, the decisionmaking process needs to be as
open, transparent, and agile as possible. If confirmed, I look forward
to working with Deputy Secretary Gordon England on this important
matter.
Question. What are your views on the importance and role of
financial information in managing operations and holding managers
accountable?
Answer. I believe that making managers accountable in a fair and
credible manner will improve performance.
Visible and credible financial information is essential to this
process because it enhances decision making and links performance and
resources in a way that allows the Department to use its resources
effectively and efficiently.
Question. The GPRA envisions that agencies will link their human
capital planning with their strategic and annual plans. The DOD
workforce has undergone significant downsizing in the past, and with
the current tight labor market, it is increasingly difficult to attract
and retain talent.
How would you work to attract and retain individuals with the
experience, education, and skills needed throughout the DOD?
Answer. Any good employer needs focused recruiting and retention
initiatives, competitive compensation and rewards structures,
attractive career development opportunities, and education and training
programs.
The Department must have a vision that conveys to the public a
commitment to attract and develop the best mix of people, both military
and civilian. This vision must be supported by an effective human
capital strategy that is actively measured against well-defined goals.
financial management
Question. The DOD spends billions of dollars every year to acquire,
operate, and upgrade business systems needed to support the warfighter,
including systems related to the management of contracts, finances, the
supply chain, and support infrastructure. Despite these expenditures,
the Department's business systems are stovepiped, duplicative, and
nonintegrated. As a result, the Department remains unable to produce
timely, accurate, and complete information to support management
decisions. The Comptroller General has concluded that these problems
can only be addressed through committed leadership at the most senior
levels of the DOD. The Comptroller General has recommended that the
Department establish a new Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management
to help address this problem. Section 907 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 required an independent study to
review this problem. This report is due on December 1, 2006.
If confirmed, will you ensure that the financial management
problems of the DOD receive priority attention at the senior management
level?
Answer. Yes. I believe the Department has an obligation to account
for and wisely manage taxpayer dollars.
Question. Will you review the report required by section 907 and
provide us your views on the feasibility and advisability of
establishing a new Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management?
Answer. Yes.
readiness impact of contingency operations
Question. Over the past several years, military units have been
increasingly deployed to contingency operations around the world.
Participation in these operations disrupts operating budgets, causes
lost training opportunities, and accelerates wear and tear on
equipment. Additionally, increased OPTEMPO impacts quality of life and
could jeopardize retention of high-quality people.
What ideas do you have with regard to how to reduce the impact of
these operations on both near- and long-term readiness and
modernization programs?
Answer. It is clear to me that the current pace of operations has
significantly challenged our military forces. I understand that DOD has
been addressing this challenge through multiple initiatives to reduce
stress on individual military personnel and support the operational
needs of the combatant commanders. This is a complex challenge
involving recruiting, retention, readiness, quality of life, resources,
and many other critical variables. If confirmed, I will work closely
with the Department's military leadership and extend this issue
priority attention.
modernization
Question. In October, the Congressional Budget Office estimated
that if the Department were to execute the current procurement plans,
including cost risk, an additional $30 billion a year could be required
in the procurement accounts alone.
Do you agree that the current procurement accounts are not
executable unless there is an infusion of additional funds?
Do you believe that significant changes are needed in the
Department's current procurement plans?
If confirmed, how do you intend to address this shortfall, if it in
fact exists?
Even if all of the current aircraft modernization programs execute
as planned, the average age of the tactical, strategic, and tanker
fleet will increase. Aging aircraft require ever-increasing
maintenance, but even with these increasing maintenance costs,
readiness levels continue to decline.
Can both the maintenance of the legacy force and the modernization
efforts be affordable at anywhere near the current budget levels?
Some critics believe that there is still too much service parochial
duplication in procuring new systems. Do you agree with these critics?
If so, what would you recommend to ensure more jointness in
procurement?
Answer. The affordability of the defense acquisition program has
historically been a challenge. I don't have intimate details of the DOD
procurement program, but I am aware that over the course of the Bush
administration, procurement investment levels have gone up by a
significant amount. If confirmed, I will evaluate this process in the
context of the broader budget discussions facing the Department.
foreign investment in the united states
Question. Do you believe the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States (CFIUS) structure and process facilitate sufficient
communication with the various components of the national security and
homeland defense community, including intelligence?
Answer. I understand this matter has received much debate recently
and that improvements have been made in the manner that the CFIUS
process operates. If confirmed, I will become more familiar and better
able to address the issue in more detail.
buy american provisions
Question. Section 842 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 recodifies the so-called ``Berry
Amendment'' requiring that certain strategic materials be purchased
from American sources. This provision repeals the former Berry
Amendment giving the Department new flexibility in addressing
noncompliant materials delivered under contracts entered prior to the
date of enactment. It also contains waiver provisions giving the
Department flexibility with regard to contracts entered after the date
of enactment.
Would you agree that it is important for the Department to make use
of the flexibility provided by Congress in this provision to ensure
that it is in a position to accept delivery of weapon systems needed
for the national defense?
If confirmed, will you ensure that the provision is interpreted in
a manner consistent with the congressional intent to provide such
flexibility?
Answer. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the Berry
Amendment. I believe it is important that the Department be afforded
necessary flexibility to procure and acquire capabilities needed for
national defense in today's global marketplace.
information assurance
Question. Protection of military networks, information, and
communications is critical to DOD operations. The Department's
Inspector General has noted that the Department does not yet have a
comprehensive enterprise-wide inventory of information systems which
makes reliable evaluation of the security of information systems
impossible. The committee has included a requirement in this year's
defense authorization report for a progress report on addressing
previously identified information and cyber security vulnerabilities.
What is your assessment of the security of the Department's
information systems?
What Department-wide policies or guidance do you believe are
necessary to address information and cyber security challenges for
current and future systems?
Answer. I recognize the importance of cyber security and that it is
a critical challenge to the Department and the Nation as a whole. If
confirmed, I will get a better understanding of the Department's
capabilities in this area.
test and evaluation
Question. A natural tension exists between major program objectives
to reduce cost and schedule and the test and evaluation (T&E) objective
to demonstrate performance to specifications and requirements.
What is your assessment of the appropriate balance between the
desire to reduce acquisition cycle times and the need to perform
adequate testing?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to balance the acquisition and
operational testing processes between reducing costs and accelerating
schedules.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe we
should procure weapon systems and equipment that have not been
demonstrated through test and evaluation to be operationally effective,
suitable, and survivable?
Answer. I'm aware that in the current environment the Department
has chosen to field certain systems still under development without
having completed full testing. These examples are clearly exceptions to
the normal process but they were needed to meet urgent military
requirements. If confirmed, I would look at this on a case-by-case
basis.
Question. Congress established the position of Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation to serve as an independent voice on
matters relating to operational testing of weapons systems. As
established, the Director has a unique and direct relationship with
Congress which allows him to preserve his independence.
Do you support the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation's
ability to speak freely and independently with Congress?
Answer. Yes.
funding for science and technology investments
Question. In the past, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and
Secretary Rumsfeld have both endorsed the statutory goal of investing 3
percent of the Department's budget into science and technology
programs.
Do you support that investment goal?
Answer. As President of Texas A&M, I recognize the importance of
basic science and technology research to ensuring the Department
remains on the cutting edge of emerging technology for the warfighter.
If confirmed, I plan to place a high priority on a robust science and
technology program for the Department.
Question. How will you assess whether the science and technology
investment portfolio is adequate to meet the current and future needs
of the Department?
Answer. Assessing the adequacy of science and technology investment
is a complex challenge. The program should be addressed as a whole,
across all Services and technology areas and matched against current
and emerging threats.
technology strategy
Question. The Nation is confronted with a dispersed enemy which is
expert at using relatively simple, inexpensive technology to achieve
destructive and disruptive results. Creative prediction and adaptation
to continuously changing threats is a focus for this committee. You
were a member of the National Academy's panel that produced the report
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' recommending doubling investments
in defense basic research over 7 years.
What is your assessment of the Department's ability to develop a
responsive research strategy capable of quick reaction but which is
also designed to include sustained investments in the development of a
set of capabilities based on threat predictions and identification of
related technology gaps?
Answer. I don't have enough knowledge on this subject to provide an
assessment at this time. This is an important issue to me and I will
afford it priority attention.
Question. How should the Department proceed to implement the
National Academy's recommendations regarding basic research
investments?
Answer. I believe the Department should give this body of work
serious consideration.
missile defense
Question. The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 includes a provision (Sec. 223) stating that it is the
policy of the United States that the DOD accord a priority within the
missile defense program to the development, testing, fielding, and
improvement of effective near-term missile defense capabilities,
including the ground-based midcourse defense system, the Aegis
ballistic missile defense system, the Patriot PAC-3 system, the
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System, and the sensors necessary
to support such systems.
Do you agree that we should not deploy missile defenses that are
not operationally effective?
Answer. I understand the administration's policy is to develop and
deploy a missile defense capability at the earliest possible date.
I am told that efforts are underway through continuous testing, to
ensure that these defenses are capable of intercepting missiles that
threaten our homeland, deployed forces, and friends and allies.
Question. Do you agree that we should conduct adequate operational
test and evaluation of our ballistic missile defense systems to
determine if they are operationally effective?
Answer. See above.
Question. Do you agree that our ballistic missile defense program
and systems should be prioritized to address the missile threats we
face?
Answer. We face an international environment where missile threats
of various kinds are rapidly increasing and proliferating. In response,
we need to develop a full spectrum of capabilities to defend against
that threat.
space
Question. What is your view on weapons in space and the merits of
establishing an international agreement establishing rules of the road
for space operations?
Answer. Space is vital to U.S. national security and that of our
friends and allies. I support our longstanding national policies of the
right of all nations to use outer space for peaceful purposes, the
right of free passage through space, and the right to protect our
forces and our Nation from those that would use space for hostile
purposes.
Question. Do you believe that fielding a ground-based missile
defense site in Europe is consistent with these near-term priorities?
Answer. I understand that the administration's policy is to develop
and deploy ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies
available to ensure that these defenses are capable of intercepting
missiles that threaten our homeland, deployed forces, and friends and
allies. I further understand that this effort could involve the
placement of elements of the missile defense system in other nations to
enhance the ability to defeat threats from a broader range of
locations. If confirmed, I expect to delve into this matter with
greater detail and with some urgency considering the timing of some of
these decisions.
Question. What lessons do you draw for missile defense policy from
the recent ballistic missile tests conducted by North Korea and Iran?
Answer. North Korea and Iran continue to develop longer range
missiles and are determined to pursue WMD. We must stay ahead of this
threat. In this regard, defenses with a limited operational capability,
at least initially, are better than no defenses.
prompt global strike
Question. The 2006 QDR concluded that ``the U.S. needs to make
greater progress in fielding prompt, accurate, non-nuclear Global
Strike capabilities.'' Accordingly, DOD requested $127 million in
fiscal year 2007 for the Conventional Trident Modification (CTM)
program to provide a prompt global strike capability within 2 years.
The CTM program proved to be controversial within Congress, resulting
in a funding level of only $20 million for developmental efforts common
to all global strike alternatives, and two reporting requirements.
In your view, what is the role for a conventional prompt global
strike capability in addressing the key threats to U.S. national
security in the near future?
Answer. The international security environment is uncertain. The
United States faces threats from terrorists and certain states, such as
North Korea and Iran, who either have or seek WMD and the means to
deliver them rapidly.
I understand the prompt global strike effort is meant to provide
the Nation with a conventional capability to strike time-sensitive
targets, so that distant, hard-to-reach places will no longer provide
sanctuary to adversaries.
Currently, the only means we have to strike globally in a prompt
manner is with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.
Question. What approach to implementation of this capability would
you expect to pursue, if confirmed?
Answer. I understand Congress has requested additional studies on
the prompt global strike requirements and alternatives.
If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing DOD's analysis, and the
studies Congress has requested.
Question. In your view what, if any, improvements in intelligence
capabilities would be needed to support a prompt global strike
capability?
Answer. Intelligence will continue to be a necessary critical
capability for deployment of this and other military capabilities
tailored to address today's global threat environment.
nuclear weapons and stockpile stewardship
Question. Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program
with the aim of creating the computational capabilities and
experimental tools needed to allow for the continued certification of
the nuclear weapons stockpile as safe, secure, and reliable without the
need for nuclear weapons testing. The Secretaries of Defense and Energy
are statutorily required to certify annually to Congress the continued
safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
As the stockpile continues to age, what do you view as the greatest
challenges with respect to assuring the safety, reliability, and
security of the stockpile?
Answer. The legacy nuclear forces in the U.S. arsenal were
developed to meet the challenges of the Cold War, which ended over a
decade ago. Our challenge today is dealing with uncertainty--both
political and technical.
If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of Energy, Congress,
and others, to ensure that the Stockpile Stewardship Program has the
tools and resources it needs to maintain the credibility of the U.S.
nuclear deterrent, and ensure its safety and reliability.
Question. If the technical conclusions and data from the Stockpile
Stewardship Program could no longer confidently support the annual
certification of the stockpile as safe, secure, and reliable, would you
recommend the resumption of underground nuclear testing? What
considerations would guide your recommendation in this regard?
Answer. A decision regarding the resumption of nuclear testing
cannot be made in the abstract. If confirmed, I would rely on input
from operational commanders, policy, and technical experts to make a
recommendation to the President that best supports our national
security interests. Any such recommendation would be grounded on the
best available assessment of the safety, security, and reliability of
the nuclear stockpile.
Question. What is your view of the Reliable Replacement Warhead
program?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to assess the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program. If confirmed, I will do so.
Question. Would you support substantial reductions in the U.S.
nuclear stockpile?
Answer. I support the substantial reductions in nuclear weapons the
United States plans to make through implementation of the Moscow
Treaty.
chemical weapons demilitarization
Question. DOD has encountered significant problems and cost growth
in the management and implementation of the chemical weapons
demilitarization program, and the Department has acknowledged that it
will be unable to eliminate its chemical weapons in accordance with the
Chemical Weapons Convention time lines.
What is your understanding of the Department's estimates of its
ability to comply with treaty commitments under the Chemical Weapons
Convention?
Answer. I understand the Department is in the process of requesting
an extension, but I am not aware of the details. If confirmed, I will
look into it.
Question. Would you take steps, if confirmed, to raise the priority
of the Department's efforts to eliminate the U.S. chemical weapons
stockpile?
Answer. I am not very familiar with the programmatic details of the
chemical demilitarization program. I understand that the U.S. program
has already expended considerable resources and made significant
progress toward meeting our goals and obligations. If confirmed, I will
look further into this issue.
active-duty end strength
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the active-duty Army
and Marine Corps end strength to support current missions including
combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. This is an important issue. I am told the Department
continually reassesses end strength needs with the Combatant Commanders
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If confirmed, I will work with the Joint
Chiefs, the Service Chiefs, and the civilian leadership to ensure the
Nation is properly prepared to meet its military requirements.
Question. As a result of recommendations in the QDR, the Air Force
plans to reduce its Active-Duty end strength, as well as its Reserve
components and civilian workforce by as much as 40,000 full-time
equivalent positions. The impact in the Air Force Reserve and Air
National Guard is magnified because multiple positions that are
considered ``part-time'' must be eliminated to achieve one full-time
equivalent. The Navy has sought and plans to implement comparable
reductions in its Active and Reserve Forces.
Are you confident that these plans are still adequate and
appropriate?
Answer. I am not familiar with the particulars of the Air Force
plan, but I understand they are trying to rebalance their program to
better position the Service to support their organize, train, and equip
obligations into the future. If confirmed, I will become more familiar
with this issue and assess as appropriate.
Question. What is your understanding of the steps that will be
taken in 2007 and beyond with respect to the military and civilian
employee manning of the Air Force and Navy?
What impact on readiness do you foresee as a result of these
personnel reductions?
Answer. I cannot give a definitive answer at this point. If
confirmed, I will review this matter.
reserve and national guard deployments
Question. Current DOD policy provides that members of Reserve
components shall not be required to involuntarily deploy more than 24
months cumulatively in response to the existing national emergency.
This policy has exempted thousands of members of the Selected Reserve,
including members of the National Guard, from additional involuntary
call-ups in support of overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Given the current and projected demand for forces in Iraq, what are
your views on continuing this 24-cumulative-month policy?
Answer. The transition from strategic reserve to operational
reserve as I understand it is a necessary step in the proper direction,
but has presented the Reserve components with new and unique
challenges. If confirmed, I will delve into these issues with greater
depth in order to ensure the Department provides the Reserve components
with the best possible approach to their utilization consistent with
the concept of an operational reserve.
Question. What is your assessment of the Army's ability to support
scheduled troop rotation planning beyond 2006, particularly in combat
support and combat service support missions, given the 24-month policy?
Answer. I do not have enough information on the particulars of this
issue to give an informed response. If confirmed, I will review this
issue.
combat injuries
Question. Medical care for servicemembers wounded in combat has
been exceptional. Many servicemembers who would have died in earlier
wars live today because of the exceptional medical care. However, many
of these servicemembers suffer from traumatic brain injury and post
traumatic stress disorder and require continuing care.
If confirmed, what programs will you put in place to ensure that
these servicemembers receive the quality health care that they need for
as long as they need it?
News accounts indicate that soldiers and marines suffering from
post traumatic stress disorder are being separated from the Service
with Other Than Honorable Conditions discharges for misconduct such as
alcohol and drug abuse, which are classic symptoms of post-traumatic
stress disorder. The characterization of their discharges can lead to a
denial of VA benefits needed to treat their post-traumatic stress
disorder condition.
What is the Department doing to ensure that servicemembers
returning from combat are not separated for exhibiting symptoms of post
traumatic stress disorder and then denied the very VA benefits they
need to treat this disorder?
Answer. There is no issue more important that caring for our
wounded service men and women upon their return. If confirmed, I will
ensure that we review the issues raised in cooperation with the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
medical holdovers
Question. Reserve component personnel returning from deployment are
frequently held on Active-Duty while receiving medical treatment for
injuries incurred while deployed. Many of these personnel are retained
for a year or more while receiving medical care.
What steps can be taken to expedite delivery of effective health
care to medical holdover personnel so they can be released and returned
to their civilian communities?
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that medical
holdover personnel receive the medical care they need in a timely
manner, and that their living conditions while retained on active duty
are at least equal to the living conditions of other active duty
personnel?
Answer. I understand the Army has developed programs for Reserve
component personnel who require medical services near their hometown
and to be able to get that care at home while remaining on active duty.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure these service men and women get the
care, medical treatment, and housing they require in a timely manner.
sustaining the military health care benefit
Question. Quality health care for military members and their
families, as well as for retirees and their families, is a fundamental
aspect of this country's commitment to those who serve their country in
uniform.
In your opinion, how important is it for DOD to reshape health care
benefits now and in the future?
Answer. I believe it is critically important to place the military
health care system on a sound fiscal basis to sustain its long-term
viability.
Question. What elements of the military health care system require
reform and what steps would you take, if confirmed, to accomplish
reform?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review these issues in greater detail
in order to better determine what additional steps can be taken to
ensure this benefit is sustained well into the future.
quality of life
Question. Throughout the global war on terrorism, military members
and their families in both the Active and Reserve components have made
tremendous sacrifices in support of operational deployments. Senior
military leaders, however, have warned of growing concerns among
military families as a result of the stress of frequent deployments and
the long separations that go with them.
In your judgment, what are the most critical needs of military
personnel and their families today?
If confirmed, what would your priorities be for improving and
sustaining quality of life for military members and their families?
Answer. Military personnel and their families want to know that
their service is valued. This starts with fair treatment and a
competitive compensation package.
If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department continues to focus
on these issues.
human capital planning
Question. The GAO has designated human capital planning a high-risk
area across the Federal Government because of agencies' lack of a
consistent strategic approach to marshaling, managing, and maintaining
the human capital needed to maximize government performance. GAO has
found the problem to be particularly acute at DOD. The DOD faces a
critical shortfall in key areas of its civilian workforce, including
the management of acquisition programs, information technology systems,
and financial management, and senior DOD officials have expressed alarm
at the extent of the Department's reliance on contractors in these
areas.
Would you agree that the Department's human capital, including its
civilian workforce, is critical to the accomplishment of its national
security mission?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you share the concern expressed by others about the
extent of the Department's reliance on contractors in critical areas
such as the management of acquisition programs, information technology,
and financial management?
Answer. I believe there is a valid concern about the appropriate
roles of contractors in providing governmental functions. If confirmed,
I will review the Department's policies and practices, and determine
the proper balance necessary for the Nation's security.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that the Department
undertakes necessary human capital planning to ensure that its civilian
workforce is prepared to meet the challenges of the coming decades?
Answer. Yes.
national security personnel system
Question. The National Security Personnel System (NSPS) was enacted
by Congress to provide DOD with needed tools to improve the quality,
flexibility, and expertise of its civilian work force. Though full
implementation of the NSPS has been delayed as a result of litigation,
partial implementation of pay for performance reforms has proceeded for
nonbargaining unit employees.
If confirmed, would you continue to implement NSPS in its present
form or seek some alternative approach to the Department's civilian
personnel management system?
Answer. Reforming civil service rules to make our civilian
workforce more adaptable, flexible, and agile is critical to the future
of the Department. I believe NSPS is integral to the Department's Human
Capital Strategy of developing the right mix of people and skills
across the Total Force. If confirmed, I will review the NSPS program to
see if any further changes are required.
women in combat
Question. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006, Congress required the Department to report in the current and
future implementation of the policy regarding assignment of women in
the Armed Forces, with particular focus on the Army's plan to
reorganize its force structure by creating more modular brigade combat
teams. Currently, the report is overdue, but results are expected early
in this legislative cycle.
In your opinion, what have we learned about the assignment of women
in the Armed Forces through our recent combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan?
Answer. I understand that Congress has asked the Department to
review the matter and if confirmed, I will acquaint myself with this
assessment to better understand what our experiences have taught us.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure the required report is
immediately delivered to Congress?
Answer. Yes. I am told the report will be ready by January 2007.
sexual assault
Question. In response to congressional direction, the Department
has developed and implemented a comprehensive set of policies and
procedures aimed at improving prevention of and response to incidents
of sexual assaults, including appropriate resources and care for
victims of sexual assault.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure senior
management level direction and oversight of departmental efforts on
sexual assault prevention and response?
Answer. I believe that sexual assault has no place in the Armed
Forces and I understand that the Department currently has a zero
tolerance policy.
If confirmed, my goal will be to ensure the Department's sexual
assault prevention and response program is the standard for other
organizations to follow. I will work closely with the secretaries of
the military departments to continue the progress achieved over the
past 2 years.
all-volunteer force
Question. The All-Volunteer Force came into existence over 33 years
ago and, since its inception, volunteer soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines have helped to win the Cold War, defeat aggression during the
Persian Gulf War, keep peace in the former Yugoslavia, liberate Iraq
and Afghanistan, and defend freedom around the world.
Are you committed to an All-Volunteer Force?
Answer. Absolutely. The All-Volunteer Force has served well for
over 30 years, providing a military that is experienced, high-quality,
disciplined, and representative of America.
Question. What factors do you consider most significant to the
success of the All-Volunteer Force?
Answer. I believe the most important factor is the patriotism and
dedication of the American men and women who respond to their nation's
call to serve. Further, sustaining the success of the All-Volunteer
Force will require that we:
Treat our people properly, including paying them
compensation that's fair and competitive.
Focus on the military personnel and their families.
Assuring a quality education for the children and a meaningful
career for the spouse is high on the agenda of today's military
generation.
Question. What changes, if any, in pay, compensation, and benefits
are needed in your view to sustain recruiting and retention?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the pay, compensation, and
benefits plans currently employed by the Department, and consult with
senior civilian and military leadership to ensure we provide the right
compensation for our men and women who serve. Following such a review,
I would be pleased to discuss with Congress any suggested changes or
recommendations.
recruiting standards
Question. Recruiting highly qualified individuals for military
service and retaining highly trained and motivated personnel for
careers present unique challenges, particularly while the Nation is at
war. Criticism has been aimed at the Department for allowing relaxed
enlistment standards in the Army with respect to factors such as age,
intelligence, weight and physical fitness standards, citizenship
status, tattoos, and past criminal misconduct.
What is your assessment of the adequacy of current standards
regarding qualifications for enlistment in the Armed Forces?
Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the standards regarding
qualifications for enlistment at this time to answer this question. If
confirmed, I will review the standards.
Question. In your view, does the Army have adequate procedures in
place to ensure recruitment of only fully qualified individuals?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
foreign language policy
Question. In February 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz approved the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap to
improve the Department's foreign language capability and regional area
expertise. Since then, the Department has been working toward
implementing that roadmap.
In your view, what should be the priorities of the Federal
Government to expanding the foreign language skills of civilian and
military personnel and improving coordination of foreign language
programs and activities among the Federal agencies?
Answer. Understanding the languages and cultures of other countries
is a critical component of keeping the peace and defending the Nation.
Initiatives to advance predeployment language and culture training and
the provision of interpreter and translation services are critical. I
was struck by the priority this issue received in the 2006 QDR. If
confirmed, I will continue the Department's progress.
detainee treatment policy
Question. Do you support the memorandum issued by Deputy Secretary
of Defense England on July 7, 2006, stating that all relevant DOD
directives, regulations, policies, practices, and procedures must fully
comply with the standards of Common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you support the standards for detainee treatment
specified in the revised Army Field Manual on Interrogations FM 2-22.3,
issued in September 2006, and in DOD Directive 2310.01E, the Department
of Defense Detainee Program, dated September 5, 2006?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you share the view of the Judge Advocates General that
standards for detainee treatment must be based on the principle of
reciprocity, that is, that we must always keep in mind the risk that
the manner in which we treat our own detainees may have a direct impact
on the manner in which U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines are
treated, should they be captured in future conflicts?
Answer. I believe that the Department's leadership should always be
mindful of multiple considerations when developing standards for
detainee treatment, including the risk that the manner in which we
treat our own detainees may have a direct impact on the manner in which
U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines are treated, should they be
captured in future conflicts.
Question. If confirmed, will you cooperate with committee requests
for information or documents relating to Defense Department detention
and interrogation policies or operations or allegations of detainee
mistreatment?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Section 1402 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 provides that no person in the custody of the DOD
shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not
listed in the Army Field Manual.
Has the DOD complied with this requirement by ensuring that no
treatment or technique not listed in the Army Field Manual is or may be
authorized?
Answer. I am told within hours of the President's signing of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the Deputy
Secretary of Defense issued an order implementing the requirements of
section 1402 of that Act.
military commission trials for detainees
Question. In October, the President signed the Military Commissions
Act of 2006 which established congressional authorization and a
statutory framework for trial of alien enemy unlawful combatants for
violations of the law of war.
How soon do you believe the Department will be ready to begin
military commission trials under this new law?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department would like to
proceed with military commissions as soon as possible.
Question. What is your understanding of the steps that the
Department must take before it can begin such trials?
Answer. The Department is in the process of establishing the
procedures for commissions as outlined in the Military Commissions Act.
I understand that DOD expects to have the revised procedures completed
by the end of the year.
I understand that there are also logistical challenges that will
require congressional support for infrastructure improvements at
Guantanamo Bay.
Question. If the long-term plan is to end detention operations at
Guantanamo Bay at some point in the future, why should Congress
authorize substantial new investment in facilities there?
Answer. The President has stated, ``America does not want to be the
world's jailer,'' and that he would like to ``move towards the day that
we can eventually close Guantanamo.'' At the moment, however, I am
aware of no good alternative to the Guantanamo Bay facility exists.
integrated global presence and basing strategy
Question. DOD is in the process of implementing an integrated
strategy for the basing of U.S. military force structure around the
world. The strategy currently calls for reductions in U.S. force levels
in Europe, Japan, and the ROK and return of those troops to the United
States. The cost to implement these force structure relocations has
been estimated to exceed $12 billion, including an estimated $9 billion
for the restationing of 7,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam.
In your opinion, what priority should DOD assign to the continued
investment in infrastructure and new facilities around the world in
support of this strategy?
Answer. My impression is that the ongoing effort to change U.S.
Cold War basing structures to a more relevant forward posture is
important for helping to strengthen the Department's ability to meet
this new era's challenges.
I would not presume to opine at this point on specific
infrastructure priorities for these facilities. I understand, however,
that these changes have been endorsed by our allies and partners and
are in various stages of implementation.
Question. In your view, are any changes needed in the approach to
this overseas basing strategy?
Answer. If confirmed, I would examine this strategy to ensure that
it is contributing effectively to the Department's adaptation to the
new strategy landscape.
base realignment and closure
Question. DOD is presently implementing the 2005 Defense Base
Closure and Realignment (BRAC) decisions. The law authorizing the BRAC
process requires the Secretary of Defense to complete all closures and
realignments not later than September 15, 2011.
Do you believe the Department currently has an adequate plan with
accurate cost estimates and resources in place to meet the deadline?
In your opinion, will DOD's current BRAC business plans be
detrimental to the military services by requiring them to defer other
critical new and current mission military construction requirements in
order to compensate for an increase in estimates and costs to carry out
BRAC decisions?
What changes, if any, would you propose in order to meet the intent
of Congress?
Answer. I do not have enough information on the details of the BRAC
implementation process to answer these questions.
iran-contra
Question. In your testimony before the Iran-Contra Committee and at
your confirmation hearing in 1991, you testified that you did not
recall a series of meetings, memoranda, and conversations that appeared
to link you to the events of the Iran-Contra affair. These included: a
September 1985 meeting regarding the Iran project that Clair George
testified you attended; a conversation reported by Admiral Poindexter
in which he says you discussed efforts to have the CIA buy the assets
of a private logistics operation; an August-September 1986 conversation
in which Richard Kerr says he told you of Charles Allen's concern about
a possible diversion; a September 1986 memo about Lt. Colonel North and
Mr. Ghorbanifar, which Charles Allen says he sent you; a conversation
in which, according to Mr. Allen, you said that you admired Oliver
North's abilities, but this time he was going too far; an October 3,
1986 CIA memorandum that you initialed, indicating that you met with
Admiral Poindexter the previous day to discuss ``a special Iranian
project''; and a discussion David Doherty says he had with you on
October 15, 1986 regarding a possible diversion to Central America and
``contributions from other countries''.
Do you remember anything now about these meetings, memoranda, and
conversations?
Answer. I have no further details to report on these conversations
beyond my earlier testimonies.
These conversations and my peripheral involvement in the 20-year
old Iran-Contra affair were investigated exhaustively by the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence during my 1991 confirmation hearings
for Director of Central Intelligence. Key figures in the affair were
interviewed or testified, and affirmed that they had not shared
important information with me. The Iran-Contra Independent Counsel,
after 7 years of investigation, could not find a single witness to
testify that my role in the matter was other than I had described it.
I acknowledged 15 years ago that I should have handled my part in
Iran-Contra better. I learned important lessons as a result of this
experience and, in subsequent years as DDCI and Director of Central
Intelligence (DCI), established a model of CIA and Intelligence
Community cooperation with congressional overseers of intelligence.
After I became Acting Director of Central Intelligence in December
1986, following more than a decade of controversy and conflict between
CIA and Congress, there would not be a significant further conflict or
major controversy between CIA and Congress for the remainder of my
career, nor would there be another scandal tainting CIA during that
time.
Finally, it is worth noting that most of the leaders of the
Congressional Iran-Contra Committee--and the Committee's chief
counsel--supported my nomination to become DCI in 1991.
encroachment
Question. Some of the most significant issues that impact the
readiness of the Armed Forces are categorized as outside encroachment
upon military reservations and resources. This encroachment has
included, but it not limited to, environmental constraints on military
training ranges, local community efforts to obtain military property,
housing construction, and other land use changes near military
installations, airspace restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines,
and transfer of radio frequency spectrum from DOD to the wireless
communications industry. Unless these issues are effectively addressed,
military forces will find it increasingly difficult to train and
operate at home and abroad.
In your opinion, how serious are encroachment problems?
If confirmed, what efforts would you take to ensure that military
access to the resources listed above, and other required resources,
will be preserved?
Answer. I am generally aware that encroachment is a serious issue
for the Department and needs to be addressed. I don't have enough
details to assess the issue at this point, but I recognize it is an
important component to ensuring the Department can sustain operational
readiness in the current environment.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Secretary of Defense?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to ensure that testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information are provided to this
committee and its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
military bases in europe
1. Senator Warner. Dr. Gates, Secretary Rumsfeld proposed a
significant drawdown of our military forces in Europe and redeployment
of those forces to the continental United States (CONUS). This would
result in the closing or downsizing of several long-established bases,
especially in Germany. Given the new challenges the United States now
faces in the Middle East, will you revisit the decision to withdraw
from established European bases?
Dr. Gates. My understanding is that our ongoing realignment of Cold
War basing structures reflects the diminished strategic need for large
heavy maneuver forces in Europe. It also aims to strengthen our
flexibility to meet operational needs globally, including the Middle
East. I understand that legacy forces and basing structures are being
replaced by our most advanced forces and more efficient basing. These
changes have been supported by our key host-nation allies. While I do
not plan to revisit the decision to modernize our posture in Europe, I
understand that this is an ongoing process that affords me
opportunities to propose any adjustments.
2. Senator Warner. Dr. Gates, given the reality that our bases in
Germany are significantly closer to current and potential trouble spots
than are bases in the United States, do you agree that it makes
strategic sense to keep significant forces in Europe for rapid
deployment of equipment and personnel to hot spots?
Dr. Gates. My view is that we should have forces forward in Europe
that are relevant to operational needs and to our alliance
partnerships; the capabilities of these forces will matter more than
their numbers. It is my understanding that we are redeploying those
heavy maneuver forces that are less airlift-capable (and which can be
as responsive by sea from CONUS as from Europe), while putting forward
more expeditionary forces in locations that facilitate prompt response
and sustainable operations.
3. Senator Warner. Dr. Gates, do you agree that it is in our
national security interest to maintain a visible and powerful military
presence in Europe in terms of technology, armament, and manpower to
deter our enemies?
Dr. Gates. I believe it is in our interest to maintain a military
presence in many regions of the world, including Europe. As part of the
broader changes in U.S. global defense posture, the United States is
making substantial changes to our force posture in Europe. These
changes reflect the need to shift from a Cold War oriented posture to
one that more properly addresses the security threats of the 21st
century. In consultation with our European allies, we are maintaining a
lighter, leaner, and more mobile military presence in Europe so that
the United States can meet new challenges.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
troops in iraq
4. Senator McCain. Dr. Gates, General Anthony Zinni, former head of
U.S. Central Command, recently argued that any substantial reduction of
American forces in Iraq over the next several months would be more
likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it. Speaking of
Prime Minister Maliki, General Zinni said, ``You can't put pressure on
a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough
now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I
am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.''
Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more
sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next 6
months to ``regain momentum'' as part of a broader effort to stabilize
Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation, and
develop more effective Iraqi security forces. Do you agree that a
substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months
would be ineffective in pressuring the Iraqi government to ``do more''
and may even be counterproductive? Please explain.
Dr. Gates. Yes. On January 10, 2007, the President described a way
forward to achieve U.S. objectives in Iraq. An important new element is
that the Iraqis themselves have devised their own strategy and
committed themselves to significant political, economic, and military
steps. In the security dimension, Iraqi forces will lead a campaign,
with our forces in support, to restore stability in Baghdad. This
requires temporarily increasing U.S. force levels in Iraq.
The President and his national security team considered
alternatives that would have begun the process of disengagement from
the important struggle going on in Iraq; they concluded that doing so
at this lime would risk a major blow to Iraq's democracy and make the
situation much worse. This could result in our forces being required to
stay in Iraq longer and confronting an even more lethal enemy.
5. Senator McCain. Dr. Gates, do you agree that we should deploy
additional forces as one component of a broader effort to stabilize
Iraq? Please explain.
Dr. Gates. On January 10, 2007, the President described a way
forward to achieve U.S. objectives in Iraq. An important new element is
that the Iraqis themselves have devised their own strategy and
committed themselves to significant political, economic, and military
steps. In the security dimension, Iraqi forces will lead a campaign,
with our forces in support, to restore stability in Baghdad. This
requires temporarily increasing U.S. force levels in Iraq.
Our change in strategy will be enabled by a ``surge'' of roughly
21,500 additional combat forces. These combat forces will support the
Iraqi security forces as they protect the population, creating a more
secure environment where political and economic progress can occur.
6. Senator McCain. Dr. Gates, the United States and its allies face
a number of tasks in Iraq: to clear insurgent sanctuaries and hold the
territory with a combination of coalition and Iraqi forces; to provide
sufficient security in Iraq so that economic reconstruction and
political activity can take place; to arrest the momentum of sectarian
death squads; to disarm militias; to train the Iraqi army and keep an
American presence in Iraqi units; and to place U.S. personnel in Iraqi
police units. Do you agree that we need to do these things? Do you
believe that we have, today, sufficient force levels in order to
accomplish all these tasks? Please explain.
Dr. Gates. On January 10, 2007, the President described a new way
forward to achieve U.S. objectives in Iraq. An important new element is
that the Iraqis themselves have devised their own strategy and
committed themselves to significant political, economic, and military
steps. In the security dimension, Iraqi forces will lead a campaign,
with our forces in support, to restore stability in Baghdad. This
requires temporarily increasing U.S. force levels in Iraq.
Our change in strategy will be enabled by a ``surge'' of roughly
21,500 additional combat forces. These combat forces will support the
Iraqi security forces as they protect the population, creating a more
secure environment where political and economic progress can occur.
Once the violence is reduced, it will be up to the Iraqi government,
with U.S. support, to improve the delivery of essential services, to
begin reconstruction and improvement of projects, and to invigorate
economic life.
In the long-term, the Iraqi government will be responsible for
creating and implementing policies that will enable Iraq's ethnic and
sectarian groups to reconcile and move towards common goals. The Iraqi
government reconciliation initiatives include: enacting the equitable
distribution of oil revenues; a new de-Baathification law; and selling
the time and conditions for provincial elections.
7. Senator McCain. Dr. Gates, some members of the Senate have
proposed what they refer to not as a withdrawal of American forces from
Iraq, but rather what they call a ``redeployment'' or an ``over the
horizon force'' that would, in their minds, continue to exert military
influence on Iraq after withdrawal from much of the country. The idea
seems to be that U.S. forces would remain on bases in Iraqi Kurdistan,
Kuwait, or elsewhere in the region and support the Iraqis with ``rapid
reaction forces.'' How could we supply a huge forward operating base in
the Kurdish region if we abandon all of Iraq to the south?
Dr. Gates. The President's strategy is to take decisive action to
help the Iraqis stabilize their country, make the Iraqi people more
secure, and help the Iraqis reconcile with each other. We believe the
best way to provide this support is for our forces to continue to
operate within Iraq.
8. Senator McCain. Dr. Gates, would the Turks be likely to allow us
to supply it from their territory or would we be forced to fly in all
required supplies?
Dr. Gates. Turkey's support for efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq
remains significant. A considerable volume of supplies supporting
coalition forces flow through Turkey today. I would hope for this
important cooperation to continue in the future.
9. Senator McCain. Dr. Gates, if a quick reaction force is based in
Kuwait, how would the forces get to Iraq when needed?
Dr. Gates. Our Armed Forces have sufficient lift capability to
achieve our strategic and operational objectives regardless of basing
location.
10. Senator McCain. Dr. Gates, would progress not be impeded, if
not thwarted, by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and a lack of any
ground-level intelligence from U.S. forces?
Dr. Gates. IEDs remain a threat throughout the region and the
Department is committing significant resources to defeat this enemy
tactic.
11. Senator McCain. Dr. Gates, if a force based in Kuwait or
Kurdistan instead flies to engage in combat in Iraq, would it not need
to secure an airstrip, establish an interim base, transport fuel and
supplies, and so on? If that is the case, how quickly would such a
force in fact be able to deploy? Would it ever be relevant for tactical
emergencies? Even for higher level emergencies, would it be at all
feasible to move in large quantities of heavy equipment by air?
Dr. Gates. The hypothetical premise in the question is not
presently a part of U.S. policy discussions.
withholding documents
12. Senator McCain. Dr. Gates, during your nomination hearing,
Chairman Warner asked you whether you would provide documents requested
by Congress or articulate a reasonable basis for withholding these
documents. This is a standard question asked of all nominees appearing
before this committee. You responded, ``Yes, to the limits of my
authority.'' Please explain your qualification fully. Specifically,
absent an assertion of executive privilege by the President of the
United States, on what basis would you withhold producing documents
requested by Congress?
Dr. Gates. As Secretary of Defense, I intend to cooperate fully
with Congress to ensure that the Department of Defense (DOD) adequately
and timely responds to all congressional requests for Department
documents in accordance with statutory and constitutional law.
improved detection technology
13. Senator McCain. Dr. Gates, it is readily apparent by the damage
inflicted upon U.S. and multinational forces in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the continued use of terror bombs borne by humans and vehicles against
civilians in those countries, the nearly complete neutralization of
Israeli armor in Lebanon, and the extent to which air travelers are
being searched for bombs, that no accurate and efficient technology
exists to detect explosives in real time in a wide variety of
backgrounds. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization
(JIEDDO) was created in the Department for this task, yet having spent
billions and having created a bureaucracy of thousands with unusually
high salaries, it has not produced any kind of solution after 3 years.
Numerous technologies that have never succeeded continue to receive
money based on previous contracts, political pork, and favors, and
contractors only seem interested in building careers and not solving
the problem. This problem--and associated threats such as detecting
weapons in cargo containers--demands immediate and decisive executive
action. This could include supporting technologies that the
establishment deems `too risky'. As this and associated threats will
not disappear any time soon, what course of action will you take upon
confirmation to this office?
Dr. Gates. The IED threat in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to be a
threat our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines face in the combat
theater. I understand that the JIEDDO was created to counter this
threat and focuses on seeking out the most promising technologies,
evaluating their suitability, and developing the best-of-class
candidates into field-usable equipment--all on a dramatically
compressed acquisition timeline. I am encouraged by their efforts and
progress to date, and will continue to make this mission a high
priority.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
commissions
14. Senator Sessions. Dr. Gates, the congressionally-mandated
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Commission and the Commission on the
Implementation of the New Strategic Posture of the United States are
both vital to protecting the United States from weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). Accordingly, Congress designed these commissions so
they could begin work promptly, and promptly, within 18 months, by June
2007, deliver their recommendations to Congress. Why has DOD allowed an
entire year to pass without establishing either commission, without
providing any resources to support even a single meeting of the
commission?
Dr. Gates. I understand that the EMP Commission has been meeting
periodically since May 2006, and will be meeting regularly to complete
its work as required in 2007. I will review the legislative and funding
status of the Strategic Posture Commission and determine whether the
Commission needs additional funds from Congress or an extension in
order to complete its work.
15. Senator Sessions. Dr. Gates, what specific actions will the
Secretary of Defense promptly undertake to ensure that the EMP
Commission and the Strategic Posture Commission receive enough funding
and time to accomplish their vitally important work?
Dr. Gates. It is my understanding that the EMP Commission is on
track. I will look into the issues surrounding the Strategic Posture
Commission, including funding levels.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
interagency coordination
16. Senator Collins. Dr. Gates, earlier this year, President Bush
signed a National Security Presidential Directive-46 and Homeland
Security Presidential Directive-15 in order to better orchestrate
activities across a wide range of bureaucratic jurisdictions to counter
extremist groups and terrorist networks. As chair of the Senate
Homeland Security Committee, I fully understand the need for increased
coordination both within and among government agencies. Some defense
experts have suggested that new regional command structures--like the
Joint Interagency Task Force that includes representatives from the
military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies to counter the
drug trade--should be created to deal with terrorism, as well as arms
and human trafficking. Under the current counterinsurgency doctrine,
all aspects appear to be controlled through DOD. What efforts will you
undertake to have the State Department either embed personnel or work
directly with U.S. military forces on the ground in order to coordinate
nation building efforts?
Dr. Gates. There are a series of efforts underway to improve our
nation-building activities: President Bush signed NSPD-44 to establish
a framework for U.S. Government stabilization and reconstruction
efforts; the State Department established a Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization; and reform of foreign assistance is
underway. At DOD, Directive 3000.05 is being implemented to help our
military be prepared to conduct and support these missions. All of
these efforts address critical issues for civil-military operations.
shipbuilding
17. Senator Collins. Dr. Gates, the incident just a few weeks ago
in which a Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle
group in the Pacific and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes
and missiles before being detected underscored the urgency of
maintaining American seapower superiority and a viable shipbuilding
industry. China's development of a new ``blue water'' navy makes it
critical that a new direction at the Pentagon includes a renewed
commitment to our Navy, to the next generation of warships, such as the
DDG-1000, and to our shipyards. I am troubled by the decreasing size of
the United States Navy, and believe that the funding allocated to
shipbuilding in recent years has not been adequate to sustain the
number of ships necessary to meet future national security
requirements. The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Mullen,
has identified a requirement for a 313-ship Navy, but the Navy's fiscal
year 2007 shipbuilding plan calls for the construction of only 7 new
ships, far short of what is required to preserve today's fleet in the
long-term. Budget constraints led to the drastic reduction in the
acquisition and funding for DDG-1000 destroyers in December 2004, with
this program being reduced from an original 20-plus ships to now only
7. Over the last 5 years, the budget requests submitted to Congress for
the shipbuilding and conversion account have averaged just over $9.5
billion a year, with only $8.7 billion in the fiscal year 2006 budget
request. In order for the Navy to achieve the 313 ships envisioned by
Admiral Mullen's plan, however, defense analysts state that an average
of $13.5 billion must be spent per year. The Congressional Budget
Office has reported that the Navy needs to spend $16 billion per year
between 2007 and 2024 to increase the fleet to about 313 ships, or $19
billion a year through 2024 if historical trends in cost growth
continue. Given current and emerging threats, how do you envision
implementing Admiral Mullen's plan for a 313-ship Navy?
Dr. Gates. I understand the Navy's commitment to building a 313-
ship force structure is based on its assessment of future operational
requirements, and I will bear in mind this assessment in considering
future defense budget submissions.
shipbuilding
18. Senator Collins. Dr. Gates, DOD has been leasing foreign-built
ships to satisfy long-term U.S. military sealift missions. Many of
these foreign-built ships have been leased for 10 years each. U.S.
shipbuilders have demonstrated that the unit cost of ships they build
is reduced when the volume of ships they are building is increased.
These savings come from volume in the shipyard and throughout the
manufacturing supplier base that serves most, if not all, combatant
ship platforms. If confirmed, would you support limiting the lease
terms of foreign-built ships and support building these defense
auxiliary ships in U.S. shipyards?
Dr. Gates. The Department must ensure that it has and will continue
to have access to sufficient industrial and technological capabilities
to meet projected DOD shipbuilding requirements. The option to lease a
vessel provides a timely and cost effective option to meeting a DOD
requirement.
strain on the national guard and reserves
19. Senator Collins. Dr. Gates, it has now been over 5 years since
the initial call-up and mobilization of National Guard and Reserve
forces in support of the global war on terrorism. Under the current
rules, no member of the Guard or Reserve may involuntarily be mobilized
for more than 24 months to support any one particular contingency.
Maine, like many other States, has a number of units who have already
served the full amount. In fact, Maine's Adjutant General, Major
General Libby, has stated that just about every unit in the Maine
National Guard, with the exception of the Army Band unit, has deployed
to either Iraq or Afghanistan and are no longer available to support
operations in either Iraq or Afghanistan. If a new contingency
operation is declared, these Guard and Reserve troops could yet again
be mobilized. While many of these troops signed up for Guard and
Reserve duty fully understanding that they could be called up, they
most likely did not believe that they could spend 2 years out of every
5 on Active-Duty. If confirmed, how do you plan to ease the strain on
our Guard and Reserve members and their families?
Dr. Gates. Our Reserve Forces will not be tasked with more than can
reasonably be expected. To that end, I have adjusted several tenets of
our Reserve mobilization policy to provide maximum predictability and
flexibility. Specifically:
Involuntary mobilizations shall be limited to a maximum of 12
months at any time (with exceptions allowed for some individual
training and post-mobilization leave time)
The planning objective for involuntary mobilization of Guard/
Reserve units will remain a 1 year mobilized to 5 years
demobilized (temporary exceptions may be needed as we move to a
broad application of 1:5 as soon as possible)
Mobilization of ground forces will be managed on a unit basis
for cohesion and predictability
The use of ``Stop Loss'' shall be minimized
Members who are needed to do more than required by the
established mobilization and deployment rotation policies will
be compensated for such duty
Exceptional circumstances facing members and their families
shall be recognized and accommodated by our hardship waiver
programs
These adjustments allow for the removal of the 24 cumulative month
limit on Reserve component members and, taken in total, these policy
adjustments provide more prudent and judicious use of our Reserve
Forces and significantly more predictability for members, their
families, and employers.
I will continue those programs that have been developed to monitor
stress on our Reserve Forces and their families. As we implement this
new policy, a transition period will require some exceptions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Dole
africa combatant command
20. Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, Africa is a continent with a number of
strategic issues for the United States. From the al Qaeda bombings of
our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya to the current genocide in Darfur,
I believe it makes sense from a security standpoint for DOD to more
clearly focus on the issues in the continent of Africa. This continent
is currently under the European Command, and I am aware that a proposal
to establish a separate Africa Combatant Command is in its final stages
of development at the Pentagon. Do you support the establishment of an
Africa Combatant Command?
Dr. Gates. Yes. I recognize that the security challenges in Africa
require greater attention and involvement by the U.S. Government as a
whole. Establishing a new combatant command to help Africa address its
security needs makes sense to me as a part of a broader U.S. Government
approach.
21. Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, how would you envision an Africa
Combatant Command being structured?
Dr. Gates. I am in the process of discussing options for its
command structure with General Pace and senior defense leaders.
service recognition
22. Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, extraordinary acts of courage and
heroism are occurring every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't feel
that servicemembers who receive awards for such acts are getting enough
attention in the national media. Don't you agree that we need to do
more to give the courageous men and women who receive awards the
broader public recognition they clearly deserve, and will you review
DOD policy concerning the Medal of Honor and the service crosses so we
can be assured all who deserve these valor awards are properly
recognized? Only two servicemembers, over the last 5 years, have
received the highest military recognition possible, the Medal of Honor,
and only 26 who have served in Iraq have received service crosses.
Compared to previous conflicts, these are extraordinarily low numbers.
This generation shouldn't have to look to any other generation for
heroes; there are plenty among them right now.
Dr. Gates. I agree that America must recognize and celebrate her
heroes. I am told that the Department is forwarding information about
servicemembers who are decorated for acts of valor to Congress. The
Pentagon also has a Web site that highlights those military men and
women who have gone above and beyond in the global war on terror. While
we must recognize heroism, we must be careful to achieve a balance with
operational security and force protection in any release of
information.
In regard to criteria for valor awards, we must sustain a credible
awards program that is consistent with military tradition and is
supportive of a strong military ethos. I will work to ensure that our
men and women achieve the recognition that is their due.
special operations forces
23. Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, when I was recently in Iraq, I visited
with Special Operations Forces (SOF) and was so impressed by what they
were doing to fight the enemy. North Carolina is home to the Joint
Special Operations Command, the Army Special Operations Command, and
the new Marine Corps Special Operations Command. I, as much as anyone,
want our SOF to grow, but we need to grow the force in a manner that
doesn't sacrifice the quality and lower the standards for the people
going into this force. Would you give me your thoughts on the size and
responsibilities of these extremely talented forces?
Dr. Gates. Growth in our SOF must not come at the expense of the
quality of this very valuable part of our armed forces. I will work to
ensure that SOF growth continues in a measured, sensible manner.
predatory lending
24. Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, more than 7,000 servicemembers have
lost their security clearances due to financial problems since 2002. In
my view, this is not just a financial problem, but a readiness issue as
well, and predatory lending practices directed at servicemembers are a
major explanation for their financial problems. Last year, I authored a
provision in the defense authorization bill requiring the DOD to
prepare a study for Congress on how to best address the problem of
predatory lending. This year's defense authorization bill included most
of the recommendations of this report. I would appreciate your
assurance that the steps required by this legislation will be fully
implemented.
Dr. Gates. I know the men and women of the Armed Forces appreciate
the support provided by Congress to limit the impact of predatory loans
on servicemembers and their families. I will ensure the Department
complies with the law and implements regulations in partnership with
the seven Federal regulatory agencies listed in the statute.
foreign troop restrictions
25. Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, the President raised concerns during
last week's North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit that the
troop restrictions on how specific countries' forces can be used in
Afghanistan are hindering our efforts to defeat the Taliban. Some of
these caveats had been removed, but how much will actually change
remains uncertain. Clearly, success in Afghanistan is just as much in
the interest of Germany, France, Spain, and Italy, countries that still
continue to insist on maintaining their restrictions. How harmful are
these restrictions in Afghanistan to achieving our military objectives
in that country?
Dr. Gates. I generally oppose national caveats that undermine the
ability of commanders to deploy and use the troops available in the
most effective manner.
26. Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, did last week's agreement go far
enough in addressing this problem, and wouldn't lifting all troop
restrictions reduce the need to add more troops in Afghanistan?
Dr. Gates. I understand that some progress was made in Riga with
regard to caveats. I welcome the Riga Declaration pledge to ensure that
ISAF has the forces, resources, and the flexibility needed to ensure
the mission's continued success. I will work with our allies to ensure
ISAF effectiveness.
27. Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, don't these kinds of restrictions
undermine NATO's long-term overall effectiveness and credibility?
Dr. Gates. Restrictions can lead to an unequal burden among
alliance partners.
energy use
28. Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, approximately three-fourths of the
entire use of energy resources by the Federal Government is used by
DOD. Energy security is a critical issue for our Nation, especially as
it relates to our national defense. In a time when we need to be less
dependent on foreign sources of energy, do you have any thoughts on how
DOD can be more energy efficient and independent?
Dr. Gates. I agree that energy efficiency and energy security are
important issues facing our Nation and DOD.
iraq ministries
29. Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, Secretary Rumsfeld's November 6th memo
raises important problems concerning the inadequate contribution of a
number of Federal agencies towards our efforts to strengthen the Iraqi
security forces. In his memo, Secretary Rumsfeld suggested that we
strengthen the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal
Justice, Prisons, etc., by reaching out to military retirees and
Reserve volunteers--and give up on trying to get other U.S. Government
departments to do it. Will you work with your Cabinet colleagues to
bring the expertise that exists across our Federal Government to
contribute to the critical effort of strengthening the Iraq Ministry of
Defense, Ministry of Interior, and other ministries?
Dr. Gates. Yes.
small business competition
30. Senator Dole. Dr. Gates, there are many small high-tech
companies that are in a position to make important contributions to our
military. Many of these innovative businesses, however, find it
difficult, at best, to successfully compete for contracts with DOD.
While the Department does have some programs to address this problem,
don't you agree that more needs to be done so small business can
compete more fairly to meet current and future DOD needs?
Dr. Gates. I believe small businesses are an important source of
innovation for the Defense Industrial Base. I will work with the
Department's senior acquisition executives to ensure that small
businesses are given opportunity to participate in the acquisition
process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
department of defense management
31. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, Secretary Rumsfeld was known for
having a contentious relationship with the military, and in particular,
the Army. What will you do to mend relations with the uniformed
military?
Dr. Gates. I believe that strong working relationships among the
leaders of the Department and the military services are an important
factor in effective leadership, and to that end, I intend to ensure the
decisionmaking process is as open, transparent, and agile as possible.
32. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, how will you seek to elicit candid
advice from the uniformed leadership?
Dr. Gates. I will seek to elicit candid advice from the uniformed
leadership by ensuring the decisionmaking process is as open,
transparent, and agile as possible.
33. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, the current secretary spent much of
his time focused on ``transforming'' the military at the same time as
he was dealing with Iraq. Some have criticized transformation as moving
the military towards high-technology warfare that may be inappropriate
to fighting a counter-insurgency. What is the appropriate balance
between transformation and other challenges, such as Iraq?
Dr. Gates. I do not consider transformation to be solely based in
technology solutions, but on the overall goal of revamping our forces
to be able to rapidly adapt to current and future global threats. I
have not been in office for sufficient time to fully evaluate the
impacts of transformation, but I am impressed with much of the progress
that I have witnessed thus far. I see transformation as a process of
effecting fundamental change with the goal of redirecting the
Department's emphasis and shifting our weight from practices and
assumptions of the past to those necessary for the 21st century.
34. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, is transformation advancing our
goals in Iraq or providing our forces the tools they need to fight an
insurgency?
Dr. Gates. Transformation should prepare us to fight the wars of
the 21st century. In the short term it is also helping advance our
goals in Iraq and Afghanistan by developing military capabilities that
are vital to our operations in both countries.
relations with congress
35. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, at its core, Iran-Contra was about
the Reagan administration's efforts to circumvent the Boland Amendment,
which prohibited direct aid to the Contras in Nicaragua. Do you believe
that the President--acting as Commander in Chief--has the authority to
act contrary to laws enacted by Congress?
Dr. Gates. Respect for the law is critical to our democratic form
of government. As Secretary of Defense, I will strive to meet the
Department's responsibilities under the law. In particular, I will seek
the legal advice of the Attorney General on matters where the
interpretation and implementation of statutes are in dispute.
36. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, President Bush has expanded the use
of signing statements. Many of these statements suggest that the
President will choose to comply with legislation at their discretion,
including on providing reports to Congress. As the Secretary of
Defense, what weight do you give these statements?
Dr. Gates. My understanding is that a signing statement expresses
the President's understanding and interpretation of a particular law,
not the application of the law in any specific instance. I further
understand that signing statements are not executive orders. I intend
to comply with both statutory and constitutional law.
37. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, do you intend to comply with the
law, or do you believe the signing statements give you authority to
ignore statutory requirements?
Dr. Gates. I intend to comply with the law.
intelligence
38. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, in December 1991 you spoke of the
difficulty analysts face in seeing the ``world as it is, not as we or
others would wish it to be.'' You have written extensively on the
influence policymakers have in seeking intelligence. As Secretary, what
steps will you take as a policymaker to elicit objective, non-biased
assessments?
Dr. Gates. As Secretary, I will hold the Defense Intelligence
Components accountable to look for alternative explanations. I will
work closely with the Director of National Intelligence to ensure the
integrity of the analytic process throughout the Intelligence Community
is maintained and that analysts have the necessary intelligence
information to perform their duties.
39. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, when, if ever, is it appropriate
for DOD to create a special office, such as the Office of Special
Plans, to interpret intelligence and make plans outside of the regular
interagency coordination rules?
Dr. Gates. The Secretary of Defense does have the authority to
organize and manage the Department using the authorities inherent in 10
U.S.C., section 113. As stated in my testimony, I will notify and
confer with the appropriate committees of jurisdiction to the extent of
my authority. I believe that the Department of Defense, as well as all
other executive branch agencies and departments, has an obligation to
abide by all applicable rules and regulations. This is particularly the
case in an area of such complexity and subjectivity as intelligence
analysis.
I do not have particular knowledge on the activities of the Office
of Special Plans, but I plan on adhering to this principle during my
tenure.
40. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, will you fully cooperate with the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) investigation into pre-
war intelligence by providing documents and interviews?
Dr. Gates. It is my understanding that the Department provided
extensive and significant support to the SSCI pre-war intelligence
investigation both in the form of documents and personal appearances. I
will work cooperatively with the appropriate oversight committees on
this and other matters.
41. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, the Department's domestic
intelligence activities have received some public attention but not
enough oversight by Congress over the past few years. As I'm sure you
are aware, serious questions have been raised about a database called
Talon, run by the Counterintelligence Field Activity containing reports
on peaceful protest activities by Americans exercising their
constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion and freedom of
speech, such as the American Society of Friends or the Quakers and the
growing number of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq. There have been
reports about datamining activities by the Department, which are said
to replicate parts of the Total Information Awareness program that
Congress sought to halt publicly a few years ago; and of course since
September 11 the Northern Command (NORTHCOM) has been stood up and it
has a large intelligence component. If confirmed, will you commit to
providing this committee and others with jurisdiction, with a full and
complete picture of all domestic intelligence activities currently
being undertaken by the Department (e.g. a full accounting of the
datamining and all other domestic intelligence activities by DOD in the
United States)?
Dr. Gates. I will, to the extent of my authority, cooperate with
appropriate committees of jurisdiction on this and other matters.
42. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, do you agree that it is
inappropriate for the defense agencies to be maintaining databases
about Quakers and others who oppose the administration's policies
regarding Iraq?
Dr. Gates. I am not familiar with the specifics you cite, but I
believe the Department must do all that is lawful to protect our
country and its citizens. We are guided by EO 12333 and we will ensure
effective oversight and review of our programs.
43. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, don't you agree that anti-terrorism
efforts are diminished and important resources are wasted with
monitoring Americans who are exercising their fundamental rights?
Dr. Gates. The Department should not inappropriately monitor the
legally protected activities of any U.S. citizen.
44. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, do you agree that domestic
intelligence gathering is more appropriately the task of agencies other
than DOD and that the military protects our civil liberties by being
strong overseas and respecting the privacy of Americans at home?
Dr. Gates. The Department's intelligence collection activities are
appropriately governed by U.S. law, executive order, and DOD directive.
I agree that the Department must carefully balance its force protection
missions with domestic privacy concerns.
unsecured munitions in iraq
45. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, concerns remain about the threat
posed to our troops, Iraq's stability, and the region from unsecured
munitions in Iraq. Would you be willing to conduct a theater-wide
survey and risk assessment regarding unsecured munitions in Iraq?
Dr. Gates. Unsecured munitions in Iraq continue to pose a threat to
our troops, Iraqis, and the region in general. I intend to consult with
my commanders, the Iraqis, and experts on the subject to determine if
any additional steps need to be taken in this area.
stability operations vs. combat operations
46. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, what steps will you take to ensure
priority implementation of DOD Directive 3000.05, which states that
stability operations should be of equal importance to major combat
operations?
Dr. Gates. I believe that this directive is a critical tool for
improving our capabilities to conduct stability operations,
counterinsurgency and other types of irregular warfare. DOD is changing
its doctrine, planning, training, education, and exercises, and is
exploring how to improve intelligence, information sharing, and
contracting for private sector support. I will review the efforts to
ensure they meet our objectives.
iran
47. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, clearly America has an interest in
preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability. But we also have
an interest in ensuring that Iran does not promote further instability
in Iraq and endanger our troops. How do we balance these interests, and
do we achieve one goal at the expense of the other?
Dr. Gates. In general, I believe that no option that could
potentially benefit U.S. policy should be off the table. However, the
price for peace in Iraq should not be to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear
weapons.
afghanistan
48. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, how do you define success in
Afghanistan, and what are our prospects for achieving it?
Dr. Gates. We will have succeeded in Afghanistan when that country
is: 1) a reliable, stable ally in the war on terror; 2) democratic,
with a healthy private-sector economy; 3) capable of effectively
governing its territory and borders; and 4) respectful of the rights of
all its citizens. It will take significant effort by the Afghan people,
the United States, and the international community to fully achieve
these goals, and I am confident that we will achieve them.
49. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, in early October, the NATO
commander in Afghanistan, British General David Richards, said
Afghanistan is at a tipping point and Afghans are likely to switch
their allegiance to resurgent Taliban militants if there is no visible
improvement in people's lives in the next 6 months. What actions would
you take as Secretary of Defense to capitalize on this window of
opportunity?
Dr. Gates. The Government of Afghanistan, the United States, and
the international community must raise our level of effort across the
board in Afghanistan. The Department of Defense's most significant
contribution will be our mission to train and equip the Afghan National
Security Forces (ANSF), and I understand that the ANSF--the army in
particular--have exceeded our expectations. By ensuring that the ANSF
is properly sized and resourced to build on this success, we will set
the conditions for defeating the insurgency. We have trained and
equipped over 90,000 members of the ANSF. Other actions include
extending the tour of the 3/10th Mountain to assist a planned offensive
in the spring, pressing for more resources from our allies, and
accelerating our progress on improving Afghan forces, governance, and
economic development.
50. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, General James Jones, the Supreme
Allied Commander for Europe, testified before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee on September 21, and was asked by Senator Chuck
Hagel: ``Is it true, as some allege, that the headquarters of the
Taliban is in or around the Pakistani city of Quetta?'' General Jones
responded, ``That is generally accepted. Yes, sir.'' Should we give
President Musharref a deadline for closing down the Taliban
headquarters and their recruiting and intelligence operations?
Dr. Gates. President Musharref has been and continues to be a
valuable ally in the war on terror. The United States continues to
actively work with his government to pursue Taliban and al Qaeda
elements.
51. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, in 2006, Taliban-led insurgents
have become more aggressive, in some cases mimicking suicide and
roadside bombing tactics used in the Iraq insurgency particularly in
Uruzgan, Helmand, Qandahar, and Zabol Provinces. They have clearly
learned techniques from Iraq. What steps would you propose taking to
ensure that lessons from Iraq are being applied to operations in
Afghanistan?
Dr. Gates. Our enemy is smart, cunning, and very adaptive to the
conditions on the ground. The enemy learns from its operations just as
we do. I am currently reviewing and assessing our operations with the
senior military leadership to determine a way ahead.
drug-trafficking
52. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, opium poppy cultivation reached its
highest level in history this year, reaching 165,000 hectares of
cultivation--60 percent more than last year--and that resulted in 6,100
metric tons of opium--92 percent of the world supply. Doesn't that
indicate that the current policy is not working and something different
needs to be done?
Dr. Gates. The poppy cultivation figures in Afghanistan are a
significant concern. I understand that DOD is supporting interdiction
and helping to build an Afghan capacity to combat the narcotics through
numerous efforts, primarily training and equipping the Counternarcotics
Police-Afghanistan (CNPA). DOD is working with the DEA and State
Department to provide a credible counternarcotics police force that
will be able to conduct investigations, prosecute the drug traffickers,
and dismantle drug trafficking organizations. DOD is also assisting in
building border management and security capacity for the Afghan border
forces. As a part of my review of our efforts in Afghanistan, I will
look closely at DOD's support to the counternarcotics mission.
drug-trafficking
53. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, how should our government address
the involvement of high-level officials, including some governors and
police chiefs, in drug trafficking?
Dr. Gates. DOD is assisting the Departments of State and Justice to
establish a credible judicial system in Afghanistan. Our goal is for
the police in Afghanistan to be able to prosecute all drug traffickers,
including high-level officials that are involved. This will, however,
take the political will of the Afghan leadership.
sudan
54. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, many of us are troubled by the lack
of effective action by the international community in dealing with the
massive genocide taking place in Darfur, Sudan. Over 400,000 people
have died, and further 2.5 million have been displaced. The unrelenting
violence goes on, and it's also spilling over into other African
nations. Now diplomatic efforts are underway to convince the Sudanese
government to accept a United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping force to
supplement the African Union force that's been attempting to reduce the
violence. But the Sudanese government keeps rejecting every reasonable
proposal. Should our military be planning for contingencies in Sudan if
the conditions continue to deteriorate?
Dr. Gates. The Department continues to work with the Department of
State and the National Security Council staff to look at ways to
address the humanitarian crisis in the region and to support potential
U.N. deployment to help stabilize the situation.
55. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, if the Sudanese government
continues the violence, what action by the United States would you
recommend to the President that he take?
Dr. Gates. If the President tasks the Department to recommend
courses of action in Sudan, we will conduct appropriate planning and
make recommendations that meet U.S. goals.
56. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, in March 2005, the U.N. Security
Council declared in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1591 (UNSCR 1591)
a ban on offensive military flights over Darfur. Since that time,
however, the Sudanese government has continued to bomb villages and
civilian targets without repercussions. Do you believe that the no-fly
zone should be enforced?
Dr. Gates. I believe that the no-fly zone as called for in UNSCR
1591 should be respected. If the Government of Sudan were to accept its
responsibilities as outlined in UNSCR 1591, no-fly zone enforcement
would not be necessary.
57. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, if the U.N. calls for enforcement
of the no fly zone, how could DOD be most helpful?
Dr. Gates. If the President directs, DOD could support such an
effort, but it would be important to assess what the implications would
be for other U.S. missions using the same assets. We also could enable
others with mission support and would want to work closely with
partners to meet enforcement requirements.
africa
58. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, do you support the creation of a
regional combatant command for Africa? If yes, what do you see as being
its highest priority missions?
Dr. Gates. Yes, Africa Command (AFRICOM) is necessary because
Africa is growing in military, strategic, and economic importance in
global affairs. AFRICOM's highest priority missions will focus on
maintaining and promoting regional security and stability. The primary
emphasis will be on Theater Security Cooperation efforts, humanitarian
assistance, disaster response, security assistance, and supporting
global war on terrorism operations. These priority missions will be
conducted in partnership with the interagency and other organizations
working in Africa.
59. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, how important is Africa to the U.S.
national interests and to the U.S. military in terms of its goals?
Dr. Gates. The globalization of threats means that we cannot ignore
any region and Africa is of growing importance to the United States and
the rest of the world. We will continue to work with our African
partners to help build their capabilities and support the Department of
State in its lead role in addressing these emerging concerns.
basic research funding
60. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, overall research and development
(R&D) investment in the United States is stagnating and the Federal
share is shrinking. The United States will face increasing
international competition in R&D from emerging countries and top
economic performers alike. Between 1980 and 2006, DOD's focus on basic
research dropped from 20 percent of total science and technology (S&T)
funds to approximately 12 percent. As the President of Texas A&M, you
served on the National Academy of Sciences' committee on
competitiveness, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.'' That report found,
``the commitment to basic research, particularly in the physical
sciences, mathematics, and engineering, is inadequate.'' It paid
particular attention to reductions in DOD basic research funding,
especially in light of the benefits of defense research. Among the
report's recommendations that are applicable to DOD:
A. The Government should increase funding for basic research
by 10 percent each year for 7 years.
B. The Federal Government should establish 200 new research
grants a year at $500,000 each to fund new research
opportunities at universities and government labs for early-
career researchers.
C. At least 8 percent of the budgets of Federal research
agencies should be set aside for high-risk, high-payoff
research.
What steps will you take to meet these goals?
Dr. Gates. Increasing DOD funding for basic research to these
levels will require a continuous effort.
My personal experience in government, my tenure in academia, and
membership on the ``Gathering Storm'' committee and numerous other
National Research Council Boards provide a basis for reviewing DOD
basic research levels. However, I remain mindful of the many factors
and urgent considerations that are all competing for the same Federal
dollars. Realizing the importance of basic research to the future of
the United States, and to our military, I will work hard to maintain an
appropriate balance between basic research funding and the many other
competing priorities contained within the defense budget.
laboratory talent
61. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, the technological superiority,
exhibited by U.S. troops on the battlefield, in large measure is a
result of scientific and technical innovations and discoveries
developed over the past 10 or 20 years at the defense laboratories,
including the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, MA. If we are
to maintain this battlefield technological superiority, it is essential
that the defense laboratories remain preeminent scientific
institutions. This can only occur if these laboratories are able to
hire, motivate, and retain the best and the brightest scientists and
engineers. To this end, Congress has provided the defense laboratories
authorities that have enabled them to compete successfully with the
private sector for critical technical talent. I believe it is
imperative that the Department continues to use these authorities
aggressively to ensure a robust in-house technical capability. Do you
support the full utilization and expansion of personnel management
authorities granted to you by Congress under section 342 of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1995 and
section 1114 of NDAA for Fiscal Year 2001?
Dr. Gates. I welcome the management authorities provided by
Congress and will pursue management procedures that enable the
laboratories to hire, motivate, and retain the Nation's top scientists
and engineers.
islamic fundamentalism
62. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, in March 1992 you said ``I am not
ready to concede that Islamic Fundamentalism is, by its nature, anti-
Western and anti-democratic.'' Has your view changed?
Dr. Gates. In February 1992, I testified before the House Foreign
Affairs Committee that, ``I think our view of it is often shaped by
what we have seen with the Shias in Iran, and we certainly have seen
fundamentalists elsewhere, Islamic Fundamentalists hostile to what we
would consider democratic values and also the United States, I am not
ready yet to concede that Islamic Fundamentalism is by its nature,
anti-Western and anti-democratic. There are some fundamentalist
elements in the region--they are not in power--that are not necessarily
that way, and I think that it is also in evolution. There certainly are
some that are anti-Western and anti-democratic and anti-U.S. I think it
is premature. This is a phenomenon that we have seen really over a
period of a dozen years or so, arising out of the Iranian revolution--
of some small part of it before that, too--but I would hesitate to make
that judgment yet.'' As I did then and now, I recognize that there are
radical elements within Islam that seek to destroy our democratic way
of life, however, I still contend that Islamic Fundamentalism, by its
nature, is not necessarily anti-Western and anti-democratic.
63. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, what steps would you propose we
take to address Islamic Fundamentalism?
Dr. Gates. The United States must engage effectively in the
ideological struggle with violent Islamist extremists. We must support
moderate Islamic voices and oppose those who seek to use Islam to
spread violence and promote extremist ends.
64. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, on September 30, 2001, you said:
``I think that we have to--at the same time that we are conducting our
unconventional war to bring these people to justice, the people that
were responsible for the disaster on September 11, I think our policies
also need to have a positive component that illustrates that we do
understand that there is a great deal of anti-Americanism out there on
the Arab street among Arab populations and those in the Middle East and
Gulf area.'' How would you evaluate DOD's performance in this area in
the last 5 years?
Dr. Gates. The U.S. Government and the Department need to be more
effective in demonstrating America's values to Muslim populations
around the world and particularly in the Middle East.
65. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, what specific changes would you
propose, if confirmed?
Dr. Gates. After I examine the Defense Department's current
approach to strategic communication, support to public diplomacy, and
countering ideological support for terrorism, I will be in a better
position to suggest any changes.
detainee issues
66. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, the President has said we will use
military commissions to try the worst of the worst. The legitimacy of
the commissions is enhanced if you bring serious cases first. Will you
review the people currently slated for trial by commission to ensure
that we are meeting that goal by trying the leaders of al Qaeda, and
not watering down the seriousness of the commissions by trying those
who may have attenuated relations to terrorist acts?
Dr. Gates. As Secretary, I do not determine who is selected for
prosecution or the order of trials. I believe, however, that
prosecutors should work expeditiously to bring to trial cases that are
ready for prosecution.
67. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, many members of the medical
community, as well as leading organizations like the American
Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association, have
expressed serious concern about guidelines issued by DOD that create a
central role for physicians and other health professionals in
interrogation, that govern treatment of hunger strikers, and which
implicate other matters involving professional integrity, because these
guidelines and the roles they authorize are inconsistent with the
traditions of health professional ethics. Do you have a view on whether
the current guidelines are consistent with these traditions? Is further
review required? If confirmed, what steps would you take to address
these matters?
Dr. Gates. I am not familiar with the specifics cited in your
question. However, I understand that DOD policy concerning care of
detainees requires medical personnel to treat detainees in a manner
similar to what is provided for our own personnel.
I am informed that DOD has engaged in dialog with a number of
leading medical professionals and societies concerning medical ethics
issues, and understand that senior leaders of the general medical
community have visited Guantanamo. I support continued collaboration
between military and civilian medical leaders, incorporation into DOD
policy of mainstream principles of medical ethics, and maintenance of
the historic mutual support between military and civilian medicine.
68. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, Congress has been very concerned
about the interrogation guidelines used by military personnel to
interrogate detainees. In December 2002, your predecessor authorized
interrogation techniques including stripping detainees naked, use of
dogs, hooding, and sensory deprivation. The new Army Field Manual,
Human Intelligence Collector Operations (FM 2-22.3) reiterates that
such techniques are prohibited. In addition, the Detainee Treatment Act
reinforces the prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
and makes clear that no U.S. personnel may engage in such conduct
anywhere in the world. Can you assure the committee that you will not
authorize techniques that violate the Constitution, the Detainee
Treatment Act, the Geneva Conventions, or the Convention Against
Torture?
Dr. Gates. I will not authorize interrogation techniques that
violate the U.S. Constitution or any applicable U.S. law.
69. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, in your opinion, are there any
instances where ``military necessity,'' as the President's February 7,
2002, directive termed it, might require deviation from the
requirements of Common Article 3?
Dr. Gates. I would note that ``military necessity'' is a
fundamental concept within the law of war and is reflected in the
Geneva Conventions of 1949. I believe that it is important that the
U.S. Armed Forces continue to conduct their operations in accordance
with the law of war, including Common Article 3, as applicable.
70. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, both the Detainee Treatment Act and
the Military Commissions Act provide that ``No individual in the
custody or under the physical control of the United States Government,
regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.'' Please advise
the committee whether you understand the following to be prohibited by
these provisions or any other Department directives:
A. Waterboarding
B. Inducing hypothermia or heat injury
C. Forcing the detainee to be naked
D. Stress positions
E. Sleep deprivation
F. Slapping
Dr. Gates. None of the techniques described in A through F are
specifically authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human
Intelligence Collector Operations. Because the Detainee Treatment Act
of 2005 provides that no person in the custody or under the effective
control of DOD or when detained in a DOD facility shall be subject to
any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and
listed in the field manual, such techniques would not be permissible.
71. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, do you believe that the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the military should operate under one
standard when interrogating enemy prisoners?
Dr. Gates. Department of Defense Directive 3115.09 applies one
interrogation standard (U.S. Army Field Manual 2-22.3) to all DOD and
non-DOD personnel interrogating detainees in the custody or under the
effective control of DOD, or under detention in a DOD facility. DOD
defers to the CIA concerning detainees not in the custody of or under
the effective control of DOD.
72. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, in conducting joint detention and
interrogation operations with other government agencies, how will DOD
ensure that its interrogation standards govern and are complied with?
Dr. Gates. DOD Directive 3115.09 requires that ``other U.S.
Government agencies, foreign government representatives, or other
parties who request to conduct intelligence interrogations,
debriefings, or other questioning of persons detained by DOD must agree
to abide by DOD policies and procedures before being allowed access to
any detainee under DOD control. Such agreement shall be formalized in a
written document signed by the agency, government representative, or
party requesting access to a detainee. A trained and certified DOD
interrogator shall monitor all interrogations, debriefings, and other
questioning conducted by non-DOD or non-U.S. Government agencies or
personnel. If an interrogator is not available, a DOD representative
with appropriate training and experience shall monitor the
interrogation, debriefing, or other questioning. DOD monitor shall
terminate the interrogation, debriefing, or other questioning, and
report to higher authorities if the other party does not adhere to DOD
policies and procedures.''
73. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, do you believe that the
preservation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is vital to
the safety of U.S. personnel?
Dr. Gates. U.S. Armed Forces have conducted, and will continue to
conduct, their operations in accordance with the law of war, including
Common Article 3, as applicable.
74. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, do you believe this standard
protects all U.S. special operations personnel?
Dr. Gates. Yes, law of war protections apply to protect all U.S.
military personnel, including special operations personnel. In the case
of U.S. military personnel who may be detained during ``armed conflict
not of an international character occurring in the territory'' of a
State Party to the Geneva Conventions the protections of Common Article
3 would be applicable at a minimum.
75. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, how should DOD work with other
executive agencies to preserve Common Article 3 protections, including
the protections on fair trials?
Dr. Gates. The Department has worked closely with and will continue
to work with other executive agencies, including, among others, the
Department of Justice, to ensure compliance with Common Article 3
protections, including the protections applicable to fair trials.
76. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, will you provide to Congress the
details of the Department's treatment of Jose Padilla and Ali Al Marri?
Dr. Gates. DOD has and continues to operate a secure, safe, and
humane environment for detainees at the Naval Consolidated Brig
Charleston. As you are aware, these cases are the subject of pending
litigation such that I cannot comment beyond what is in the public
record. Subject to this limitation, however, and should you desire, I
would be more than happy to provide you with further information
regarding the conditions of detention for these individuals while they
were under DOD control.
77. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, will you provide to Congress the
intelligence obtained from these two individuals [Jose Padilla and Al
Marri] while in U.S. custody?
Dr. Gates. Upon request, the DOD will, consistent with national
security considerations and the need to protect the integrity of
ongoing criminal prosecutions, provide to the appropriate committees of
Congress available information obtained from the interrogations of Jose
Padilla and Al Marri that were conducted by DOD.
consultation with military lawyers
78. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, prior to passage of the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005, the heads of the military Judge Advocate General
Corps were kept out of the process for developing the military
commissions guidelines and interrogation guidelines. These general and
flag officers have great expertise in U.S. military jurisprudence and
in the law of war. What steps will you take to consistently involve,
heed, and include the military lawyers' opinions on these and other
matters?
Dr. Gates. I am aware generally of the concerns you cite, but am
not familiar with the particulars. That said, I have great respect for
the military Judge Advocates General and will seek their views, where
appropriate.
gays in the military
79. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, we have all read reports of Arabic
linguists and other servicemembers who have been thrown out of the
military because of their sexual orientation. At the same time, we have
seen all too often reports of shortages of Arabic linguists,
involuntary activations for reservists, and moral waivers given to
recruits with criminal records. If you were given authority to waive
the ban on gays in the military for certain specialties that face
critical manning shortfalls and are important for the Nation's
security, would you exercise it?
Dr. Gates. The Department will, of course, continue to follow
congressional direction on homosexual conduct. I am informed that no
military member is discharged due to his or her sexual orientation.
Title 10, U.S.C., section 654 refers to conduct--not orientation. I am
also told that the number of individuals discharged due to the
Department enforcing this law represents a very small proportion of
military discharges overall--0.3 percent for 2004 and 2005.
chinese submarine threat
80. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, recently we were made aware of an
incident involving the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, operating in the waters off
of Japan, and a Chinese Song-class submarine. It has been reported and
confirmed by the Navy that the Chinese submarine was able to move to
within 5 nautical miles of the Kitty Hawk while tracking the vessel.
All this comes as the United States has been engaged in an
unprecedented level of cooperation with the Chinese military. I find
these reports troubling. Can you comment on what appears to be a
serious increase in the Chinese blue water navy's capabilities?
Dr. Gates. Since the late 1990s, China's maritime strategy has
evolved along two paths, both of which require naval operations farther
from the Chinese shore than the Chinese Navy traditionally operated.
First, China is focused on a regional anti-access capability, which is
principally applicable in preventing third-party intervention in a
Taiwan crisis. Second, China is expanding their maritime strategy to
include a mission to protect China's growing dependence on maritime
commerce for economic development.
Much of China's naval modernization program, which has been ongoing
in earnest since the late 1990s is thus oriented toward building a
force with the capability to operate in an open ocean environment in
support of both an anti-access strategy and a mission to protect
China's maritime commerce and economic interests.
81. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, how does this alter regional
security and our forward posture in the eastern Pacific?
Dr. Gates. DOD's February 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
highlighted the potential disruptive effects of these capabilities on
regional security, and commits the United States to work with partner
states to build capacity and reduce vulnerabilities. Critical
components of this effort involve diversifying our basing structure;
promoting constructive bilateral relationships in the region; and,
developing appropriate counters to anti-access threats.
shipbuilding programs
82. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, today's naval fleet numbers 278
ships. I understand that the Chief of Naval Operation's 5-year
shipbuilding plan calls for $14.1 billion for new ship construction
beginning in fiscal year 2008, with increases each year to $19.1
billion in fiscal year 2012 in order to begin rebuilding the fleet to
313 ships. Will you support the Chief of Naval Operation's proposed
budget of $14.1 billion in fiscal year 2008 to begin rebuilding the
fleet to 313 ships?
Dr. Gates. I understand the Navy's commitment to building a 313
ship force structure based on its assessment of future operational
requirements, and I will consider that as we make our future defense
budget submissions.
83. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, DOD has been leasing foreign-built
ships to satisfy long-term U.S. military sealift missions. Many of
these foreign-built ships have been leased for 10 years each. U.S.
shipbuilders have demonstrated that the unit cost of ships they build
is reduced when the volume of ships they are building is increased.
These savings come from volume in the shipyard and throughout the
manufacturing supplier base that serves most, if not all, combatant
ship platforms. The Navy believes that they need to have the option of
leasing some foreign-built ships to support the fleet without
additional restrictions or limitations beyond those already in law.
What is you view of limiting the lease terms of foreign-built ships,
and will you support building new defense auxiliary ships in U.S.
shipyards?
Dr. Gates. The Department must ensure that it has and will continue
to have access to sufficient industrial and technological capabilities
to meet projected DOD shipbuilding requirements. The option to lease a
vessel provides a timely and cost effective option to meeting a DOD
requirement.
ddg-1000 zumwalt class destroyer program
84. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, the ongoing DDG-1000 Zumwalt-Class
Destroyer program is integral to the Navy's Family of Ships (FOS)
current approach to technology development and reuse. As a
technologically advanced fleet is crucial in maintaining force
projection capabilities, how, in your estimation, will the DDG-1000
program factor into our future maritime posture?
Dr. Gates. I understand that the DDG-1000 program is intended to
bring many needed innovations into our surface Navy, and enhance the
Navy's abilities to deliver sustained, long range, precision fires in
support of joint forces ashore.
u-2 spy plane
85. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 reversed Air Force plans to retire the U-2
reconnaissance plane. The Act established that a U-2 plane could only
be retired if the Secretary of Defense certifies that no capability
will be lost through the plane's retirement. The Act also directed the
Air Force to study the integration of the U-2's imagery collection
capability onto its possible successor, the Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV). To my knowledge, the Air Force has yet to act on the
study; however, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence did
restore funding for the U-2 in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM).
If confirmed, what would you do to sustain and enhance the imagery
collection capability currently hosted on the U-2 reconnaissance
aircraft?
Dr. Gates. Maintaining existing imagery collection capabilities
necessary to meet the critical intelligence requirements of the
warfighter remains an important Department mission.
86. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, what would you do to ensure the Air
Force will determine how it will migrate this capability to other
platforms?
Dr. Gates. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007 directed the Air Force to study the integration of the U-2's
imagery collection capability onto its possible successor, the Global
Hawk UAV. I will ensure that the Department complies with this
requirement.
early bird
87. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, the Current News Early Bird has
traditionally presented a variety of views on defense issues, but under
your predecessor's tenure, they have become increasingly less diverse.
You have noted the importance of a diversity of views and information
in the policymaking process. Will you review the editorial content of
the Early Bird to ensure that it presents a variety of views on defense
issues?
Dr. Gates. I have always welcomed and encouraged diverse points of
view. As I understand the Early Bird, it is simply an electronic
clipping service of defense related print news stories. It is not part
of the ``policymaking process'' and is but one product designed to
highlight significant news items to the leadership of the Department.
As I have the opportunity to read more of the Early Bird and assess it
along with other available information sources, I will consider changes
as appropriate.
88. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, will you bring back the Early Bird
Supplement to enhance the diversity of content?
Dr. Gates. I am not familiar with the Supplement. It is my
understanding that it ceased to exist some time ago when the Early Bird
expanded from 5 to 7 days per week, thereby extending the coverage. As
I have the opportunity to assess news and information products coming
to me, I will consider changes if necessary.
public affairs
89. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, as reported by CNN, in the last few
months of his tenure, your predecessor began a rapid response operation
in the Public Affairs Office to respond to negative coverage of himself
and the Department. How much has the Department spent on this effort,
and how many people were added to its payroll for this effort?
Dr. Gates. All budget and personnel costs associated with the
Department's Public Affairs office were funded through existing budget
allocations. I have directed that this element of the Public Affairs
office be disestablished.
90. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, will you review this effort and
then describe for Congress its activities?
Dr. Gates. See previous answer.
91. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, do you expect this effort to
continue?
Dr. Gates. See previous answer.
diversity
92. Senator Kennedy. Dr. Gates, Texas A&M University has received
significant criticism during your tenure as president of the university
for harboring a climate that is inhospitable to racial, ethnic, and
cultural diversity. If confirmed, what specific measures will you take
to ensure that principles of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity are
properly embraced and, if necessary, properly enforced throughout DOD?
Dr. Gates. Texas A&M University's commitment to diversity
throughout all aspects of the school is one of long standing. However,
that commitment was strengthened significantly during my presidency.
During my tenure as President of Texas A&M University, I identified
four key areas that would come to represent the fundamental agenda for
the university. One of those four areas included a substantive
commitment to enhancing the diversity of the institution in all its
various aspects.
Consistent with that commitment, I established the Office of the
Vice President and Associate Provost for Diversify, and called for the
development of a diversity plan. The diversity plan laid out with
specificity the courses of action that the university would pursue to
enhance diversity and the dates by which identified goals would be
completed. Among the actions called for in the diversity plan, which I
approved during my tenure, was the conduct of climate studies involving
students, faculty, and staff. Data gathering is currently underway.
Planning for the preparation of status reports on progress made in a
number of other areas that will be available to the entire campus
community is also underway.
An indication of the kind of impact that I had on the campus
climate and the diversity of Texas A&M University can be seen in the
increase in the number of applications for admission by ethnic minority
students, in the growth of the minority student population, and in the
growth in the composition of the university's faculty that is comprised
by members of ethnic minority communities. For example, from 2003 to
2006, the number of completed applications for admission by African
American students increased by 45.4 percent. Among Hispanic students,
the increase in the number of completed applications for admission
between 2003 and 2006 was 38.6 percent. In terms of actual enrollment,
over the last 3 years, with the implementation of a new admissions
strategy that I implemented, African American freshman enrollment
increased by some 77 percent, Hispanic freshman enrollment increased by
about 59 percent, and Asian American freshman enrollment increased by
more than 71 percent.
During my administration, the university also established the first
statewide network of regional prospective student centers, staffed with
both admissions and financial aid advisers, to recruit students for
Texas A&M. The university now has one each in Dallas, Corpus Christi,
San Antonio, the Brazos Valley, and McAllen, as well as two in Houston.
An eighth will be added in Laredo this fall. These permanent
recruitment infrastructures allowed us to establish long-range
relationships with local counselors, teachers, and principals, as well
as work with individual families from every ethnic group and socio-
economic background to show them how their son or daughter can apply to
A&M and, if admitted, alternative ways to finance their education. This
progressive strategy enhanced the diversity of our applicants as well
as our admitted students.
Access and inclusion was such a high priority of mine that I
invested considerable time visiting predominately minority high schools
to encourage the students to consider Texas A&M University.
For the current school year, the total invested by Texas A&M
University in new scholarship funds is over $20 million since fiscal
year 2004. For the coming year, that amount will increase by another $4
million.
One of my greatest achievements as President of Texas A&M
University was the enhancement of the university's faculty diversity.
Over the course of the past 3 years, 352 new faculty positions have
been filled as part of the Faculty Reinvestment Program, and 55.4
percent of those new hires were either minority or female (not
overlapping). During that time period, the increase in the number of
African American faculty members was 47.4 percent. For Hispanics, the
increase in the number of new faculty members was 37.2 percent. Those
increases in the number of faculty members who were either African
American or Hispanic helped to establish Texas A&M University as a
leader among the Nation's prominent research-intensive universities
(including Penn State University, Ohio State University, the University
of California, Berkeley, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, etc.).
For example, Texas A&M University ranks second in the proportion of
Hispanic faculty members among 17 of the leading research-intensive
universities in the country. It ranks 11th among those same 17
institutions in terms of the number of African American faculty
members.
My focus was not only on increasing the representation of
underrepresented populations; it reached beyond that to consider the
campus environment and culture. In recognition of the need to improve
the campus climate I called for enhanced education of our community
members with an initial focus on students and faculty.
To address students, this charge was met by strengthening the
diversity education session offered during our required New Student
Conferences for undergraduates. The content of the educational session
was enriched and the time allotted for the session was lengthened from
45 minutes to 2 hours. To provide continuing education for returning
students, I inaugurated the Global Leadership Institute which is a
year-long, high-quality learning experience characterized by commitment
to diversity and to the discovery, development, communication, and
application of culturally broadened knowledge.
Throughout my time at Texas A&M University, I affirmed diversity as
a necessary component of academic excellence and I publicly espoused
this often. To engage the faculty in making this vision more clear and
the opportunity for a richly diverse campus a reality, I invited all
academic department heads to join me in participating in a day-long
retreat led by a leading race scholar. During this session we engaged
in frank dialogue about how to enhance the quality of life for
underrepresented members of our community and we shared strategies on
ways to influence the recruitment and retention of outstanding faculty,
staff, and students of color. This was a first step in what I
envisioned would be many more dialogues as we worked together to
address this complex issue.
Additionally, to ensure support of the college Deans, I identified
accountability measures in their performance reviews by requiring
evidence of measurable progress over the long-term as well as clear
plans and initiatives that would illustrate sustained engagement in
achieving our diversity-related goals.
With regard to staff, Texas A&M University recently became the
first institution of higher education to be honored with the U.S.
Secretary of Labor's prestigious Opportunity Award. The university
received the award November 15, 2006, during the U.S. Department of
Labor's annual Exemplary Voluntary Efforts ceremony in Washington, DC.
Texas A&M received the award in recognition of its outstanding efforts
in recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce. The accomplishments
noted in the nomination occurred during my tenure through the
collaborative work of many.
Likewise, the U.S. military has led the Nation for years in
providing equal opportunity and equitable treatment for racial and
ethnic minorities and women. Our Armed Forces are composed of a
talented, highly qualified, and diverse mix of people. I am committed
to ensuring that the Department of Defense continues on this track and
advances the principle of diversity based on equal opportunities and
equitable treatment.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
preemptive war
93. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, in your answers to the Senate Armed
Services Committee's advance policy questions, you say that you
believed, based upon intelligence information at that time, that we
should have taken this preemptive action and invaded Iraq. Then you
state that ``with the advantage of hindsight'' and if you had been the
Secretary of Defense for the last 6 years, you would have handled the
occupation differently. Would you please expand upon your views on the
use of preemptive invasion?
Dr. Gates. I support the National Security Strategy (NSS) of the
United States signed by President Bush in September 2002, which clearly
describes the U.S. Government's position on preemptive actions.
94. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, in hindsight, has the Iraq experience
been in the American national interest?
Dr. Gates. Saddam Hussein's regime was a dangerous and disruptive
force to the region and it was and is in America's interest to try to
bring stability to that part of the world.
civil war
95. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, the media has carried speculation that
the administration may pick sides in the Iraqi civil war: fight on the
Shia and Kurdish side against the Sunnis. Based upon your experience
and service on the Iraq Study Group, how would siding with the Shia
resonate in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan?
Dr. Gates. The United States should support the legitimate, elected
government of Iraq. The Iraqis will determine for themselves what the
makeup of that government will become--and the makeup will change over
time. I do not believe it would be in our or the Iraqis' interests for
the United States to side with a particular sect.
96. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, is picking sides in Iraq in the
American national interest?
Dr. Gates. The United States should support the legitimate, elected
government of Iraq.
guantanamo
97. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, the detention facility at Guantanamo
has become an international embarrassment to the United States. Even
Great Britain, our closest ally, has urged the administration to close
the camp. In your advance policy questions, you state that you are
``aware of no good alternative'' to the prison at Guantanamo. Why can't
we try suspected terrorists at Fort Leavenworth?
Dr. Gates. I have asked for a comprehensive review of this and
related matters involving the Guantanamo Bay detainee operation.
98. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, DOD has asked Congress for permission
to spend $102 million for new buildings at Guantanamo. Why should we
invest more money in a prison camp that simply reminds the world of
embarrassments like torture, extraordinary renditions, and Abu Ghraib?
Dr. Gates. Upon further review, I decided to rescind this request
and revamp the support structure necessary to conduct military
commission trials at Guantanamo.
anti-insurgent warfare
99. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, the administration is apparently
designating the invasion as Phase 1, the occupation as Phase 2, and the
planned long-term, reduced-profile, continued occupation as Phase 3.
Are our troops qualified to train the Iraqis? Our warfighters are
brave, competent fighters in the traditional sense, but are they
experienced insurgency fighters?
Dr. Gates. During my visit to Iraq earlier this month, I had an
opportunity to have face-to-face discussions on a wide range of issues
with our military leadership and the service men and women who are
serving in harm's way. My initial impressions, after this visit, enable
me to answer yes to both questions.
100. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, do they, among other skills, have the
required language skills?
Dr. Gates. I am told that not all assigned personnel have the
requisite language skills, but the DOD has instituted compensatory
measures. Qualified interpreters for example, are embedded with most
transition teams to ensure full communication between Iraqi and U.S.
forces. I am also told that the Services have also significantly
increased pre-deployment and in-deployment-cycle training to improve
language familiarization and cultural skills of deploying forces. This
is an area we must continue to emphasize.
political solution
101. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, we have heard reports that the Baker-
Hamilton recommendations will include the goal shared by many Senators
on this committee, namely, that the United States do more to provide
training and support to Iraqi police and security forces while drawing
down our own military presence in the Nation. I ask you whether a
similar strategy should be adopted for finding political solutions to
the civil war in Iraq. When the Sunni minority joined the government in
2005, they joined with the understanding that parts of the Iraqi
constitution would be rewritten and that agreements would be reached on
how power would be shared among the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. But no
talks have been held. No framework exists. Without such a framework, I
fear that the chaos will continue to reign. As a result, gunmen on the
street and their shadowy bosses--and not diplomats and elected
leaders--will decide the fate of Iraq. Our troops will be caught in the
ever-increasing, ever deadlier crossfire. At the same time that we are
considering shifting our role militarily, should we also shift into a
new role diplomatically? In essence, should we not help to establish
the framework for discussions among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds to
settle on a distribution of political power?
Dr. Gates. The framework for discussions among the Sunnis, Shiites,
and Kurds is already in place. The Iraqi Four Point Plan to end
sectarian violence was announced on October 2, 2006. Sunni and Shiite
leaders agreed to a plan to end sectarian violence. Commitments were
obtained from Sadrist and Badr organization leaders as well as from
those representing Sunni constituencies. Also, on October 16, 2006, the
Iraqi Presidency Council announced a political timeline that included
plans for the distribution of power. The United States supports these
Iraqi efforts.
102. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, do you think that we will see any
modicum of peace and stability while only focusing on what role our
troops will play in Iraq's future?
Dr. Gates. There is no purely military solution in Iraq. Long-term
security is contingent on political and economic progress, which will
continue to require the full commitment of the other departments of the
U.S. Government, the Iraqi government, Iraq's regional neighbors, and
the international community.
budgeting for the war
103. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, in our meeting last week, I raised
the issue of budgeting for the war. You responded that many decisions
relating to the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request had already
been made, and that you intend to begin consultations with Congress on
budgeting for the war. In your responses to the advance policy
questions, you stated that you will comply with the McCain-Byrd
amendment which requires the administration to budget for the war and
to provide full year's cost estimates to Congress. I wish to clarify
your statements to me and your answers to the advance policy questions.
Do you intend to advise the President to include in his budget a
detailed request for funds for Iraq and Afghanistan?
Dr. Gates. Yes.
104. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, will you provide Congress with your
best estimate of the full year's cost of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan when asked to do so by the Senate Appropriations Committee,
the Senate Armed Services Committee, or the Senate Budget Committee?
Dr. Gates. Yes.
interrogation
105. Senator Byrd. Dr. Gates, on September 6, 2006, upon release of
the new Army Field Manual FM 2-22.3, Lieutenant General John Kimmons
stated: ``No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices.
I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the
last 5 years, hard years, tell us that. Moreover, any piece of
intelligence which is obtained under duress, under--through the use of
abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility. Additionally,
it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that
abusive practices were used. We can't afford to go there.'' Do you
agree with General Kimmons' statements?
Dr. Gates. Yes.
106. Senator Reed. Dr. Gates, one of the disturbing aspects of the
promulgation of abusive interrogation techniques from within the Office
of Secretary of Defense was the decision to ignore the opinions of the
military top lawyers (the Judge Advocates General)--who objected to
many of the proposals as illegal and endangering U.S. personnel--and to
hide from them and particular secretaries of the Armed Forces the
official detention and interrogation policy. What steps will you take
to involve, heed, and include the military lawyers' opinions on these
and other matters?
Dr. Gates. I understand that the recent enactment of legislation
has provided DOD with clear statutory guidance on the question of
interrogation techniques. While I am aware generally of the concerns
you cite, I am not familiar with the particulars. That said, I have
great respect for the military Judge Advocates General and will seek
their views, where appropriate.
basic research investments
107. Senator Reed. Dr. Gates, the National Academies study and
report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' calls for doubling
investments in defense basic research over 7 years. As a member of the
panel that wrote that report, would you, if confirmed as the Secretary
of Defense, seek to increase basic research funding as a means to
strengthen our Nation's national security?
Dr. Gates. Increasing DOD funding for basic research to these
levels will require a continuous effort. My personal experience in
government, my tenure in academia, and membership on the ``Gathering
Storm'' committee and numerous other National Research Council Boards,
provide a basis for reviewing DOD basic research levels. However, I
remain mindful of the many factors and urgent considerations that are
all competing for the same Federal dollars. Realizing the importance of
basic research to the future of the United States, and to our military,
I will work hard to maintain an appropriate balance between basic
research funding and the many other competing priorities contained
within the defense budget.
108. Senator Reed. Dr. Gates, given that we are due for a change in
administration in 2 years, will you make it a priority to begin that
doubling process in the current fiscal year?
Dr. Gates. As I stated in my December 5 confirmation hearing, I
will take a close look at a number of issues in the fiscal year 2008
President's budget.
manufacturing
109. Senator Reed. Dr. Gates, what is your assessment of the role
that DOD should play in the development of new manufacturing
technologies that can both support our defense industrial base and
enhance our civilian manufacturing industries?
Dr. Gates. DOD needs a responsive industrial base with advanced
manufacturing technologies and processes that not only advance
technology, but reduce cost and lead times. The Department will
continue to encourage industry to meet these goals.
energy
110. Senator Reed. Dr. Gates, what role do you think DOD should
play in promoting the development and use of alternative energy
technologies and energy efficiency technologies to save resources and
provide enhanced combat capabilities?
Dr. Gates. Developing and using alternative energy technologies and
energy efficiency technologies to save resources continue to be an
important issue for the Department. I will review our current policies
and look for ways to improve.
111. Senator Reed. Dr. Gates, DOD has begun to make energy a higher
priority because of the growing recognition that all military missions,
both conventional and emerging missions for homeland defense, are
highly energy dependent. There is apparently growing Pentagon
recognition that energy systems burdened with large, highly visible
processing and delivery infrastructures, and labor intensive manpower
delivery requirements at home and in theater, leave the military
unnecessarily vulnerable. There is also growing recognition that our
country's addiction to oil limits U.S. foreign policy options, which in
turn affect military strategies and options. I understand that
Secretary Rumsfeld sent down two memos asking what the Generals and the
Defense Science Board could do about reigning in wasteful energy use
and improving operational efficiency. Additionally, Marine Corps Major
General Richard Zilmer called for an immediate delivery of wind and
solar equipment to Iraq as a ``Priority 1'' need because too many
personnel hours are being spent on refueling and trucking in fuel in
convoys that are vulnerable to insurgents, and power is unstable day to
day. Do you intend to continue, or even strengthen, the Department's
focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy in order to improve
conventional and emerging military missions? If not, why not?
Dr. Gates. I believe energy conservation will continue to be a
priority, as it impacts both security and overhead costs. I will review
the Department's energy policy with this in mind.
naval fleet size
112. Senator Reed. Dr. Gates, today's naval fleet numbers 278
ships. The Chief of Naval Operation's 5-year shipbuilding plan calls
for $14.1 billion for new ship construction beginning in fiscal year
2008, with increases each year to $19.1 billion in fiscal year 2012 in
order to begin rebuilding the fleet to 313 ships. Will you support the
Chief of Naval Operation's proposed budget of $14.1 billion in fiscal
year 2008 to begin rebuilding the fleet to 313 ships?
Dr. Gates. I understand the Navy's commitment to building a 313-
ship force structure based on its assessment of future operational
requirements, and this will be a key consideration in making future
budget decisions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
veterans' affairs
113. Senator Akaka. Dr. Gates, as a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee and the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, which I
will have the privilege to chair, I am deeply concerned about the
status of the relationship between DOD and the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), especially with regards to meeting the needs of our
youngest veterans. If confirmed, what steps will you take to promote
improved cooperation and coordination between the two departments?
Dr. Gates. I understand that this issue is on the President's
management agenda. I am told that the departments have undertaken
significant efforts to collaborate on improving policy oversight,
sharing healthcare resources, finding ways to improve marketing, record
keeping, and claims processing, and delivering transition assistance. I
look forward to continuing to build on this process.
irregular warfare capabilities
114. Senator Akaka. Dr. Gates, in your responses to this
committee's advance policy questions, you stated that DOD needs to
strengthen its irregular warfare capabilities. If confirmed, what steps
will you take toward implementing this change?
Dr. Gates. The QDR recognized a need to improve the Department's
ability to conduct irregular warfare. This will require building
capability and capacity among both our General Purpose Forces and SOF
for irregular warfare. I will review the Department's policies on
irregular warfare.
recruiting and retention
115. Senator Akaka. Dr. Gates, you have stated that recruiting and
retaining the best people is a core DOD priority. Yet, meeting
recruitment goals has remained a difficult challenge. If confirmed,
what changes in approach to recruitment and retention, if any, need to
be made in order to ensure that our Armed Forces have the personnel
necessary to meet its mission goals?
Dr. Gates. I understand that all Active components made their
fiscal year 2006 numerical recruiting and retention goals. The Reserve
components collectively reached 97 percent of their enlisted accession
goals in fiscal year 2006. I will continue to monitor achievement of
our recruiting and retention goals and work with the Secretaries of the
Military Departments in order to ensure that we have adequate, trained,
high-quality manpower to defend the Nation.
defense intelligence
116. Senator Akaka. Dr. Gates, in the past, you have been an
outspoken proponent for having a strong civilian agency counterbalance
to the efforts undertaken by the Department's various and numerous
intelligence agencies. If confirmed, in what ways, if any, do you
intend to strengthen the relationship and cooperation between civilian
intelligence agencies and the Department's intelligence branches in
order to provide alternative intelligence perspectives?
Dr. Gates. As Secretary of Defense and a former Director of Central
Intelligence, I have a great appreciation for the benefits accrued from
having a strong, unified Intelligence Community. Competitive analysis
that results from the diverse group of intelligence organizations that
exist both within and outside DOD improves the quality of analysis. I
intend to work closely with the Director of National Intelligence to
ensure and enhance the integrity of the analytic process through strong
analytic discipline that promotes information sharing, vets sources
carefully, questions assumptions, clearly represents the facts, and
weighs alternative perspectives.
north korea
117. Senator Akaka. Dr. Gates, you have publicly stated that North
Korea presents a security threat particularly in light of its ongoing
development of a nuclear weapons program. Do you believe that we have
the operational capacity necessary to effectively respond to a crisis
in the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) region? If not, what steps will you
take to ensure that the necessary operational capacity is met?
Dr. Gates. I intend to review the response capability of all the
regional combatant commanders. However, I believe that the U.S. PACOM
has the necessary operational capacity to effectively respond to a wide
spectrum of possible contingencies, to include possible security
threats from North Korea.
iran
118. Senator Akaka. Dr. Gates, you have previously stated that it
is an ineffective strategy to try and make a ``grand bargain'' with
Iran. Instead, our efforts should focus on incrementally building
relations by selectively engaging Iran in areas where the national
interests of our two countries converge. To what extent do you still
believe that this is a viable approach to our strategic relations with
Iraq?
Dr. Gates. There are certain issues about which we should not
bargain, whether it is a ``grand bargain'' or selective engagement. For
example, Iran should not sponsor terrorism or be a haven for terrorist
cells, such as al Qaeda, or fund terrorist groups in Lebanon that seek
to destabilize the region. The U.S. also does not want nuclear weapons
in the hands of the Iranian regime. This is something about which the
international community has been very explicit. I look forward to
discussing with Secretary Rice a range of options on the most effective
approach toward Iran.
national security personnel system
119. Senator Akaka. Dr. Gates, as you may know many Federal
employees and their unions have criticized the National Security
Personnel System (NSPS), claiming that the system threatens employees'
due process rights, effectively eliminates collective bargaining, and
proposes a pay and performance system that lacks clear training,
adequate funding, and objectivity. What is your opinion of each of the
principle objections raised by the employees and unions, and what will
you do as Secretary to address those concerns?
Dr. Gates. By enacting NSPS, Congress charged the Secretary of
Defense with adapting civil service rules to the needs of the 21st
century. Succeeding in that task must remain a priority. I know that
several issues related to collective bargaining and employee due
process rights are now before the courts. I will review the
Department's progress with NSPS and ensure the program is on course for
success.
120. Senator Akaka. Dr. Gates, at the Senate Homeland Security
Committee Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee hearing on
the NSPS on April 12, 2006, we received testimony that NSPS training
was basically an unfunded mandate. This is of great concern because
some entities, like the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, are mission
funded. As such, it appears that some programs may be scaled back or
eliminated by the Department to pay for NSPS training. What steps will
you take to ensure that NSPS training is fully funded, and that any
costs associated with implementing the new personnel system do not
displace other training programs or DOD missions?
Dr. Gates. A robust training program is essential to the success of
NSPS. I will review this issue to ensure NSPS and other training
programs are properly funded.
121. Senator Akaka. Dr. Gates, during congressional consideration
of the NSPS in 2003, the Department testified that NSPS would aid in
the conversion of military positions to civilian positions. It was
estimated at that time that there were approximately 320,000 positions
that could be converted. Secretary Chu testified in March 2006 before
the committee that over 20,000 positions have been converted to date.
What criteria will you use to determine whether a military position
should be converted to a civilian position?
Dr. Gates. When DOD components review the military billets for
conversion, they verify which of the billets must remain military due
to laws, treaties, executive orders, and international agreements, and
which are required for readiness or workforce management reasons. This
includes military positions needed for wartime assignments, career
progression, rotation, and other similar requirements. In addition,
certain inherently governmental responsibilities that require military-
unique knowledge and skills cannot be converted to either DOD civilian
or private sector performance.
______
questions submitted by senator bill nelson
science and technology
122. Senator Bill Nelson. Dr. Gates, you recently coauthored a
report for the National Academy of Sciences titled ``Rising above the
Gathering Storm'', which, in part, treats the decline in American
investment in S&T, noting the dwindling number of qualified S&T
graduates and the need to expand the mission for Federal laboratories.
I share your concern on that issue and hope we can work together on it.
Are we to expect, therefore, as Secretary of Defense, that you will
reemphasize the importance of S&T in our defense laboratories and the
role that university and small businesses play in developing new
capabilities for the Department?
Dr. Gates. Based upon my experience in government and universities,
I recognize the importance of S&T in our defense laboratories, coupled
with universities and both small and large industry. As the ``Gathering
Storm'' report makes very clear, for too long the entire country has
placed S&T education, its promotion, and support into a category marked
``For future generations.'' The future is now upon us. As President of
Texas A&M University, I served on numerous National Research Council
boards which dealt with the breadth of this complex issue in rigorous
depth. From my experiences, it is clear that the Nation must act in
this area of vital importance to our economic and military security.
Given the current unfavorable trends in the Nation's production of
physical sciences and engineering graduates and postgraduates, we
should strengthen and encourage the study of physical sciences and
engineering at all levels. It is in our long-term interest to promote
and support science and engineering education in the Nation.
123. Senator Bill Nelson. Dr. Gates, I know that defense labs, like
the Air Force lab at Eglin Air Force Base, struggle to maintain their
technically excellent personnel and world class research facilities.
Will you make it a priority to strengthen the ability of these
laboratories to hire and retain the quality of scientists and engineers
and build world class facilities and instrumentation needed to maintain
these defense laboratories as preeminent scientific institutions?
Dr. Gates. Having served as the President of a major research
university, I understand laboratories need world class facilities and
instrumentation to conduct their research, as well as to recruit and
retain a top-quality research staff of scientists and engineers.
test and evaluation
124. Senator Bill Nelson. Dr. Gates, the DOD test and evaluation
community serves an indispensable role in ensuring that our deployed
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are using the highest quality
and most effective equipment possible. However, it seems that whenever
there is a budget crisis--as we are facing now--these testing
activities are the first to be cut. We are dealing with an issue like
this right now--regarding the Air Force and some decisions to reduce
testing infrastructure. If confirmed, will you make it a priority to
ensure that the Department as a whole and each of the Services
specifically maintain its testing infrastructure and budgets to address
both our current and future acquisition needs?
Dr. Gates. Effective testing is important both for developing
capabilities and assuring they will work as promised in operations.
nuclear aircraft carrier fleet
125. Senator Bill Nelson. Dr. Gates, for the last several years the
Navy has argued that the Nation needed 15 carriers to meet combatant
commander requirements around the world, and that a 12-carrier fleet
was an acceptable risk driven by budget limitations. Since then, the
carrier fleet has been reduced even further to only 11. In your
judgment, can the Nation adequately fulfill its strategic obligations
with fewer than 12 carriers even though the requirement for years has
been 15?
Dr. Gates. The Navy has developed risk mitigation strategies such
as the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) which allow for greater adaptability,
flexibility, and sustainability of forces. I will work to ensure that
the Navy's available carrier fleet is able and ready to meet all
operational requirements.
126. Senator Bill Nelson. Dr. Gates, in the Senate Budget
Committee's hearing on March 2, 2006, Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Gordon England, reaffirmed his judgment as former Secretary of the Navy
that it is in the security interests of the United States to establish
a second nuclear aircraft carrier homeport on the Atlantic coast in
Florida. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Ed Giambastiani,
echoed the importance of reducing risk to our carrier fleet by
dispersing out carriers and their necessary support facilities across
two ports. What will you do as Secretary of Defense to accelerate the
process of establishing a second Atlantic coast nuclear aircraft
carrier base and minimize the strategic risk to our fleet?
Dr. Gates. I understand that the Navy is taking the preliminary
steps to determine the feasibility of establishing a second nuclear
aircraft carrier home port on the Atlantic Coast. The environmental
impact statement (EIS) for this purpose will be completed in January
2009. I understand the urgency of this decision and can assure you that
as this important analysis continues, we will consider all of the
relevant strategic, budgetary, and environmental factors before
proposing a way ahead.
captain scott speicher, usn
127. Senator Bill Nelson. Dr. Gates, Captain Speicher was lost
twice, first when his plane went down in combat, and then when his case
became tangled in bureaucratic red tape. After 15 years, we still don't
know what happened after he was shot down over Iraq in 1991. For years,
I have urged DOD and the Intelligence Community to make this case a
priority. With the large number of DOD forces in Iraq and the dramatic
increase in intelligence activities in the region, more information
should be available on his fate. Will you continue to make a final
determination of Captain Speicher's and now Sergeant Maupin's fate a
DOD priority?
Dr. Gates. I understand that determining the fate of Captain
Speicher and Sergeant Maupin has been a priority for DOD since their
loss. They will continue to be a priority under my tenure.
128. Senator Bill Nelson. Dr. Gates, will you ensure that adequate
resources are dedicated to this purpose?
Dr. Gates. I will ensure that the Department employs appropriate
resources to recover any missing U.S. servicemembers alive, if
possible, and if not, to recover their remains and return them to their
families for an honorable burial. The Department will expend every
reasonable effort to determine the fate of any missing U.S.
servicemember.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator E. Benjamin Nelson
training iraqi security forces
129. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Gates, when General Abizaid appeared
before the committee in November, he testified that we do need more
troops in Iraq, but not American troops. I agree with that assessment
wholeheartedly. The only way I could possibly see more American troops
going to Iraq is if they were used to speed up the training of Iraqi
troops. You will bring ``fresh eyes'' to this challenge. From your work
outside the administration, as a member of the Iraq Study Group, what
has been the greatest difficulty in the standing up of an Iraqi army?
Dr. Gates. The greatest difficulty has been in building an
effective and efficient leadership at the brigade and division level.
As leadership at this level improves, overall performance of the Iraqi
army should improve as well.
130. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Gates, what level of confidence do you
have at present that Iraqi forces can face down former Baathists, al
Qaeda in Iraq, and Shia militias?
Dr. Gates. While it is true that the performance of Iraqi forces
has varied, Iraqi forces have stood their ground when attacked by
former Baathists, al Qaeda in Iraq, and Shia militias. Iraqi forces
have also launched raids against elements of those groups. I look
forward to meeting members of the new Iraqi forces and understand that
their record in combat is quite strong for such a young army.
military readiness stretched thin
131. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Gates, it is undeniable that our
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken a toll on readiness.
Specifically, the readiness of the Army and Marine Corps: equipment
losses combined with equipment left behind by units returning; units
called to Iraq two, three, and more times; and reports of discussions
to call National Guard units back into action well before they have
been given the time and resources to reset are indicators that our
ground forces are being stretched too thin. Supplemental appropriations
have dealt with many of the identifiable direct costs associated with
fighting terrorism, but Service budgets are designed to provide
resources for training, transforming, and modernizing our armed forces
which also contribute to the war effort. The Nation needs to take steps
now to restore our ground forces to preeminence. Are you prepared to
take the steps necessary to:
A. Achieve equipment levels for our Army Active-Duty,
National Guard, and Reserves to train and fight with;
B. Provide the resources necessary for the Active-Duty Army
to reach 42 Brigade Combat Teams and the National Guard 28; and
C. Fund Army modernization programs that will better prepare
our soldiers for confronting and defeating the growing
terrorism menace?
Dr. Gates. As Secretary of Defense, I will ensure that all our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, in both the Active and Reserve
component, have the necessary equipment and training to perform their
missions.
national guard deployments and retention
132. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Gates, news reports have circulated
about the possibility of National Guard brigades being recalled to
action much sooner than originally anticipated. The Army's force
generation model calls for National Guard units to be prepared for
deployment once every 6 years. This model was put in place to manage
the equipment, training, and resources in order to have forces ready
for service. It also provides families and employers of National Guard
and Reserve soldiers a level of predictability. Current DOD policy
calls on Army National Guard and Reserve members to serve no more than
2 years out of 5. Most servicemembers have served 18 months or more
when training and demobilization are added to the 1 year ``boots on
ground'' time in Iraq and Afghanistan. An early recall would again
disrupt their civilian lives and could have a devastating impact on
retention. Regardless of our new direction in Iraq, do we have your
commitment that it will not erode our National Guard and Army Reserve,
weakening our critical operational reserve capability?
Dr. Gates. I believe that the long-term health of our National
Guard and Reserve is critical to our national defense. Accordingly, I
will take those actions that support meeting our mission requirements
while reducing stress on the total force to the greatest extent
possible.
commission on the national guard and reserves
134. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Gates, in light of the increased role
of the National Guard and Reserves in the global war on terror,
Congress, in the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, created the
independent Commission on the National Guard and Reserves to study and
report what is necessary to ensure that the National Guard and Reserves
are tasked, organized, trained, equipped, compensated, and supported to
best serve the national security interests of the United States.
Because of the importance of this study, will you commit to ensuring
DOD's complete cooperation with the Commission so that it can continue
to obtain all the information it needs in making informed
recommendations on the issues before it?
Dr. Gates. Yes, to the extent of my authority.
governors' authority over the national guard
134. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Gates, in August, all 50 Governors
wrote to us expressing their concern over an erosion of the Governors'
authority over the National Guard. Under our Federal system of
government, the National Guard serves a dual role. They are able and
capable of performing tasks in the interest of national defense, and
they also have a very important role under the command and control of
the Governors to provide assistance during domestic emergencies and
disasters. How do you view the role of the Guard with respect to
Governors as Commanders in Chief of the States' National Guard and the
overall mission of the Guard in national defense?
Dr. Gates. There is a rich history of the National Guard responding
to many different domestic emergencies and disasters, both natural and
man-made, and supporting our national defense as they are doing today
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places. I do not see this dual role
changing. In fact, it will likely be more important in the future.
135. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Gates, what role do you see the
regular military and the Guard playing in domestic emergencies and
disasters, and under whose command?
Dr. Gates. The regular military may provide support to a lead
Federal agency when directed by the President or the Secretary of
Defense. The National Guard of a State, under the command and control
of that State's Governor, assists State and local responders in the
event of a disaster. However, the President may call the National Guard
to Federal Service in cases of national emergency, insurrection,
invasion, rebellion, a terrorist attack, or a WMD attack. While I am
aware of an ongoing debate to revisit these longstanding arrangements,
I believe they have served the Nation well over the years.
136. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Gates, would you be willing to engage
the Nation's governors in a formal collaborative process that would
allow them to have more input into decisions affecting the National
Guard?
Dr. Gates. I am very open to improving the level of communication
with our Governors on these issues of mutual interest.
biofuels
137. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Gates, DOD is the largest single user
of energy in the United States, using a little more than 1 percent of
the Nation's total. Moreover, transportation/mobility fuels account for
almost 75 percent of the Department's total energy demand. As we
continue our efforts to improve America's energy security, could you
explain your thoughts on DOD's role in those efforts both as a user of
biofuels and to perform studies on biofuels, including studying
alternative feedstocks such as biomass for producing cellulosic
ethanol?
Dr. Gates. I believe energy conservation will continue to be a
priority, as it impacts both security and overhead costs. However, at
this time, I am not fully informed on the scope and depth of the
Department's biofuels focus to assess whether or not it is sufficient.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
darpa fundamental research
138. Senator Clinton. Dr. Gates, given the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) critical role in developing new
defense technologies, if confirmed, will you look into concerns from
academic, industrial, and even government circles that DARPA is no
longer playing the role of funding innovative, high-risk, high payoff
fundamental and applied research that it has traditionally and may need
adjustments to its program management, development, and personnel
policies to return to its traditional role of prominence in the
American innovation system?
Dr. Gates. I would expect DARPA to continue investing in
innovative, high-risk, high payoff fundamental and applied research.
139. Senator Clinton. Dr. Gates, have you heard these concerns
expressed during your time in academia?
Dr. Gates. Not directly. In fact, in responding to a request from
Congress to study and recommend actions that Federal policymakers can
take to enhance the S&T enterprise in the United States, the National
Academies suggested that the Department of Energy create a research
organization based on ``the historically successful DARPA model'' and
expected that if created, its ``work (like that of DARPA and NIH)
[would] have important spinoff benefits.''
darpa coordination within the department
140. Senator Clinton. Dr. Gates, are you comfortable with the level
of strategic planning and coordination at DARPA and between DARPA and
other technology development organizations in DOD? If not, what
improvements would you recommend?
Dr. Gates. At this time, I do not have sufficient insight into this
issue to give you a definitive answer, but will review our current
levels of planning and coordination.
darpa priorities
141. Senator Clinton. Dr. Gates, do you believe that DARPA is
focusing enough of its budget on the areas of highest critical long-
term, high risk, high payoff opportunity?
Dr. Gates. At this time, I do not have sufficient insight into this
issue to give you a definitive answer, but will review our current
levels of planning and coordination.
africa
142. Senator Clinton. Dr. Gates, U.S. relations with Africa are
marked by increasing strategic importance and complexity. Events and
systems in Africa, particularly in fragile states, can directly affect
the security and interests of Americans. In Sudan, where violence
against millions of civilians continues to frustrate many Americans, we
are providing assistance through NATO to the African Union, but the
situation remains grim. In the Horn of Africa, a gateway from the
Middle East, the U.N. reported recently that weapons are flowing into
Somalia from at least eight countries, that links to Hezbollah may
exist, and that the existing arms embargo should be strengthened. In
Ethiopia, U.S. military personnel are providing valued assistance to
communities in need, yet humanitarian organizations are expressing
concern that this may blur the distinction between military and
humanitarian operations. In many African states, including the largest,
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the capacity of African military
personnel and African peacekeepers is becoming increasingly important.
Throughout the continent, China is increasing its engagement across the
political, military, and economic spectrum. Against this complex and
evolving backdrop, what is your vision for the future of our
relationship with African states and African regional organizations,
with specific attention to each of these issues: Sudan, Somalia,
humanitarian operations, military capacity and peacekeeping, and China?
Dr. Gates. I intend to continue to develop strong security
relationships in Africa and seek to improve African capacities to
promote stability throughout the continent. More broadly, the
Department will work with the Department of State and with the U.N.,
the EU, and African regional organizations to address instability and
increased involvement by other nations in the region.
143. Senator Clinton. Dr. Gates, what are your thoughts about an
Africa Command (AFRICOM), and would an AFRICOM be helpful to broaden
U.S. engagement?
Dr. Gates. An AFRICOM is necessary because Africa is growing in
military, strategic, and economic importance in global affairs.
AFRICOM's highest priority missions would focus on maintaining and
promoting regional security and stability. The primary emphasis would
be on theater security cooperation efforts, humanitarian assistance,
disaster response, security assistance, and supporting global war on
terrorism operations. These priority missions would be conducted in
partnership with the interagency and other organizations working in
Africa.
darfur report
144. Senator Clinton. Dr. Gates, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122) includes a reporting requirement
on Darfur. Will you provide your leadership and full cooperation to
ensure the timely publication of comprehensive reports that include
current details in each subsection, as set forth in H.R. 5122?
Dr. Gates. The required report on Darfur should be delivered to the
Senate Armed Services Committee and to your office on March 28, 2007.
nuclear terrorism
145. Senator Clinton. Dr. Gates, the possibility that terrorists
may acquire and use a nuclear weapon against the United States is an
urgent threat to the security of our Nation and the international
community. We must do everything in our power, working in concert with
other nations, to make sure that these dangerous materials are as
secure as possible in order to prevent such an attack. If confirmed as
the Secretary of Defense, what actions would you take in that capacity
in developing a strategy to prevent nuclear terrorism?
Dr. Gates. One of DOD's principal responsibilities to reduce the
threat of nuclear terrorism is to assist with security of nuclear
warheads in the Russian Federation. I understand that the Department is
on schedule to complete security upgrades to 24 Russian sites by
December 2008, as agreed by President Bush and President Putin at the
February 2005 Bratislava Summit. The Department also assists Russia
with secure shipment of decommissioned warheads to dismantlement sites.
The Department's efforts on nuclear security in Russia are part of the
administration's larger strategy to limit the threat of WMD terrorism.
______
[The nomination reference of Robert M. Gates follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
December 4, 2006.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Robert M. Gates, of Texas, to be Secretary of Defense, vice Donald
Henry Rumsfeld, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Robert M. Gates, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Robert M. Gates
Dr. Robert M. Gates is the 22nd President of Texas A&M University,
the Nation's seventh largest university and an institution recognized
internationally for its teaching, research, and public service. He
assumed the presidency of the land-grant, sea-grant, and space-grant
university on August 1, 2002.
Dr. Gates served as Interim Dean of the George Bush School of
Government and Public Service at Texas A&M from 1999-2001.
He served as Director of Central Intelligence from 1991 until 1993.
In this position, he headed all foreign intelligence agencies of the
United States and directed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Dr.
Gates is the only career officer in CIA's history to rise from entry-
level employee to Director. He served as Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence from 1986 until 1989 and as assistant to the President and
Deputy National Security Adviser at The White House from January 20,
1989 until November 6, 1991 for President George H.W. Bush.
Dr. Gates joined the CIA in 1966 and spent nearly 27 years as an
intelligence professional, serving six presidents. During that period,
he spent nearly 9 years at the National Security Council, The White
House, serving four presidents of both political parties.
Dr. Gates has been awarded the National Security Medal, the
Presidential Citizens Medal, has twice received the National
Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, and has three times received
CIA's highest award, the Distinguished Intelligence Medal.
He is the author of the memoir, From the Shadows: The Ultimate
Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War,
published in 1996.
Dr. Gates serves on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee
of the American Council on Education, the Board of Directors of the
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and
the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America. He is
President of the National Eagle Scout Association.
Dr. Gates serves as Chairman of the Independent Trustees of The
Fidelity Funds, the Nation's largest mutual fund company, and on the
board of directors of NACCO Industries, Inc., Brinker International,
Inc., and Parker Drilling Company, Inc.
A native of Kansas, Dr. Gates received his bachelor's degree from
the College of William and Mary, his master's degree in history from
Indiana University, and his doctorate in Russian and Soviet history
from Georgetown University. Dr. Gates is 63, and he and his wife Becky
have two adult 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 Robert M.
Gates 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.)
Robert Michael Gates.
2. Position to which nominated:
Secretary of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
December 4, 2006.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
September 25, 1943; Wichita, Kansas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Rebecca Ann Wilkie.
7. Names and ages of children:
Eleanor Marie Gates, 31; Bradley Robert Gates, 26.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Degree
Institution Dates Attended Degree Received Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita High School East.................................. 08/58-05/61 Diploma 05/61
College of William and Mary............................... 08/61-05/65 B.A. 05/65
Indiana University........................................ 08/65-08/66 M.A. 08/66
Georgetown University..................................... 08/69-06/74 Ph.D. 06/74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Location Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President, Texas A&M University... College Station, 08/02-Present
Texas.
Interim Dean, George Bush School College Station, 08/99-07/01
of Government and Public Service. Texas.
Self-employed (Boards, Consulting, Mount Vernon, 01/93-08/02
Lecturing). Washington.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service/Position Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Advisory Committee on Deemed Exports, Member... 10/06-Present
Iraq Study Group, Member............................... 05/06-11/06
FBI National Security Higher Education, Member......... 07/05-Present
Director of Central Intelligence....................... 11/91-01/93
Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security 01/89-11/91
Advisor...............................................
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence................ 04/86-01/89
Deputy Director for Intelligence, CIA.................. 01/82-04/86
U.S. Air Force......................................... 10/66-01/69
CIA employee........................................... 08/66-01/89
Council on Foreign Relations, Member................... 03/83-Present
Committee on Scientific Communication and National 08/05-Present
Security, Co-Chair (and previously Member 08/03-02/05)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Chair, Independent Trustees, The Fidelity Funds
Director, NACCO Industries, Inc.
Director, Brinker International, Inc.
Director, Parker Drilling Company
Consultant, The Mitchell Group
Director, American Council on Education
Director, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges
Director, Boy Scouts of America
President, National Eagle Scout Association
Co-chair, National Academies Committee on Scientific Communication
and National Security
Member, Independent Directors Council
President, Texas A&M University
Speaker, Washington Speakers Bureau
Member, BLO Family Properties, LLC
Member, Aspen Strategy Group
Director, United Way of Brazos County
Member, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Transnational Threat Project.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Boy Scouts of America (Board of Directors; President, National
Eagle Scout Association)
Member, Council on Foreign Relations
Member, Aspen Strategy Group
Board of Directors, United Way of Brazos County
Member, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Transnational Threat Project
Member, Association of Former Students, Texas A&M University
Member, Twelfth Man Foundation, Texas A&M University
Institutional membership, Briarcrest Country Club
Institutional membership, Pebble Creek Country Club
Institutional membership, Headliner's Club
Member, The Rainier Club
Board of Directors, American Council of Education
Board of Directors, National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges
Member, Independent Directors Council
Committee on Scientific Communication and National Security
President, Texas A&M University.
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.
State Senator Steve Ogden: $1,000
State Representative Fred Brown: $1,000
President George W. Bush: $2,000
Governor Rick Perry: $1,000
Lt. Governor David Dewhurst: $1,000
U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison: $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.
Presidential Citizen's Medal
National Security Medal
National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal (twice)
Distinguished Intelligence Medal (CIA) (three times).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Book
From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents
and How They Won the Cold War. Simon and Shuster, 1996
Articles
``An Opportunity Unfulfilled: The Use and Perceptions of
Intelligence at the White House,'' The Washington Quarterly. Winter
1989
``The CIA and American Foreign Policy,'' Foreign Affairs, Volume
66, Number 2 (Winter 1987/88)
``The Prediction of Soviet Intentions,'' Studies in Intelligence.
Spring 1973 (now declassified)
Op Eds
May 23,2006, ``An Intelligent CIA Pick,'' The Washington Post
June 9, 2004, ``Rescuing America's Intelligence Network; Don't Ruin
the CIA,'' The New York Times
April 3, 2004, ``Re-open America's School Doors for Foreigners;
Barriers that Backfire,'' The New York Times
March 31, 2004, ``International Relations 101,'' Long Beach Press-
Telegram
September 3, 2003, ``How Not to Reform Intelligence,'' Wall Street
Journal Abstracts
May 27, 2002, ``A Former CIA Chief on ``Connecting the Dots,'' Time
Magazine
February 25, 2001, ``Spying on Spies: On Guard Against Moles,''
Santa Fe New Mexican
January 23, 2001, ``Revitalize the CIA,'' Wall Street Journal
May 27, 2000, ``In a New Age of Risk, Old Tests of Loyalty,'' The
New York Times
May 12, 1999, ``In War, Mistakes Happen,'' The New York Times
March 14, 1999, ``The ABC's of Spying,'' The New York Times
October 29,1998, ``The C.I.A.'s Little Known Resume,'' The New York
Times
August 16, 1998, ``What War Looks Like Now,'' The New York Times
March 20, 1997, ``Does Lake's Withdrawal Stain Confirmation
Drill?'' Seattle Post-Intelligencer
March 19, 1997, ``Taking the Heat,'' The New York Times
January 29, 1997, ``The Case for Confirming Anthony Lake,'' Wall
Street Journal
January 31, 1995, ``Russia, Chechnya . . . and U.S. Policy.'' The
Washington Times
June 17, 1994, ``It's Too Late To Stop Korea From Making Nuclear
Bomb,'' Seattle Post-Intelligencer
April 20, 1992, ``We See a World of More, Not Fewer Mysteries;''
CIA Director Robert Gates talks about Saddam Hussein's still hidden
Scuds, the KGB's new goals and declassifying the J.F.K. assassination
files,'' Time Magazine
April 30, 1989, ``The Uneven Cycles of Kremlin Reform,'' The
Washington Post
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
I have given scores of speeches on international affairs for the
Washington Speakers Bureau during this period. I attach a
representative sampling.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Robert M. Gates.
This 27th day of November, 2006.
[The nomination of Robert M. Gates was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Warner on December 5, 2006, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on December 6, 2006.]
TO CONSIDER CERTAIN PENDING CIVILIAN AND MILITARY NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe,
Roberts, Sessions, Collins, Graham, Dole, Thune, Levin,
Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin
Nelson, Dayton, Bayh, and Clinton.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: William M. Caniano,
professional staff member; Regina A. Dubey, professional staff
member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff member; Gregory T.
Kiley, professional staff member; Sandra E. Luff, professional
staff member; Derek J. Maurer, professional staff member;
Elaine A. McCusker, professional staff member; David M.
Morriss, counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff
member; Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff member; Sean G.
Stackley, 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; Jonathan D. Clark, minority counsel;
Christine E. Cowart, administrative assistant to the minority;
Madelyn R. Creedon, minority counsel; Gabriella Eisen,
professional staff member; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff
member; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Michael J. Kuiken,
professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel;
Peter K. Levine, minority counsel; Michael J. McCord,
professional staff member; William G.P. Monahan, minority
counsel; Michael J. Noblet, research assistant; and Arun A.
Seraphin, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: David G. Collins, Micah H.
Harris, Benjamin L. Rubin, and Jill L. Simodejka.
Committee members' assistants present: Christopher J. Paul
and Richard H. Fontaine, Jr., assistants to Senator McCain;
John A. Bonsell and Jeremy Shull, assistants to Senator Inhofe;
Libby Burgess, assistant to Senator Roberts; Arch Galloway II,
assistant to Senator Sessions; Mark J. Winter, assistant to
Senator Collins; D'Arcy Grisier, assistant to Senator Ensign;
Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Matthew R.
Rimkunas, assistant to Senator Graham; Greg Gross, assistant to
Senator Dole; Russell J. Thomasson, assistant to Senator
Cornyn; Bob Taylor and Stuart C. Mallory, assistants to Senator
Thune; Sharon L. Waxman and Mieke Y. Eoyang, assistants 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; Richard
Kessler and Darcie Tokioka, assistants to Senator Akaka;
William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Eric
Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Todd Rosenblum and
Robert J. Ehrich, assistants to Senator Bayh; and Andrew
Shapiro, assistant to Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. A quorum now being present, we discharge
our other constitutional function; i.e., confirming the 1,023
pending military nominations. All of these nominations have
been before the committee the required length of time. No
objections have been raised to these nominations.
Do I hear a motion to favorably report the nominations?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Chairman Warner. Is there a second?
Senator McCain. Second.
Chairman Warner. All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Warner. Opposed? [No response.]
Ayes have it.
Second, nominees--I ask the committee to consider the
nominations of Scott W. Stucky and Margaret A. Ryan to be
judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces. Yesterday, Senator Levin and I conducted a hearing on
the nominations, and no objections have been raised to these
nominations.
Do I hear a motion that these two nominations be voted on,
en bloc?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Chairman Warner. Second?
Senator McCain. Second.
Chairman Warner. All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed? [No response.]
Ayes have it. Thank you very much.
[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 December 5,
2006.
1. COL Thomas J. Sellars, ARNG, to be brigadier general (Reference
No. 2106).
2. COL Donald C. Leins, USAR, to be brigadier general (Reference
No. 2107).
3. ADM Robert F. Willard, USN, to be admiral and Commander, U.S.
Fleet Forces Command (Reference No. 2108).
4. In the Army Reserve, there are 31 appointments to the grade of
major general and below (list begins with Robert T. Bray) (Reference
No. 2132).
5. In the Air Force Reserve, there is one appointment to the grade
of colonel (Jeffrey C. Carstens) (Reference No. 2133).
6. In the Air Force, there is one appointment to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (Stephen R. Geringer) (Reference No. 2134).
7. In the Air Force, there is one appointment to the grade of major
(Paul M. Roberts) (Reference No. 2135).
8. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of
colonel (Willie G. Barnes) (Reference No. 2136).
9. In the Army Reserve, there is one appointment to the grade of
colonel (Daniel P. McLemore) (Reference No. 2138).
10. In the Army Reserve, there are two appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Josef R. Smith) (Reference No. 2139).
11. In the Army, there are two appointments to the grade of major
(list begins with Robert M. Blackmon) (Reference No. 2140).
12. In the Army, there are two appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel and below (list begins with Nicholas C. Bakris)
(Reference No. 2131).
13. In the Army, there are three appointments to the grade of
colonel and below (list begins with David E. Green) (Reference No.
2142).
14. In the Army, there are three appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel and below (list begins with Moon H. Lee) (Reference
No. 2143).
15. In the Army, there are seven appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Terrell W. Blanchard) (Reference No. 2144).
16. In the Army, there is one appointment to the grade of major
(Victoria L. Smith) (Reference No. 2145).
17. In the Army, there is one appointment to the grade of major
(Ira S. Derrick) (Reference No. 2146).
18. In the Army, there is one appointment to the grade of major
(Joseph W. Brown) (Reference No. 2147).
19. In the Army, there is one appointment to the grade of major
(Rebecca L. Blankenship) (Reference No. 2148).
20. In the Army, there is one appointment to the grade of colonel
(Mark M. Kuba) (Reference No. 2149).
21. In the Army, there is one appointment to the grade of major
(Craig H. Rhyne, Jr.) (Reference No. 2150).
22. In the Army, there are five appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Lorraine T. Breen) (Reference No. 2151).
23. In the Navy, there are six appointments to the grade of
commander and below (list begins with Kimberly S. Evans) (Reference No.
2152).
24. In the Navy, there is one appointment to the grade of
lieutenant commander (David J. Allen) (Reference No. 2153).
25. In the Air Force, there are 21 appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel and below (list begins with Nevanna I. Koicheff)
(Reference No. 2155).
26. In the Army, there are 125 appointments to the grade of colonel
and below (list begins with Debra L. Cohen) (Reference No. 2156).
27. In the Army, there are 17 appointments to the grade of colonel
(list begins with Norma F. Allen) (Reference No. 2157).
28. In the Army Reserve, there are 632 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Michael R. Aberle) (Reference No. 2158).
29. In the Army Reserve, there are 31 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Robin B. Allen) (Reference No. 2159).
30. In the Army, there are 37 appointments to the grade of colonel
(list begins with John G. Alvarez) (Reference No. 2160).
31. In the Army, there are 18 appointments to the grade of colonel
(list begins with Jeffrey S. Ashley) (Reference No. 2161).
32. In the Navy, there are six appointments to the grade of captain
and below (list begins with Harry T. Welan) (Reference No. 2162).
33. In the Air Force, there are four appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel and below (list begins with Jerzy J. Chachaj)
(Reference No. 2186).
34. In the Air Force, there are two appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel and below (list begins with Norman B. Dimond)
(Reference No. 2187)
35. In the Army, there is one appointment to the grade of major
(Shelly M. Taylor) (Reference No. 2188).
36. In the Army, there are two appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (list begins with Omar L. Hamada) (Reference No.
2189).
37. In the Navy, there are 51 appointments to the grade of
lieutenant commander (list begins with Keith T. Adkins) (Reference No.
2190).
Total: 1023.
[Whereupon, at 10:10 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
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 --------------------------, --------.
______
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire on Biographical and Financial
Information Requested of Certain Senior Military Nominees
------
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES FOR
CERTAIN SENIOR MILITARY POSITIONS
Instructions to the Nominee:
Complete all requested information. If more space is needed use an
additional sheet and cite the part of the form and the question number
(i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation of your answer applies.
If you have completed this form in connection with a prior military
nomination, you may use the following procedure in lieu of submitting a
new form. In your letter to the Chairman, add the following paragraph
to the end:
``I hereby incorporate by reference the information and commitments
contained in the Senate Armed Services Committee form
`Biographical and Financial Information Requested of Nominees
for Certain Senior Military Positions,' submitted to the
committee on [insert date or your prior form]. I agree that all
such commitments apply to the position to which I have been
nominated and that all such information is current except as
follows: . . . .'' [If any information on your prior form needs
to be updated, please cite the part of the form and the
question number and set forth the updated information in your
letter to the chairman.]
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
2. Position to which nominated:
3. Date of nomination:
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.
Also include your office telephone number.)
5. Date and place of birth:
6. Marital Status: (Include name of husband or wife, including
wife's maiden name.)
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed in the service record
extract provided to the committee by the executive Branch.
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, firm, partnership, or other business
enterprise, educational, or other institution.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements other than those listed on the service record
extract provided to the committee by the executive branch.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
FINANCIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Information furnished in Parts B
through E will be retained in the committee's executive files and will
not be made available to the public unless specifically directed by the
committee.
Name:
Part B--Future Employment Relationships
1. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your military
service. If so, explain.
2. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave military service?
Part C--Potential Conflicts of Interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.)
5. Do you agree to provide to the committee any written opinions
provided by the General Counsel of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position?
6. Is your spouse employed and, if so, where?
Part D--Legal Matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in any administrative agency
proceeding or litigation? If so, provide details.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense?
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
Part E--Foreign Affiliations
1. Have you or your spouse ever represented in any capacity (e.g.,
employee, attorney, business, or political adviser or consultant), with
or without compensation, a foreign government or an entity controlled
by a foreign government? If so, please fully describe such
relationship.
2. If you or your spouse has ever been formally associated with a
law, accounting, public relations firm or other service organization,
have any of your or your spouse's associates represented, in any
capacity, with or without compensation, a foreign government or an
entity controlled by a foreign government? If so, please fully describe
such relationship.
3. During the past 10 years have you or your spouse received any
compensation from, or been involved in any financial or business
transactions with, a foreign government or an entity controlled by a
foreign government? If so, please furnish details.
4. Have you or your spouse ever registered under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act? If so, please furnish details.
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
----------------------------------.
This ---------- day of --------------------------, --------.